Random use of positive (green) trust

[TalkStar]

Hello Everyone,

Welcome to my topic. As we all know that our forum's trust system is really important to let others know about good and bad guys. I believe its really important to use the existing trust system properly. If we just take the use of trust system simply then it can bring unexpected damages for our community members. Today one positive feedback took my attention which looks unusual to me.

Profile link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2621418

This user have got green trust from SFR10. This user have only 8 activity and there is no way to deny that he is completely new on the forum. Positive trust sender mention there he gave that trust because of hiring him for making a signature design. Its nothing but a random use of positive feedback IMO.

My question is; Is that a proper use of trust system?

I think we should be more careful before sending positive trust feedback to someone. We need to keep it on mind that when anyone see green trust symbol on someone's profile he apparently believe that existing person is trustworthy enough. As an example if someone make any transaction with that user and got scammed then what is the value of green trust there. Yeah someone can tell that why didn't that member feel it necessary to read the trust details before making transaction with that user. But is it appropriate to send positive feedback to someone who has only 8 activity or little more.

Finally i think if we use our trust system on little things then it can bring trouble for someone in the future.

[1713571045]

1713571045

[1713571045]

1713571045

[1713571045]

1713571045

[1713571045]

1713571045

[1713571045]

1713571045

[Findingnemo]

Activity or number of merits irrelavant to the trust because it only involves trusting the person no matter of old or new to the forum.

About the feedback you are talking about,I don'd find its just random because the personally had transaction between them and the new user trusted the person and send his/her money at first so SRF10 also left the positive feedback due to the good attitude.

More likely neutral is okay for these kind of transactions but still its not wrong though.

[jostorres]

is it appropriate to send positive feedback to someone who has only 8 activity or little more.

Age on this forum (activity) and trust system are two different things. Trust scores indicate ONLY how good or bad one person with their past transactions and anything may happen in the future which will not restrict anyone to state their opinion based on their experience at present.

Finally i think if we use our trust system on little things then it can bring trouble for someone in the future.

Could you please explain what is little thing and what is big thing.
I remember in recent times, theymos removed the "risked BTC" part from trust system.

[TalkStar]

More likely neutral is okay for these kind of transactions.

Yeah i am agree with you and neutral is appropriate here but not the green trust. 

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Firstly this wasn't a random use of the positive trust. Secondly so if I was a newbie (based on forum rank) I don't deserve same privileges others get for successfully carrying out a trade on the forum?. I see nothing wrong in the feedback since there was a prove of satisfactory transaction between both parties and the trust wasn't bought. Trust has nothing to do with activity on the forum instead it rely mainly on transaction (trade) between two or more parties. @SFR10 always leave a positive feedback for users that he has successfully transacted with on similar business, therefore the case of @wolfbet shouldn't be any different.

More likely neutral is okay for these kind of transactions.

Yeah i am agree with you and neutral is appropriate here but not the green trust.  

Well that's what you guys may think but I prefer using neutral feedback for issue that aren't relate to trades and positive trust for only trade related feedbacks. So we can't all reason alike.

[Findingnemo]

More likely neutral is okay for these kind of transactions.

Yeah i am agree with you and neutral is appropriate here but not the green trust. 

But not everyone has the same opinions so we can't force anyone to leave what kind of feedback should be left for these kind of trades.

If you still not agree with this feedback then you can distrust the person.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

About the feedback you are talking about,I don'd find its just random because the personally had transaction between them
<snip>

It doesn't look like a "random" feedback to me, either.  There was obviously some sort of business transaction between the two parties and feedback was left.

OP, I get your point though.  I've been leaving neutral feedbacks for the various PayPal deals I'm involved with, and I even state that's going to be the case in my threads so as to discourage feedback-seekers looking to do deals with a DT member with the object of farming trust.  I'd never give a newbie a positive feedback even if I had the best deal ever with him, because who knows how that feedback could be used.  It's quite possible that newbie might start trying to borrow money in the lending section using his newly-green reputation with the intention of scamming.  That's what I worry about, and that's why I'm conservative when handing out green trust.

If you still not agree with this feedback then you can distrust the person.

Yeah, I wouldn't go that far.  I don't think SFR ought to have left that feedback, but hopefully he sees this thread and perhaps reconsiders.

[LoyceMobile]

Before the changes to the trust system, this would have been okay after a deal.
Now, however, positive feedback means more than that:

Old

   Positive - You trust this person or had a successful trade.
    Neutral - Comments. Your rating will not affect this person's trust score.
    Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

New

   Positive - You think that this person is unlikely to scam anyone.
    Neutral - Other comments.
    Negative - You think that trading with this person is high-risk. You might also be able to add a flag.

[Steamtyme]

This still doesn't necessarily mean that the positive trust is inappropriate here. If after their dealings the impression they are left with is that they are unlikely to scam anyone then the positive is warranted. The new system is just more inline with the way people used the old system - opinion based.

[LTU_btc]

I also can't call this as random use of green trust. This user hired SFR10 and paid him in advance, so there was trade between them. If such feedback would be left to high ranked user, everyone would see it as normal thing. But there is another thing - is it such deals is enough reason to give positive trust? Maybe neutral would be enough? But it's up to every user to decide.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

Personally i feel the feedback is okay because he was satisfied with the business transaction.

