Positive/Neutral Trust

[bones261]

BTW Hhampuz, I glanced at your trust ratings and I also think it is OK to leave positive trust for someone who won an auction and paid promptly. After all, their bid is a pledge and prompt payment shows that they honor their pledge to you.

[bernardos]

I understand your dilemma but you have to know that the user is also trusting you with his money or bitcoins. So he is still taking a risk even though you are trusted here. If the deal goes the way you agreed I think he should also receive a positive feedback. Same way it works on ebay and other similar sites where both the buyer and seller rate each other.

[YOSHIE]

Positive / Neutral trust in Consumers, in my opinion, can be interpreted, that consumers understand about something that you provide, (Positive / Neutral), and its benefits,

But all the definitions you mention, generally behave as an evaluation of someone's Individual Differences in Your Consumer Attitudes.

So, you should have a characteristic attitude in yourself to determine.

1. Positive, Negative and Neutral
A consumer may be interested in buying and selling with you, it is not a problem as long as it is clear and responsible, at the time of the transaction and you are sure you are good for you.
situation factors often cause inconsistencies between you and the consumer.

2. You must be consistent when giving your attitude and attitude,

3. Your resistance is how confident someone is about you.

4. Your beliefs and beliefs about the truth of consumers.

That is, in this case one conclusion can be taken is:

"Potential consumers always buy your collection, if they are satisfied, they will continue to use your product, based on the trust you give and vice versa".

[TECSHARE]

I understand your dilemma but you have to know that the user is also trusting you with his money or bitcoins. So he is still taking a risk even though you are trusted here. If the deal goes the way you agreed I think he should also receive a positive feedback. Same way it works on ebay and other similar sites where both the buyer and seller rate each other.

As one of the earlier active members of this forum this has always been something very clear to me. I was the first (and only) reliable Steam game seller here for some time. I made it a point to help get people started and single handedly drew in hundreds of users from outside the forum to it.

New users are required to take risks to start out, it is just part of how it works. People who are known to be well trusted can and should serve as gateways into the forum and its systems of exchange. People who are trying to abuse this as I stated earlier make themselves obvious fairly quickly to any one taking the time to do at least 30 seconds of due diligence reviewing trust ratings. New users get a trusted start into the system, and the forum gets another contributing member instead of just a lurker. The benefit outweighs the risk in my opinion.

[suchmoon]

I understand your dilemma but you have to know that the user is also trusting you with his money or bitcoins. So he is still taking a risk even though you are trusted here. If the deal goes the way you agreed I think he should also receive a positive feedback. Same way it works on ebay and other similar sites where both the buyer and seller rate each other.

The fact that the buyer trusts the seller doesn't necessarily mean that the buyer is trustworthy and deserves a green rating.

[hacker1001101001]

Can a neutral trust rating be considered fair when someone bought something from me?

I think trust rating, was solely designed by theymos to be mostly used in the Marketplace section. You could trace back the announcement by theymos as Marketplace trust. As its main purpose was about how a person is while dealing with funds, and if a person has any successful trade and other person pays promptly, both of them should positive trust each other, as its a sign of both letting others know we had a successful trade.

Trust should be more intense in the  Marketplace section of the forum, and its is the same now, so I think it's nothing wrong in positive trusting a person who risked some money in a deal even if it's not too much it still like risking a sum.

[Findingnemo]

Trust ratings should be given based on your opinion while doing trading with that person it doesn't necessarily mean you have ti leave feedback after every person you are trading with.Use positive trust for people who you did multiple trades without any issues,for single trade just neutral or nothing will be enough.

[xolxol]

I've long struggled with this myself but, when I've sold something physical in the collectibles section and the buyer left me positive trust I've often done the same.

Many people in collectibles do the same (including adding them to their trust network)...  That's a big part of the reason why the old DT system was getting more and more inaccurate (any why Vod called Blazed the biggest trust abuser), but if you weren't in the old DT, it was likely never an issue you were faced with.  Now that DT is opening up to more users, I look forward to people beginning to understand my prior actions (for example, my refusal to give out trust in many trading situations) and catching up to speed with the right way to move forward here to restore credibility to the trust system.

Yeah, it is a learning curve and I never thought about it back when I wasn't on DT. Even when I first got added to DT2 my focus was more on the negative trust I gave out, the thought never crossed my mind that positives would weigh more heavy as well.

