DT members - ethical to sell DT services?

[Lauda]

How different would it be if he was only asking for a different subset of people, e.g. people with > 500 merits?

Meh. Albeit with less stink of implied corruption. I don't really get the whole paid review business, maybe that's my problem.

That could be it. I could see it as a legitimate attempt at getting reviews from a user group where alts are least likely to be present.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I don't really get the whole paid review business, maybe that's my problem.

I don't either, and it's the "paid" part of it that makes me think it's sketchy.  While I would feel obligated to give an honest review if I were paid to do so, 1) there still be bias in my mind after getting paid, and 2) there's no way for anyone else to know if I was being objective and not just writing a puff review because I was paid.  Those are the reasons why I wouldn't do a paid review, and in this particular case I also am not a gambler and wouldn't even know what I was doing.

Whether or not you have done the research, promoting a product in your signature is an endorsement of that product, and your reputation is influenced by the legitimacy of the campaign.

I respect your opinion, though I don't agree with it 100%.  I don't personally endorse any of the services I've used my signature space to advertise for, and in fact in all of the sig campaigns I've been in (with the exception of Yobit), I've never used those services myself.  I think of it like a TV station, where they rent advertising spots to businesses but don't necessarily endorse those businesses.  On the other hand, I would not join or continue to be in a sig campaign if the place I'm advertising for has been proven to be a scam.  In that case, it would be wrong to continue renting my sig space for that business because not only might people be sucked into that scam via my advertising, but it could potentially damage my reputation as well.

There has been some argument that people shouldn't be promoting gambling here, but I'm not sure if that's just because some DT members are doing it and it fits nicely into some folks' anti-DT campaign or whether people really think gambling is harmful.  I'm of the opinion that it's potentially harmful, as are many things and that advertising for online casinos isn't immoral.  Anyway.

[TECSHARE]

Pay for reviews happens all the time. As long as it is disclosed it is totally ethical, and he did make a public request... It amazes me some times how determined people are to make a crime out of anything they can. I guess it is just too bad the system we have here incentivizes this behavior rather than taking up the legitimate (and somewhat more difficult task) of finding real con artists. It is much easier to set up and knock down straw men.

[DireWolfM14]

How different would it be if he was only asking for a different subset of people, e.g. people with > 500 merits?

Meh. Albeit with less stink of implied corruption. I don't really get the whole paid review business, maybe that's my problem.

That could be it. I could see it as a legitimate attempt at getting reviews from a user group where alts are least likely to be present.

I can see that explanation.  It would be one thing if the request was for members with green trust, but specifically asking for member who are part of the DT network seems like an obvious attempt to gain some green trust himself.

I wouldn't suggest making a big deal out of this situation, but if this type of thing gets out hand it could easily be abused.  However, if it's allowed and remains out in the open it may expose some DT members with ulterior motives.

[asche]

I didn't read all of the thread, but most of it.

Accepting the payment doesn't seem to be binding  regarding your feedback.

So in the end there is absolutely no reason to give a false feedback. The service they are buying is a try out, and an honest feedback.

If you stick to that, it's fine by me.

As it has been said just before, the member is not looking for a Trusted Feedback as in positive trust, just in  review, like some people do for free amazon gifts.
If the amount wasn't so ridiculous, I might consider doing it if paid up front, and with a guarantee of 0 censoring.

If a service a willing to pay for an honest feedback, the service itself should be fairly ok.

However I couldn't be bothered more for 0.02 eth. I would need some time to actually try the service out, which would make the time not worth it at all.

I don't either, and it's the "paid" part of it that makes me think it's sketchy.

Because otherwize nobody would use their service since it is new I guess.

This happens all the time IRL, sometimes it's honest, and sometimes it's BS. I have been a paid tester before, and the payment is simply there because thorough testing takes time. Again someone that is a trusted member of a community will more likely convince more people of the quality of a service if this is what their feedback is saying.

On the other hand, if the service is crap, they also take the risk to destroy their rep at the very start.

I will say that again. As long as everything is public, and the review is honest, where is the issue?

Clearly trying to buy trust.

in fact it is not.

seems like an obvious attempt to gain some green trust himself.

How so?

I have seen numerous times where people where selling techniques or other stuff, where said good was provided for free to a DT to assess it. Can't find the thread again right now.

Some DT's did vouch for the digital good in question. This is no different.

There was also no trust feedback left.

[TECSHARE]

However, if it's allowed and remains out in the open it may expose some DT members with ulterior motives.

This is exactly why even if this is an issue, it is really a non-issue. If people play that game of pay for ratings it gets obvious pretty quick, and then that account is done.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I have seen numerous times where people where selling techniques or other stuff, where said good was provided for free to a DT to assess it. Can't find the thread again right now.

The most recent one which comes to mind is this thread, which had vouches from both TMAN and actmyname.

As you say, it is a fairly common occurrence that users who are selling some digital good will offer free "vouch" copies to trusted users. It is also commonplace outside this forum that companies will give away a certain number of their product for free in return for feedback and ratings. Logically, there is not much of a difference between offering something of value for free and offering payment in return for an honest opinion, although the latter certainly feels shadier to me. I also think asking specifically for DT members rather than just trusted members was a mistake.

Provided the review was honest and stated the user was paid for it, then although I don't like it, I can't see it being any different to handing out "vouch" copies.

Having said all that, leaving positive feedback in return for payment is absolutely inappropriate.

[asche]

The most recent one which comes to mind is this thread, which had vouches from both TMAN and actmyname.

Yey this is the exact thread I was referring to. Thanks man.

