DT members - ethical to sell DT services?

[TECSHARE]

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.

As others have stated this is a matter of perspective, not a universally true statement. There is no way to force resolution around here, and no cost for making false negative ratings generally. If some one has the opinion they don't like what you are doing, that's it. It will remain a permanent impediment to the user with varying levels of detriment. People tend not to do due diligence, and pretending like it is just a matter of them looking more carefully is quite dismissive of the negative results that it would have on ones ability to trade.

Additionally false negatives do more to lure people in to fraud than anything. By propagating false negatives the user base learns they don't always mean something and then genuine negative ratings blend in with the signal noise of frivolous ratings. False positives rely on the reputation of the one giving it. People around here with good reputations are aware that people are trying to game the system and they have direct incentives to not allow that, because their own reputation would suffer.

[1714958033]

1714958033

[1714958033]

1714958033

[1714958033]

1714958033

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Additionally false negatives do more to lure people in to fraud than anything. By propagating false negatives the user base learns they don't always mean something and then genuine negative ratings blend in with the signal noise of frivolous ratings.

That's your opinion, and I think it's wrong.  You don't know that members are seeing all these negatives and becoming immune to them any more than I do.  The fact is that this forum is absolutely infested with scammers and dishonest people of all kinds, and the unwitting member needs to be warned about them.  In other words, I think it's much better that one of these scammers or account sellers or what have you has a red tag rather than not having one. 

People can judge for themselves whether they want to trade with that person based on what the negative was given for--and if they disregard someone's trust, that's on them.  Some people have to learn the hard way, and that's just the way it is.  I know I did when I got scammed by a green-trusted member back in 2016. 

[TECSHARE]

Additionally false negatives do more to lure people in to fraud than anything. By propagating false negatives the user base learns they don't always mean something and then genuine negative ratings blend in with the signal noise of frivolous ratings.

That's your opinion, and I think it's wrong.  You don't know that members are seeing all these negatives and becoming immune to them any more than I do.  The fact is that this forum is absolutely infested with scammers and dishonest people of all kinds, and the unwitting member needs to be warned about them.  In other words, I think it's much better that one of these scammers or account sellers or what have you has a red tag rather than not having one.  

People can judge for themselves whether they want to trade with that person based on what the negative was given for--and if they disregard someone's trust, that's on them.  Some people have to learn the hard way, and that's just the way it is.  I know I did when I got scammed by a green-trusted member back in 2016.  

Again, the pattern is complete dismissal of the negative impacts that false or frivolous ratings have on users. This is not just about one or two users but a larger pattern of this behavior which has a much bigger detrimental impact on the overall community. Users who are falsely rated with honest intentions will often just leave rather than deal with rebuilding their reputations while frauds are back in seconds with a purchased account. Negative ratings are handed out so flippantly to the point where they have become almost meaningless in spite of your pretense that this is not the case.

This forum IS infested with scammers. The problem isn't new, and shotgunning negatives at them isn't going to stop it, nor has it been. At best it will momentarily delay them. The question then is at what cost? I submit the cost is at the expense of the legitimate user base which has to deal with the constant fear of extortion via the trust system for saying the wrong thing. Some times they even get extorted using their hard earned reputations because they pointed out the wrong scam. Have you ever considered the security flaw of such a system in that context? What is preventing systematic extortion of reputable users here by using their reputations against them to keep them quiet about big scam XYZ if false negative ratings have no penalty or cost?

People can judge for themselves. The problem is the system is largely intended to help new users, and new users don't know any different. Again you point out another flaw in this whole argument. At the end of the day scammers can still hijack trusted accounts, making your shotgunning of negatives totally ineffectual against them in this context. Unfortunately for many people leaving negative ratings has become a game of quantity over quality, and for increasingly frivolous reasons which are indistinguishable from abuse, all done towards the end of increasing their own reputation as a "forum cop."

[Flying Hellfish]

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?

It used to happen in the mining section all the time, there were reviewers (probably still are) that were paid with crypto or hardware to review new miners.  Some reviewers were paid some were not, iirc one high profile user was paid 3000 BTC to be a full on paid shill for a miner manufacture.  I think it was open from the start he was paid, but it wouldn't have mattered as it was clear as glass where his loyalty was.