I would like you to look at it this way, Lets assume wolfbet had failed to carry out the transaction as agreed by both parties and SFR10 left them a negative feedback, would you still consider it as some random use of negative(red) trust because the account still has very little activity?
I think you get my point now.

[RapTarX]

This feeeback can be called both appropriate and inappropriate. For a trade which includes a service, it's not likely that it proves one's trustworthiness. On the other hand, perhaps SFR10 got a good impression. Couple of days ago, I was trusted with a little fund here from a newbie who don't know me, new in this forum as well. For him, I was a newbie as well. Trust doesn't come from a rank.

Probably SFR10 isn't aware of the new changes in the feedback criteria. As per the old system, shared by Loycemobile, the feedback is appropriate as well.

[Joel_Jantsen]

My honest opinion, that feedback is quite inaccurate. Leaving feedback's for newbie accounts with just one mini deal doesn't guarantee they're reliable to deal with other members. This will often go like "I'm a newbie but more trusted than the other newbie so send me money first because I've had previous trades here that shows I'm legit". This is how other newbies will easily get scammed. Not just newbies but I often see trusted people leaving feedback for trading 0.01 BTC once. This is typical trust farming and should be avoided.

[fortunecrypto]

Hello Everyone,

Welcome to my topic. As we all know that our forum's trust system is really important to let others know about good and bad guys. I believe its really important to use the existing trust system properly. If we just take the use of trust system simply then it can bring unexpected damages for our community members. Today one positive feedback took my attention which looks unusual to me.

Profile link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2621418

This user have got green trust from SFR10. This user have only 8 activity and there is no way to deny that he is completely new on the forum. Positive trust sender mention there he gave that trust because of hiring him for making a signature design. Its nothing but a random use of positive feedback IMO.

My question is; Is that a proper use of trust system?

I think we should be more careful before sending positive trust feedback to someone. We need to keep it on mind that when anyone see green trust symbol on someone's profile he apparently believe that existing person is trustworthy enough. As an example if someone make any transaction with that user and got scammed then what is the value of green trust there. Yeah someone can tell that why didn't that member feel it necessary to read the trust details before making transaction with that user. But is it appropriate to send positive feedback to someone who has only 8 activity or little more.

Finally i think if we use our trust system on little things then it can bring trouble for someone in the future.

I've checked the feedback and I don't see anything wrong on it, a transaction occurs and both parties satisfy the requirement to get a trust, it's not about the rank, there are high-rank members that don't deserve positive trust, and besides it's up to the giver on how he is educated on the trust system.

[Findingnemo]

If you still not agree with this feedback then you can distrust the person.

Yeah, I wouldn't go that far.  I don't think SFR ought to have left that feedback, but hopefully he sees this thread and perhaps reconsiders.

But this feedback can be far better when compared to the DT members leaving positive feedback for paying the loan amount couple of days earlier.

Which more looks like a traded feedback IMO.

[RapTarX]

But this feedback can be far better when compared to the DT members leaving positive feedback for paying the loan amount couple of days earlier.

Which more looks like a traded feedback IMO.

If this is true, DT must look into this. This can be considered as trust farm as well which will mislead forum members to a big loss. Someone paying loan earlier doesn't reflect trustworthiness. Moreover, recent change in feedback criteria is somwhat different than leaving positive feedbacn for paying loan earlier.

[Quickseller]

I think the rating is an inappropriate use of the trust system unless there is additional information not in the rating comment that I am unaware of. When you leave a positive rating, you are vouching the person will not scam.

The above is a recent change to how positive trust is described, and I suspect SFR10 probably doesn't understand the implications of his positive rating. I think it would be best for SFR10 to remove his positive rating, or clarify why he believes WolfBet will not scam.

[Findingnemo]

But this feedback can be far better when compared to the DT members leaving positive feedback for paying the loan amount couple of days earlier.

Which more looks like a traded feedback IMO.

If this is true, DT must look into this. This can be considered as trust farm as well which will mislead forum members to a big loss. Someone paying loan earlier doesn't reflect trustworthiness. Moreover, recent change in feedback criteria is somwhat different than leaving positive feedbacn for paying loan earlier.

Its happening though,I don't want to point out any profiles personally as well.You can visit the lending section too see how many of them got Positive just for paid non collateral loan and for earlier payment.

DT members are not doing it for trust farming but it can be used for it without the person who is leaving the feedback.

[mirakal]

The rating is appropriate IMO, SFR10 sent a positive to WolfBet as he got paid for the service.
When there's a transaction of money, I think it's more appropriate than someone giving positive trust with just simply saying " I trust this person", it's not specific, at least this one we can see the reference.

[crwth]

It's nowhere near random. The importance of using the reference portion of feedbacks is one way to prove that.

The important thing when giving feedback, in my opinion, is the reference. It's like in a case study or a thesis that you are writing. What is your basis on giving that result/feedback with that? It's necessary to involve those kinds of references because it's to understand somewhat the whole picture behind everything. I hope it's the case for everyone doing it.

It wouldn't be bad to give feedback if it really happened. The best situation is that it's verifiable by anyone looking at the profile.