How often do you "clean" your trust list.

[DaveF]

Some more of DaveF's random thoughts.

I know a lot of users here add people to your trust list, either to trust them or distrust them on a regular basis.
I also a lot of users remove or change people on a regular basis based on actions / posts / whatever.
Full disclosure, I was not one, I just started changing stuff from default trust.

BUT, how many users go back and look for inactive accounts that they are trusting.

I was going through my list adding people and noticed I was about to add a user that has not been here for 4 years. I did a lot of trades with them back in 2014 / 2015 never had a bad dealing. And then I went though LoyceV's listings of trust that people have for other people. And found some people are trusting users that have not been online for 3+ years.

At what point might it be "prudent" to purge some of them from your trust list. Lets face it, if their account wakes up they may or may not be the same user that they were back then.
Be it hacked accounts / sold accounts / people change a lot in 3 years /etc.
I am not saying distrust them, just not trust them until they "re-prove" themselves.

Just my random thoughts, feel free to comment or just ignore my ramblings.

-Dave

[1714004964]

1714004964

[1714004964]

1714004964

[1714004964]

1714004964

[1714004964]

1714004964

[1714004964]

1714004964

[1714004964]

1714004964

[Coyster]

If you ask me, if a user is trustworthy, and has received good trust from users in the past and for some reasons is probably off the forum for a while, leaving them with positive trust for their past actions and trades is actually a good idea.

The right to to distrust them would be if such account wakes up and proves dishonest or not worth trusting anymore, probably if it's proven the account was hacked or stolen

No one would mind leaving satoshi positive trusts even though he's not been here for years.

[DaveF]

If you ask me, if a user is trustworthy, and has received good trust from users in the past and for some reasons is probably off the forum for a while, leaving them with positive trust for their past actions and trades is actually a good idea.

The right to to distrust them would be if such account wakes up and proves dishonest or not worth trusting anymore, probably if it's proven the account was hacked or stolen

No one would mind leaving satoshi positive trusts even though he's not been here for years.

Yes, satoshi and others are the exceptions.
We are talking average everyday user. Had good trades, had good dealings, went away for whatever reason and now they are back.
And DT1 & DT2 people have them in their trust list. This gives them the benefit of the doubt.

I am asking if that is a good thing.

I know I have said it before, we are not your mom, it's not our job to protect you, do your own research.
On that same note, if people are actively telling people that "this person can be trusted" when we have no idea after that long if they can be because it's been years.

As I said, just my ramblings. And trying to get a feel for a trust list.

-Dave

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Personally I don't have an extensive trust list, so I don't make modifications to it very often.  I'm pretty conservative as to who I add to it and only add members that I'm pretty sure I won't have to delete anytime soon.  Same thing for the members I've given a ~ to.

Members on DT ought to exercise caution when considering someone for inclusion on their trust list--same thing for handing out positive trust.  I haven't run into too many problems with the trust list I have, so I guess it's working.  I haven't actually reviewed it in quite some time but I'm fairly certain it's solid.

Yes, satoshi and others are the exceptions.

I don't have satoshi in my trust list, as I see no reason to have him on there.  Not that it would be a bad thing, but it would just bloat my list, and I like to keep it manageable.

[o_e_l_e_o]

No one would mind leaving satoshi positive trusts even though he's not been here for years.

Leaving someone positive trust is not the same as adding them to your trust list. Leaving satoshi positive trust is fine. Adding an account which has been inactive for years, is unlikely to ever be active again, and hasn't even left a single feedback to your trust list is bad practice. (Incidentally, the trust system didn't exist until around 2.5 years after Satoshi's account was abandoned.)

Leaving positive trust = I think this person is unlikely to scam
Adding to trust list = I trust this person's feedback on others

To answer OP, having someone on your trust list means that you trust their judgement on other users. If they are no longer around to judge other users, then their ratings become less relevant as time goes on. Many scammers start off by building some positive trust before scamming. If someone isn't around to react to new events and change their ratings, then eventually I would remove them from my list. I don't have a time limit set in stone, but it would be in the region of a few months rather than a few years.

