Feature: Allow for inline response of trust reports

[Initscri]

I know the new forum is on it's way, but this could be applied to both this forum and the new.

Sort of like the ability to post a response/comment to trust feedbacks on your profile whether it be negative/positive. It provides the ability to give context/your side of the story.

I tried doing a quick search to see if anyone else recommended something similar, and besides new forum requests, I haven't found much. Is this something other's might be interested in?

Edit: To clarify, I was more or less thinking of just 1 response from the user receiving the feedback (not a thread/convo). Sort of like as a business, when you receive a review on Google, you can provide a text response.

[Quickseller]

Yes, this should be implemented.

[Cashi]

I like your suggestion, that would be great to react to abusive feedbacks because they can't be removed otherwise, even if they are totally wrong. And help to get a better picture of the situation if the rating is justified or not by adding another reference link, why the feedback is wrong.
Most of the addressed feedbacks will be untrusted and not visible by default but if untrusted feedback is the only one you have, some negative not justified feedbacks can also look very bad.

[JeromeTash]

Not a bad idea but don't you think the trust summary sections would be a little messed up and untidy. Certain people have already had thoughts about reducing the character limit for the comments left behind.

Maybe if you talk of making the comments clickable and linked to a page of responses

[erre]

I know the new forum is on it's way, but this could be applied to both this forum and the new.

Sort of like the ability to post a response/comment to trust feedbacks on your profile whether it be negative/positive. It provides the ability to give context/your side of the story.

I tried doing a quick search to see if anyone else recommended something similar, and besides new forum requests, I haven't found much. Is this something other's might be interested in?

That would be great.
I currently have red trust from the hacker of my account (which i have spotted after i retrieved my account, see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5103001.0 for reference and red trust him and his alts) who is accusing me to be an hacked account, and not being able to reply is kinda frustrating  

[Steamtyme]

Would the user who originally left the feedback get a chance to respond? I say this because this tool would be used mostly by the very people we are trying to warn people about.

I would say if people want to tell their side of the story they should just open up a reputation thread for themselves and explain their side of the story. This allows for a discussion to be had by the interested parties, the thread can then be linked/referenced in the future.

Now for undeserved feedback, you can do the same as above, or leave a neutral on their profile about their feedback being baseless.

Personally I would prefer the option for being able to add your own reference link, preferably to a thread discussing the feedback.

[jackg]

This isn't actually a bad idea. Although I think Theymos was more in support of retaliatory feedbacks as a form of replying rather than being able to actually reply directly... And as the others have said, it would make the page look a bit messy.

[OgNasty]

This isn't actually a bad idea. Although I think Theymos was more in support of retaliatory feedbacks as a form of replying rather than being able to actually reply directly... And as the others have said, it would make the page look a bit messy.

Maybe a small link with the response, similar to how reference is currently used? I think grouping feedbacks left by a user and having an ‘expand’ link to limit the number of lines viewable by default in the comments would also clean up the look a bit.

[mikeywith]

but isn't this like making everyone a DT member on their own trust page?  if we have an accused scammer , he will be given the same privileges as the member who left him the feedback, this will render many tags useless, a newbie sees user A calling user B a scammer , user B goes no you are the scammer , user A's feedback becomes almost useless.

unless you are going to allow a complete debate on the trust page whereby both users can put forward their proofs , screenshots ,etc ,,,. but then we already have the "reference" for that, which works better since other members also have the ability of adding their own thoughts and facts regarding the feedback.

while  i side the idea that everyone must have the chance to defend themselves , this suggestion is not the best, another approach wouth be hiding the feedback content while still shows as "red/negative" "green/positive" , forcing the user to somehow click the reference to confirm and judge for themselves before jumping to a conclusion as many of those feedback are somehow far from accurate.

[o_e_l_e_o]

What about the DT members who have screeds and screeds of nonsense retaliatory feedback. Are they going to be expected to respond to each and every one, pointing out that it is unfounded nonsense. And if they don't post a response to each one, does that make these feedbacks seem more legitimate? "Look, user X never denied the fact I called them a scammer, therefore it must be true."

[r1s2g3]

What about the DT members who have screeds and screeds of nonsense retaliatory feedback. Are they going to be expected to respond to each and every one, pointing out that it is unfounded nonsense. And if they don't post a response to each one, does that make these feedbacks seem more legitimate? "Look, user X never denied the fact I called them a scammer, therefore it must be true."