This is the big issue that separates me from Lauda I think as far as our idealism with trust ratings...  Giving out positive trust to those who don't deserve it is potentially much more damaging than not labeling a newbie as a scammer in my opinion.  No trust doesn't mean trusted by default as some people seem to think.  Trust is earned.  If trust is given to those who haven't earned it, the entire system breaks down.  I have been trying to be more lenient in my ratings lately (the change is clearly seen in February of 2018 in my sent ratings), as I've come to understand that many people don't feel the same way I do and as mentioned above, people get salty when trust isn't reciprocated.  It would be great if everyone got on the same page and had the same understanding though.  I know it would have saved me a lot of headaches in the past.

Not only Lauda,but all of his sockpuppets are doing the same.I am sure that you are one of the most honest and fait DT member here.Lauda is just an extortionist whom obsessed to this forum.

[DarkStar_]

I think that the lending section is the more obvious one for "buying" positive trust feedback, not the actual trading.

Collectibles is filled with members on DT, and I believe I'm the only somewhat active DT member in Lending. I don't think anyone uses Lending for 'buying' trust.

[actmyname]

I think that the lending section is the more obvious one for "buying" positive trust feedback, not the actual trading.

Collectibles is filled with members on DT, and I believe I'm the only somewhat active DT member in Lending. I don't think anyone uses Lending for 'buying' trust.

This was different a few years prior, which I think most of us still remember.

Trust should have a weighting based on the risked amount.
We have an equivalent value of trust for amounts from 0 BTC to 100 BTC.^{(arbitrary numbers)}
Though I don't exactly love this, I'm not sure about the best way to rectify the issue.^.
If there are weights attached to the trust values dependent on the risked amounts, would it take too long to load up trust pages? ^.
Additionally, should the negative case be the same, or different? Especially in instances where the risked amount is unclear... what happens then? ^.

[Quickseller]

I have some opinions on some things being discussed that are off topic in this thread.

Four negative ratings will be difficult to overcome based on the formula on how trust ratings are calculated (positive ratings after the first negative are weighed less than other positive ratings). This isn’t an important point.

In general, I would advise not giving a positive rating if you cannot articulate the benefit this person has by trading with you. If someone suddenly is specifically trading with someone in DT and not those not in DT for things they had no previous interest in, it is probably not appropriate to leave a rating. If someone is paying above market prices for something when lower priced similar items are available from others with a history of successful trades, it is probably best to not leave a positive rating.

It might be more appropriate to leave a positive rating for a repeat customer than for someone who buys the lowest priced item a single time.

[NeuroticFish]

Collectibles is filled with members on DT, and I believe I'm the only somewhat active DT member in Lending.

This is a very good point. Maybe DT feedback and personal feedback should be somehow made 2 different things in a possible future.

I don't think anyone uses Lending for 'buying' trust.

I've read not long ago the start of a drama about a loan that was somewhat strange and may have been done for having a reason to give trust to an alt account. I don't know if it was true or not.

[Lauda]

This is the big issue that separates me from Lauda I think as far as our idealism with trust ratings...  Giving out positive trust to those who don't deserve it is potentially much more damaging than not labeling a newbie as a scammer in my opinion.  

Unless I misunderstood your post, we are on the same page on this. I'm as conservative with positive ratings as it gets (percentage wise). I find green trust very dangerous, and we've had many cases of light/dark green users scamming others (this includes only the portion of threads that I have personally read, there are likely more).

I think that the lending section is the more obvious one for "buying" positive trust feedback, not the actual trading.

Collectibles is filled with members on DT, and I believe I'm the only somewhat active DT member in Lending. I don't think anyone uses Lending for 'buying' trust.

But there are lenders that provide loans to buy trust.

[TECSHARE]

This is the big issue that separates me from Lauda I think as far as our idealism with trust ratings...  Giving out positive trust to those who don't deserve it is potentially much more damaging than not labeling a newbie as a scammer in my opinion.  

Unless I misunderstood your post, we are on the same page on this. I'm as conservative with positive ratings as it gets (percentage wise). I find green trust very dangerous, and we've had many cases of light/dark green users scamming others (this includes only the portion of threads that I have personally read, there are likely more).

I think that the lending section is the more obvious one for "buying" positive trust feedback, not the actual trading.

Collectibles is filled with members on DT, and I believe I'm the only somewhat active DT member in Lending. I don't think anyone uses Lending for 'buying' trust.

But there are lenders that provide loans to buy trust.

You would think by now people like you would stop placing the blame on red and green numbers and instead admit the fact that ultimately it is all meaningless if the account changes hands. We should be teaching people to do due diligence, not setting the entire forest on fire to kill a few invasive weeds. You have fun with that flame thrower, that is until it is pointed the other direction. Then I am sure it will be a tragedy.