Everyone should always assume every review is paid for until you have established a personal comfort level with the reviewer (ie do they meet your personal criteria of providing unbiased reviews).

[LoyceV]

You don't know that members are seeing all these negatives and becoming immune to them any more than I do. 
~
People can judge for themselves whether they want to trade with that person based on what the negative was given for--and if they disregard someone's trust, that's on them.

On eBay, it's virtually impossible for a seller to receive only positive feedback. As a buyer, my experience thought me that sellers with 99.5% positive are better than sellers with "only" 98% positive.
On Bitcointalk, negative ratings are much stronger than positive ratings.
On eBay, 90 positive and 10 negative ratings puts you at 90%. On Bitcointalk, it puts you around -1000.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

On eBay, it's virtually impossible for a seller to receive only positive feedback.

That's not impossible at all--though I'm a buyer on eBay as well, I have a 100% positive rating as a seller over the course of over 15 years.  If you're talking about eBay members who only sell, I'd probably say you're closer to being correct but it's still possible to have 100% positive.  I've seen it a lot.

This forum IS infested with scammers. The problem isn't new, and shotgunning negatives at them isn't going to stop it, nor has it been. At best it will momentarily delay them. The question then is at what cost?

It's better than doing nothing to stop them, and aside from helping the forum, tagging them allows me to know who I should or shouldn't trust--and that's true for everyone who leaves feedback. 

[actmyname]

Additionally false negatives do more to lure people in to fraud than anything. By propagating false negatives the user base learns they don't always mean something and then genuine negative ratings blend in with the signal noise of frivolous ratings.

I would rather more neutral-trusted individuals than ones with green trust. I would assume that users new to the forum would be more inclined to trust those that have 40: -0 / +4 than 0: 0 / +0.

Raising the standard of trust is something I would prefer, especially since this arbitrary number metric can allow ignorant users to fall prey to someone with even 10 trust (via a 10-month feedback).

Is it entirely obvious that a trust of n * 10 is (at least) n different pieces of positive feedback, which have aged for 10 months?

[asche]

Is it entirely obvious that a trust of n * 10 is (at least) n different pieces of positive feedback, which have aged for 10 months?

Since you ask the question, you know very well that it is not obvious for newcomers.

I myself didn't care for trust for a long time when I joined, and it took me quite some time to find this information.

Maybe having a reminder of that on the trust page would be beneficial.

[Quickseller]

You don't know that members are seeing all these negatives and becoming immune to them any more than I do.
~
People can judge for themselves whether they want to trade with that person based on what the negative was given for--and if they disregard someone's trust, that's on them.

On eBay, it's virtually impossible for a seller to receive only positive feedback. As a buyer, my experience thought me that sellers with 99.5% positive are better than sellers with "only" 98% positive.
On Bitcointalk, negative ratings are much stronger than positive ratings.
On eBay, 90 positive and 10 negative ratings puts you at 90%. On Bitcointalk, it puts you around -1000.

This is because on bitcointalk, the assumption is that a negative rating *is* a sign that someone is a scammer. This unfortunately is not the case, as negatives are routinely given out for criticizing certain people, for engaging in unpopular businesses that don’t hurt anyone and other non-trust related reasons.

In January, someone sent 600 ratings in under a day for no reason other than they wanted to have the most number of ratings sent. It should go without saying that this person clearly didn’t do their research prior to leaving those ratings.

[TECSHARE]

This forum IS infested with scammers. The problem isn't new, and shotgunning negatives at them isn't going to stop it, nor has it been. At best it will momentarily delay them. The question then is at what cost?

It's better than doing nothing to stop them, and aside from helping the forum, tagging them allows me to know who I should or shouldn't trust--and that's true for everyone who leaves feedback. 

And who said do nothing? I am advocating a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before rating. My entire point is shotgunning negatives IS NOT helping the forum, no matter how much you and others insist it does. I am sure it is just a total coincidence that everyone advocating the shotgun method depends on their reputation as a forum cop to have any reputation at all.