[Jet Cash]

I agree with Coyster, and I would add the suggestion that if a DT1 is inactive for over a year, then there should be some sort of warning in case the account has changed hands.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I agree with Coyster, and I would add the suggestion that if a DT1 is inactive for over a year, then there should be some sort of warning in case the account has changed hands.

To remain eligible for DT1, you need to have posted with the last 30 days and been online with the last 3 days from whenever theymos does his recalculation near the start of each month. There is no activity requirement for DT2, however, which I think should be addressed.

See: DefaultTrust changes

[Jet Cash]

That was my bad - it has just been pointed out to me in another thread.

Sorry for my mistake.

[hd49728]

DaveF's thread overlapped my thread for a bit, and there are some opinion in my thread, If someone pass away, will their Trust feedback still exist permanently ?

Their DT1 invitation will time out, and other DT1 members will no longer include them in DT2.

I think these sorts of cases will be very rare, but they will probably work themselves out. As vod said, exclusions can be made for people who are no longer active, but maybe even theymos could step in with the rare cases where someone has died and the issue has been resolved and the feedback can be removed by him if it's silly removing someone just for one feedback, but like I said, it can still be done by current default trust members if the community deems it important enough.

Trust feedback is like when someone is been cursed on whether negative or positive way, it keeps on following them till death. In situation like this, the only person that can undo it, is the person that placed it and nobody else. That's why its always advice to do the right thing at all times to avoid been marked upon negatively

People can be forgiven. DT members are added and removed and that can affect a user positively or negatively.

Over time they likely will and it's not been that long in Zepher's case, but there's also the debate of should feedback from trusted users be excluded because they're no longer active or have died? Imagine if you have a lot of feedback from users who have left the forum for whatever reasons. You could go from being pretty trusted to having little no feedback. You could make the argument that any active member would continue to get feedback from others but not always, especially if you don't do that many trades as you used to and that's why admin intervention may be better in certain cases to remove a specific feedback that's causing an issue, but maybe theymos still doesn't want to get involved in that.

[ ... ]

Maybe make the DT2 one with a longer duration. 30 days is ok for DT1 but 30 days for DT2 would seem a little short in my opinion. It's probably not that uncommon for less active users to leave the forum for a month or so.

The risk is letting scammers who are only tagged by one person off the hook. Maybe the DT2-requirement should be that a user has been active in the past 6 months or 1 year? On the other hand, it's up to active DT1 members to keep a responsible Trust list.
If anything is going to change, I'd much rather see a requirement of 2 DT1 inclustions instead of 1 to become DT2, that limits the number of "Trust selfscratchers".

[Steamtyme]

~snip~ There is no activity requirement for DT2, however, which I think should be addressed.

I don't think that's necessary, that should be handled well enough by DT1. Most if not all people take it seriously if they get into DT1 and are receptive to suggestions. So if there is an issue with DT2 ratings from inactive members someone should raise the concern with them. Whatever the outcome is either the person becomes excluded from DT1, or they exclude the problematic DT2. The DT1 can choose to mirror any ratings that they want to from that point.

I would say it's more a testament to the quality of the feedback a person left if even after years of inactivity their ratings hold true. If that is not the case then they should wind up being excluded in time. I'm not the best at going back over my list in it's entirety. In my more active weeks though I try to investigate peoples feedback as I browse to quality check what my list shows me. Pretty sure I make some changes at least once a month though, usually something small.

[suchmoon]

I don't think that's necessary, that should be handled well enough by DT1. Most if not all people take it seriously if they get into DT1 and are receptive to suggestions. So if there is an issue with DT2 ratings from inactive members someone should raise the concern with them. Whatever the outcome is either the person becomes excluded from DT1, or they exclude the problematic DT2. The DT1 can choose to mirror any ratings that they want to from that point.