Responding to the retaliatory feedback  is no required because when you see a -ve trust on user X profile by user Y then you also check user Y trust to find whether you should consider user Y rating or not. You will immediately understand it retaliatory feedback on user X profile.

I guess OP measure will reduce retaliatory feedback because some of the retaliatory feedback exist because trust page have no option to respond/link with their own side of story.

[suchmoon]

What about the DT members who have screeds and screeds of nonsense retaliatory feedback. Are they going to be expected to respond to each and every one, pointing out that it is unfounded nonsense. And if they don't post a response to each one, does that make these feedbacks seem more legitimate? "Look, user X never denied the fact I called them a scammer, therefore it must be true."

I wouldn't lose any sleep over that.

but isn't this like making everyone a DT member on their own trust page?  if we have an accused scammer , he will be given the same privileges as the member who left him the feedback, this will render many tags useless, a newbie sees user A calling user B a scammer , user B goes no you are the scammer , user A's feedback becomes almost useless.

... or that.

If someone got to the point where they're actually reading and paying attention to the feedback then I'm going to assume they're smart enough to separate the wheat from the chaff. Otherwise even the current trusted/untrusted/retaliatory ratings would confuse them so no big difference here.

I like the OP's idea but there are some technical details that would need to be worked out, e.g. what happens when rating is deleted? If that deletes the response as well then it's open to abuse. If not, then that creates other problems.

[jackg]

This isn't actually a bad idea. Although I think Theymos was more in support of retaliatory feedbacks as a form of replying rather than being able to actually reply directly... And as the others have said, it would make the page look a bit messy.

Maybe a small link with the response, similar to how reference is currently used? I think grouping feedbacks left by a user and having an ‘expand’ link to limit the number of lines viewable by default in the comments would also clean up the look a bit.

Hmm potentially. I've been thinking something similar with merit too to have a way to add a short comment that isn't really worth posting but is worth leavingfor the user as maybe to tell them why they earnt that merit.

Something similar to that might be a good idea for both merits and trust in order to allow users to give their side of the story while someone is reviewing their trust history (although a link where it is hidden is going to mean that a lot of the noobs that call people out on this sort of thing will probably miss it).

[Veleor]

Responding to the retaliatory feedback  is no required because when you see a -ve trust on user X profile by user Y then you also check user Y trust to find whether you should consider user Y rating or not. You will immediately understand it retaliatory feedback on user X profile.

It would be more convenient to see at once the trust ratings of the members which left feedbacks.
It had been said that this feature was used before, but then was cancelled due to technical reasons.

[khaled0111]

Don't you think it will give scammers the chance to misslead whoever is reading their trust feedbacks by spreading lies, if so, the one who left the feedback have to respond and so on.

If a user thinks the feedback he got was unfair, all he has to do is to complain about it on the reputation board and asks DT members to counter it. What I suggest is to make the countering feedback shows just bellow the countred one and not according to the chronological order.

[theymos]

It's a good idea, already on my to-do list, but it requires other changes as well. If the person who made the rating can delete it as they can today, then they can also delete the response, which isn't good. My current tentative thinking on how it should work is:
 - Raters can retract ratings, but not totally delete them.
 - Raters can add a short addendum to their ratings, and this can be freely edited, but the original rating can't be edited. (The point is to prevent conversations via rating edits. A rating should be one particular issue, and the response should be a response to this issue. Not 100% sure that this is necessary, though.)
 - Additional limits on how often you can leave ratings may be needed.

[Crypto-DesignService]

I find this useful to counter untrusted feedbacks which user leaves without any logical reason behind it.

[Initscri]

This isn't actually a bad idea. Although I think Theymos was more in support of retaliatory feedbacks as a form of replying rather than being able to actually reply directly... And as the others have said, it would make the page look a bit messy.

It could be messy, but I wouldn't make it much different from Google reviews business responses. Maybe a accordion style dropdown w/ the response.

Don't you think it will give scammers the chance to misslead whoever is reading their trust feedbacks by spreading lies, if so, the one who left the feedback have to respond and so on.

If a user thinks the feedback he got was unfair, all he has to do is to complain about it on the reputation board and asks DT members to counter it. What I suggest is to make the countering feedback shows just bellow the countred one and not according to the chronological order.