[actmyname]

Having said all that, leaving positive feedback in return for payment is absolutely inappropriate.

As always, when extending one's hand toward another, one must exercise caution.

That's why both TMAN and I picked out words carefully as not to guarantee the absolute success of the product, merely its existence.That being said, I believe that the number of positives that you grant should never exceed even half that of the number of negatives you have sent. Selectiveness of trust is very important.

[r1s2g3]

I think most of discussion as well OP revolved in it whether DT should do it or not. I will say as a forum member nobody should review these kind of services (Exchanges, Casino or any other business ) in which some user can risk thousands of dollars.

I am ok in giving a review for .02 ETH or even for free if I am reviewing a apparel site or a restaurant service but I am not ok in giving review to a casino or exchange even for hundreds of dollars payment because the risk factor associated to other users. These kind of services should be recommend by your own experience or if you have proof that it is working fine from past without engaging in any kind of suspicious or scam activity.

PS: Any DT is a forum member first and no forum member should engage in selling the reviews for shady/untrusted business.

[DireWolfM14]

seems like an obvious attempt to gain some green trust himself.

How so?

I have seen numerous times where people where selling techniques or other stuff, where said good was provided for free to a DT to assess it. Can't find the thread again right now.

Some DT's did vouch for the digital good in question. This is no different.

There was also no trust feedback left.

Ah, just my skeptical nature getting the getting the better of me, I guess.  I see your point, but I'm not 100% sure "there is no difference."  In one case, a free sample of a product is offered, and in the other a bounty is offered for testing a service.  Again, I see your argument and tend to agree in the big picture they are similar, and in most cased there wouldn't be anything nefarious in the offer. 

However, to play devil's advocate I'll ask; what's an appropriate bounty?  If one were to offer a bounty of 0.5BTC for testing a service, how unbiased will the reviewer be?  At what point does it start to look like something nefarious?

[asche]

Ah, just my skeptical nature getting the getting the better of me, I guess.  I see your point, but I'm not 100% sure "there is no difference."  In one case, a free sample of a product is offered, and in the other a bounty is offered for testing a service.  Again, I see your argument and tend to agree in the big picture they are similar, and in most cased there wouldn't be anything nefarious in the offer.  

However, to play devil's advocate I'll ask; what's an appropriate bounty?  If one were to offer a bounty of 0.5BTC for testing a service, how unbiased will the reviewer be?  At what point does it start to look like something nefarious?

I'd say everything that is close to a decent amount regarding time spent.

After this everyone has to  decide for himself how much his time is worth.
I value my time at around $30..$100/hour depending on the technicality/difficulty of the task.

Of course to follow up on the 0.5 BTC you are mentioning, this kind of amount would raise a huge red flag (unless it involves days long of testing...).

Offering a free copy is no different then offering a bounty as long as the free copy does have a market value, which it has since the editor is managing to sell some.

If the item has a value FOR the tester is another story.

[Pmalek]

However, to play devil's advocate I'll ask; what's an appropriate bounty?  If one were to offer a bounty of 0.5BTC for testing a service, how unbiased will the reviewer be?  At what point does it start to look like something nefarious?

If the bounty is 0.5BTC it is shady from the start. If you are earning $2000 testing a product you could get inclined focusing on the good stuff and intentionally or not, forget to mention the bad. And that what you forget to mention could end up being a problem for you and any future users of the service.

[TECSHARE]

Having said all that, leaving positive feedback in return for payment is absolutely inappropriate.

As always, when extending one's hand toward another, one must exercise caution.

That's why both TMAN and I picked out words carefully as not to guarantee the absolute success of the product, merely its existence.That being said, I believe that the number of positives that you grant should never exceed even half that of the number of negatives you have sent. Selectiveness of trust is very important.

Why is it people are so afraid of leaving a positive for the wrong person, but not afraid of spamming negative ratings? I have left a mere handful of negative ratings, because I almost exclusively rate people whom I have had a direct interaction with. I am of the opinion people should not be so desperate to find crimes and instead address the actual fraud around here. Of course tracking down and proving real fraud is a lot harder than playing Columbo with random hapless noobs...

[o_e_l_e_o]

Because a false positive rating can do a lot more damage than a false negative rating. A false negative may stop a user from doing some trading, or at least force other parties to do a bit more due diligence, until it is resolved. A false positive rating could potentially contribute to a scam by helping to lure in people who don't know any better.

Given the ratio of honest members to would be scammers, I'm not surprised the positive to negative feedback ratio is what it is.

[asche]

Because a false positive rating can do a lot more damage than a false negative rating.

This is a matter of perspective.

The fact that in your opinion it is true, doesn't make it an universal reality.

If someone was to falsely red tag someone who was launching his service, you have no idea how much money is at stake, and how much he might lose because of this rating.

It can be very damageable in both ways.

Edit: also how are you Hero with an activity of 490?

[bones261]

Edit: also how are you Hero with an activity of 490?

Hero only needs 480 activity and 500 merit.

[asche]

Hero only needs 480 activity and 500 merit.

I was so sure it was 500!!!!
I guess I might become Hero 2 weeks earlier than expected.

Congratz anyway for your new rank o_e_l_e_o

[andulolika]

That's almost like selling the account or even renting it imho.

I think the merit system is pretty decent against past trust ratings used to merit posts or actions, also I repeat myself I see way more users tagging obvious scams than before which is also nice.

[bL4nkcode]

I was so sure it was 500!!!!
I guess I might become Hero 2 weeks earlier than expected.

But you have to reach the 480 activity first before reaching the hero rank but that's not an issue you'll probably reach that in a matter of time.