Trust "trickle-down factor" idea

[DiamondCardz]

This was an idea that I posted on the thread [Proposal] Implement DT1 algorithm for DT2 members in response an idea by LoyceV that each user in DT2 should have at least two inclusions from people in DT1. I've thought about it some more since then and I think that this is an idea I'm prepared to advocate for the whole trust system to use.

The idea is that, alongside your trust depth setting (1-4, default 2), you would have a trickle-down factor setting (1-?, default 2) or any better name that someone can come up with. The idea is that, to be trusted at Depth x in your trust network, a user should be trusted by a number of users in Depth x-1 in your network equal to your chosen trickle-down factor.

I think that a system like this should be implemented evenly across the system to reduce complexity - it should be implemented the same for users in your trust network that descend from your custom trust list or DT.

Depth 0 (duh) and 1 would be completely immune from this trickle-down factor, meaning that DT1 would be unaffected, and you would still trust those on your trust list and those they trust directly as normal. The change would only come in at Depth 2 - so those on DT2 (which IMO has too much power - and I say this as a lowly DT2 myself ) would now need to be trusted by two DT1s, and those on Depth 2 in your custom list (so those people trusted by the people trusted by the people you trust!) would now need to be trusted twice by those on Depth 1 in your custom list. I think this is quite nice actually as it stops your trust network from expanding too massively, and makes it less susceptible to abuse.

Obviously, to stop this system from affecting what you see, you could simply change your trickle-down factor setting to 1 and go back to how it is now. Similarly, if you want to put a high burden on those at deep depths in your list to 'prove themselves worthy', you can turn your trickle-down factor up. I think this would do a good job of putting more accountability in DT2 and letting people be more relaxed about having larger custom trust lists.

Let me know what you guys think, cheers.

[suchmoon]

It's not complicated enough. Make it log(x)^trickle_down and add random selection.

j/k

those on Depth 2 in your custom list (so those people trusted by the people trusted by the people you trust!) would now need to be trusted twice by those on Depth 1 in your custom list.

I think you're off by 1 level. Users you put directly into your trust list are depth 0 for you. Instead of a trickle-down I would recommend setting depth to 0 and manually adding those whom you trust from deeper levels.

[DiamondCardz]

those on Depth 2 in your custom list (so those people trusted by the people trusted by the people you trust!) would now need to be trusted twice by those on Depth 1 in your custom list.

I think you're off by 1 level. Users you put directly into your trust list are depth 0 for you. Instead of a trickle-down I would recommend setting depth to 0 and manually adding those whom you trust from deeper levels.

I thought I got it right? The people trusted (Depth 2) by the people trusted (Depth 1) by the people you trust (Depth 0).

I keep my depth at 2 because I do like having a fairly large network, but I do also go through and remove those who I feel mis-use the trust system as-and-when I see them. I do wish that we had a trickle-down feature though, just so that a single rogue agent in your trust network who you've missed can't damage things too much. I'm also considering the fact that I'm willing to bet a large portion of this forum is using Depth 2 settings.

[suchmoon]

I thought I got it right? The people trusted (Depth 2) by the people trusted (Depth 1) by the people you trust (Depth 0).

I keep my depth at 2 because I do like having a fairly large network, but I do also go through and remove those who I feel mis-use the trust system as-and-when I see them. I do wish that we had a trickle-down feature though, just so that a single rogue agent in your trust network who you've missed can't damage things too much. I'm also considering the fact that I'm willing to bet a large portion of this forum is using Depth 2 settings.

Sorry, you're right, I missed one level of "trusted" in your description. I'd suggest at most depth 1 to anyone. 2 is way too broad I think but I agree that many are using it just because it's the default. As for damage... there isn't really any immediate damage, is there? I've had it a couple of times where I see some odd ratings, figure out who's causing it, and exclude them.

That's not to say your suggestion is without merit. But probably not the highest priority and can be sorta kinda managed with depth/inclusion/exclusion settings.

[xolxol]

if this happens,those abusive people in the DT1 will have the control to the DT2,looks like you are suggesting to roll back the old days?,theymos doesnt want DTs to be centralized like that.If i am on the DT1 ill get my alts to the DT2 so that ill get even more powerful so its a NO for me.

[DiamondCardz]

if this happens,those abusive people in the DT1 will have the control to the DT2,looks like you are suggesting to roll back the old days?,theymos doesnt want DTs to be centralized like that.If i am on the DT1 ill get my alts to the DT2 so that ill get even more powerful so its a NO for me.

What? That’s not what I suggested at all, this suggestion takes away power from DT1 by making it so multiple DT1 members are needed to add people to DT2...not sure what’s you’re on mate but I don’t think you’ve read my post at all.

[LoyceV]

I'd suggest at most depth 1 to anyone. 2 is way too broad I think but I agree that many are using it just because it's the default.

Using Trust depth 1 would effectively remove DT2. I don't think that's desirable.
However, for my personal additions to the Trust list, I wouldn't mind going less deep. I made a topic a while back to show the effect:

Custom Trust lists have large recursive implications because the users you trust directly (Depth 0) make you trust the ones they trust (Depth 1), and the users they trust (Depth 2)

Although I haven't updated it in a while, on my list, I already don't recognize some of the names on Depth 1, while I also have people excluded on Depth 1 who I didn't want to exclude.
At larger Depth, I barely recognize any names.

[suchmoon]

I'd suggest at most depth 1 to anyone. 2 is way too broad I think but I agree that many are using it just because it's the default.

Using Trust depth 1 would effectively remove DT2. I don't think that's desirable.

I mean custom trust lists. For users who rely on DefaultTrust, depth 2 makes sense but only because DefaultTrust inserts itself at depth 0... which is clunky in its own right (makes combining DefaultTrust with custom inclusions/exclusions too complicated) but that's another story.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Agreed. Using anything above depth 1 on a customized trust list is mad, unless you have a very small trust list. Going through Loyce's viewer for myself, there are 400+ names on my "Depth 2 trust list" and I don't even recognise about 90% of them, let alone be able to tell you if I think they have left good ratings or not (or indeed, any ratings at all). These are absolutely not users I want to be affecting how I view the whole forum. If there was someone whose ratings I thought were good, then I can just add them to my level 0.

To address OP's suggestion specifically: As much as I agree with having DT2s need 2 inclusions from DT1s, I don't agree with giving the same option for customized trust lists. We already have a big enough problem as it is getting users to set up their own customized list (I'm sure one of my Foxpup Friends above will give me a statistic on just how few users have a customized trust list ). We have a problem with many users, including some long-term, some well trusted, and even some default trust users, not understanding how trust lists work. We shouldn't be looking to complicated it any more, and presenting yet another hurdle to newbies setting their own list for the first time.

We can set DT2s needing 2 inclusions entirely "behind the scenes". The average user won't even know anything has changed. Giving another box on the trust page for "Trickle down factor" seems unnecessary, when you can just add any users you agree with to your own list.