No so more than the user leaving the trust having the ability to spread lies. The trust system was originally implemented for users to take the information into account + make their own judgement calls.

I mean, that is a valid idea though. Instead of "responses" it could just pull the feedback left on the other users trust page (but I feel like thought would be more confusing both visually and programmatically)

In order to solve the constant responding, we could just allow edits on trust feedbacks.

but isn't this like making everyone a DT member on their own trust page?  if we have an accused scammer , he will be given the same privileges as the member who left him the feedback, this will render many tags useless, a newbie sees user A calling user B a scammer , user B goes no you are the scammer , user A's feedback becomes almost useless.

unless you are going to allow a complete debate on the trust page whereby both users can put forward their proofs , screenshots ,etc ,,,. but then we already have the "reference" for that, which works better since other members also have the ability of adding their own thoughts and facts regarding the feedback.

while  i side the idea that everyone must have the chance to defend themselves , this suggestion is not the best, another approach wouth be hiding the feedback content while still shows as "red/negative" "green/positive" , forcing the user to somehow click the reference to confirm and judge for themselves before jumping to a conclusion as many of those feedback are somehow far from accurate.

Just to clarify, unless it wasn't otherwise obvious, only the reporting member and the user responding will have any capability to participate in the debate.

You wouldn't be able to "jump onto" a DT members feedback.

If feedback is simply "you are a scammer" without further justification, then the reporting user hasn't done their job IMO. If anything this would enhance the detail of left reports, since users would have to provide more details / context.

It's a good idea, already on my to-do list, but it requires other changes as well. If the person who made the rating can delete it as they can today, then they can also delete the response, which isn't good. My current tentative thinking on how it should work is:
 - Raters can retract ratings, but not totally delete them.
 - Raters can add a short addendum to their ratings, and this can be freely edited, but the original rating can't be edited. (The point is to prevent conversations via rating edits. A rating should be one particular issue, and the response should be a response to this issue. Not 100% sure that this is necessary, though.)
 - Additional limits on how often you can leave ratings may be needed.

I like the idea of a short addendum + would aid in modifications to the feedback otherwise.

So I'm guessing the content would still be available on the trust page upon retraction, but would have some sort of state change to insinuate that the feedback has been retracted. Seems like a good idea to me.

What about the DT members who have screeds and screeds of nonsense retaliatory feedback. Are they going to be expected to respond to each and every one, pointing out that it is unfounded nonsense. And if they don't post a response to each one, does that make these feedbacks seem more legitimate? "Look, user X never denied the fact I called them a scammer, therefore it must be true."

I mean, this would act a lot like Google reviews. I don't think anyone would be expected per say to response to nonsense feedback, but they would be permitted to if need be.

I'm unsure of a difference between now and then, realistically nothing changes if a user decides not to respond back to a feedback rating.

As for feedbacks seeming "more legitimate"; I mean it's really up to community. But, bullshit reviews that are obviously BS reviews will still have that consensus. When I see a review for a company online, and the company hasn't responded to it, I don't immediately believe the report, I sort of take it with a grain of salt.

[UserU]

Don't you think it will give scammers the chance to misslead whoever is reading their trust feedbacks by spreading lies, if so, the one who left the feedback have to respond and so on.

If a user thinks the feedback he got was unfair, all he has to do is to complain about it on the reputation board and asks DT members to counter it. What I suggest is to make the countering feedback shows just bellow the countred one and not according to the chronological order.

True that. That also won't stop the retaliatory -ve feedback and the original rater will more likely do the same thing. So it's the same with extra comments.

[madnessteat]

It's a good idea, already on my to-do list, but it requires other changes as well. If the person who made the rating can delete it as they can today, then they can also delete the response, which isn't good. My current tentative thinking on how it should work is:
 - Raters can retract ratings, but not totally delete them.
 - Raters can add a short addendum to their ratings, and this can be freely edited, but the original rating can't be edited. (The point is to prevent conversations via rating edits. A rating should be one particular issue, and the response should be a response to this issue. Not 100% sure that this is necessary, though.)
 - Additional limits on how often you can leave ratings may be needed.

You can also add archiving of all changes in the feedback and the response to it so that each user can look at these changes and make their own decision in relation to the controversial situation.