It seems to be headed in the opposite direction, particularly due to the low barrier of entry to DT1 and random selection. There will be more and more DT1-eligible users but the pool of responsible high-integrity individuals is not growing as fast. If anything it's getting smaller due to sane non-drama people opting out via voluntary blacklisting or simply by wiping out their trust lists, and new-ish DT1 members are not going to risk their positions by excluding some account farmer who can retaliate with a handful of counter-exclusions.

[Steamtyme]

It seems to be headed in the opposite direction, particularly due to the low barrier of entry to DT1 and random selection. There will be more and more DT1-eligible users but the pool of responsible high-integrity individuals is not growing as fast. If anything it's getting smaller due to sane non-drama people opting out via voluntary blacklisting or simply by wiping out their trust lists, and new-ish DT1 members are not going to risk their positions by excluding some account farmer who can retaliate with a handful of counter-exclusions.

Yes this is a shame for the most part it would have been better if these people had been able to just walk away and not engage. There are people who will never change their mind or have a level of proof required so beyond reason they can pretend to be open-minded. It's like any struggle that's worth it though, pick your route and just keep pushing towards the goal. The new DT1 members aren't worth having if they won't stand by the reasoning and guidelines they used for their feedback, if they fear being excluded for that reason.

I haven't had a lot of time to check through it lately, but a while back I was pretty floored by some of the people making up the pool. I'm all for cycling members through and introducing new blood, especially if it gives a wide range of opinions across the DT1. We don't need any echo chambers floorishing here, but it does feel that way sometimes with the newer members as quite a few people went out and started tagging and mirroring feedback as soon as the new system rolled out.

It's a tough system to get behind, especially when you want people to use it for their personal needs. Then throw in the fact that their list also has a vote, and it becomes a balancing act most won't bother with. All we can do is try, and actively monitor for an account farmer attempting to subvert the system, which is still pretty tough to do.

[LoyceV]

My Trust list is the same as it was in January. I'm very conservative with adding people.
My Distrust list got a bit bigger though, and I removed someone (now DT1).

Lets face it, if their account wakes up they may or may not be the same user that they were back then.

Some old users, like guitarplinker, I've trusted for a long time. He's on my Trust list because I value his ratings, even though he's barely been active in the past years.
If you're afraid someone is going to be someone else when the accounts reactivates, he shouldn't have been on your Trust list in the first place. I'm fairly certain the users on my list are unlikely to sell their account.

It seems to be headed in the opposite direction, particularly due to the low barrier of entry to DT1 and random selection. There will be more and more DT1-eligible users but the pool of responsible high-integrity individuals is not growing as fast. If anything it's getting smaller due to sane non-drama people opting out via voluntary blacklisting or simply by wiping out their trust lists, and new-ish DT1 members are not going to risk their positions by excluding some account farmer who can retaliate with a handful of counter-exclusions.

The hostile takeover scenario. Retaliation exclusions make that a DT1 can only exclude so many others until he's excluded on his own. It's the "political battle" theymos wanted/predicted.

[DaveF]

Lets face it, if their account wakes up they may or may not be the same user that they were back then.

Some old users, like guitarplinker, I've trusted for a long time. He's on my Trust list because I value his ratings, even though he's barely been active in the past years.
If you're afraid someone is going to be someone else when the accounts reactivates, he shouldn't have been on your Trust list in the first place. I'm fairly certain the users on my list are unlikely to sell their account.

Barely active is not the same as not active. I'm talking last login back in summer 2016.
That's who I was looking at to add to my list.
Someone who from 2012 to 2014 was active and here every day helping and posting.
From 2014 to 2015 was somewhat active and posted here and there to help people and trade
And by mid 2016 had done 25 posts for the year and then stopped. No idea why, possibly something in life. Possibly someone here pissed them off enough to leave, could be anything and everything.

-Dave