[Steamtyme]

I must say I like seeing the conversations around how to use neutral trust more effectively. Hopefully if more people begin to use it we can see a change where it is as visible as other feedback where displayed.

I think that either are fine and the recipient should be happy with either, especially as this is an actual trade/sale or transaction taking place. I am all for leaving a neutral feedback with a "positive message" for marking an account after a trade. This is good in an instance with minimal communication, minor amounts that required little trust or effort. If in the future you have more transactions with the member or notice through other dealings that they deserve the green then you can update it.

Now maybe your first time dealing with someone there is more of an exchange maybe even some transfer of personal information, it's a higher value item, or just something that required more than dropping it in the post and giving them a payment address. You might find a reason to go straight to a green trust. I believe that you should be fluid in what deserves and doesn't deserve a certain type of feedback, and treat each one on a case by case basis.

Whatever you chose to do it's really the information behind the feedback that matters. Use a good reference so it's clear what the feedback is in relation to. Descriptive feedback , who sent first, was it a small trade; anything that paints a picture of what took place. This way a user who actually looks into the feedback can decide if it's relevant to their situation.

The part about the PM's is kinda annoying but depends on where it is coming from. I know in one of my first deals I did ask the user to leave feedback; as I wanted our deal documented on the forum. If I'm not mistaken they were not on DT and I really had no concept of the system at the time. I have no problem with someone casually reminding me to send feedback, as I like the idea of documenting all of my dealings. I wouldn't necessarily just provide positive feedback because they did.

~snip~ We should be teaching people to do due diligence ~snip~

I couldn't agree more with this statement.

[Hhampuz]

The part about the PM's is kinda annoying but depends on where it is coming from. I know in one of my first deals I did ask the user to leave feedback; as I wanted our deal documented on the forum. If I'm not mistaken they were not on DT and I really had no concept of the system at the time. I have no problem with someone casually reminding me to send feedback, as I like the idea of documenting all of my dealings. I wouldn't necessarily just provide positive feedback because they did.

Yeah I don't mind someone sending me a reminder about leaving feedback since I made a transaction and the buyer deserves as much. But when I get a PM where the buyer clearly states "Please give me positive trust for this transaction", that's where the issue starts for me. I do agree with what you are saying though, all transactions should be public and a neutral trust with the feedback stating what it entailed should be worth it's weight too, even though I didn't have to necessarily trust them with anything.

[OgNasty]

This is the big issue that separates me from Lauda I think as far as our idealism with trust ratings...  Giving out positive trust to those who don't deserve it is potentially much more damaging than not labeling a newbie as a scammer in my opinion.  

Unless I misunderstood your post, we are on the same page on this. I'm as conservative with positive ratings as it gets (percentage wise). I find green trust very dangerous, and we've had many cases of light/dark green users scamming others (this includes only the portion of threads that I have personally read, there are likely more).

Then why spend all your time focusing on low value negative trust ratings for insignificant newbies and abusive negative ratings for well esftablished trusted accounts like mine and rmcdermott927 instead of focusing on using high value positive trust ratings to uplift those who have earned it and truly separate the trusted from untrusted? It’s hard to take anything you do seriously knowing that after the tens of millions of dollars I’ve safely protected for users here over nearly a decade with 100% transparency, you still think I deserve to be distrusted. It invalidates any idea that your ratings are a net positive or that you have decent judgement.

[Hhampuz]

Please refrain from personal arguments in this thread, we don't need that shit here since I honestly wanted a discussion regarding the neutral/positive question.

[madnessteat]

I think that in your situation, giving positive feedback is not a good idea... Neutral feedback is a good solution. I think that leaving a positive review and adding a user to the trust list if he asks is not the best option for these systems.

~ 2. Never include people who ask to be included. ~

[slocker]

So this trust here is being miss used if I got this correctly. From my understanding trust is earn for some job or something that you have participate here of forum with possible good outcome for positive trust. If thing gone bad then you will probably receive bad review or negative trust, like I have seen many here with red marks, trade with extreme caution. I dont know if this is right question but can this be resolved with council, for example most respected member here or member that are longest here to create something like this and that this can be settled like this. Maybe its huge change, but many say this is abused, can say that something here is right or not but im not here long enough to know, and I dont want to point fingers like kids he did it first.

Apparently this system have flaws like any system and can be miss used or abused from time to time. Maybe this council or something that will be with 3-5 member that will be informed on every trade here can be good but think that then that council would do nothing then just read all that. This is not a solution only observation for possible solution for this problem.