Is counter feedback a good solution?

[Little Mouse]

Before the new Default Trust system, if anyone received negative feedback, I saw some people used to gave counter positive feedback if they thought the negative feedback was not correct. As a result, the feedback score would change from Orange (Negative) to Green although the user have negative feedback.
But now, after the system change, negative remains Orange. No matter how much positive the user got. So, a counter positive feedback in response to a positive feedback does actually nothing. What is your opinion? Is counter feedback a good solution although it does not work anymore?

[1715121837]

1715121837

[suchmoon]

Before the new Default Trust system, if anyone received negative feedback, I saw some people used to gave counter positive feedback if they thought the negative feedback was not correct. As a result, the feedback score would change from Orange (Negative) to Green although the user have negative feedback.

Maybe it could eventually become green, I don't recall, but it would have taken multiple counter ratings due to the exponential nature of negative ratings. And the negative number was still visible in the score.

But now, after the system change, negative remains Orange. No matter how much positive the user got. So, a counter positive feedback in response to a positive feedback does actually nothing. What is your opinion? Is counter feedback a good solution although it does not work anymore?

It does something - it increases the green number and it adds an explanation. Keep in mind that in the old system there was also a big red "trade with extreme caution" warning that the counter feedback would remove. There is no such warning with negative ratings in this new system (type 2&3 flags create a warning now). The negative number remains visible similar to how it used to be in the old system.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

It was never the best (good) solution but it did serve the purpose It was intended for back then. Although since currently irrespective of the numbers of positive feedback you recieve, it still won't change your negative feedback therefore I see no need of using it anymore to combat wrong negative tags instead you can simply make use of the neutral tags to clear things out so when the users profile get visited the visitors get the message.

This counter feedback was one of the flaws of the DT  system back then in my opinion and I'm glad it has been ratified to some extent since there isn't much isednif it anymore. It wasn't right to leave a positive feedback for another user just because you felt he isn't guilty of the crime he's been accused of.

[OcTradism]

Before the new Default Trust system, if anyone received negative feedback, I saw some people used to gave counter positive feedback if they thought the negative feedback was not correct. As a result, the feedback score would change from Orange (Negative) to Green although the user have negative feedback.
But now, after the system change, negative remains Orange. No matter how much positive the user got. So, a counter positive feedback in response to a positive feedback does actually nothing. What is your opinion? Is counter feedback a good solution although it does not work anymore?

Feedback can be positive or negative and there are same color display for positive, and negative feedback on user profile. Colors do not depend on how many positive or negative feedback one user gets. It reduces panic on users and also reduces feedback or trust drama.

Counters are the words some people use and such probably cause drama too. You trust, I distrust the same user. You leave your positive feedback on that user, I leave a negative feedback on that user. It is totally fair if you and me have solid reasons (from our sides) to trust or distrust that user. With feedback, people usually write some words to describe why they trust or distrust one user (through their feedback). The word counter is used in such context. With the same feedback, if you don't include the word counter on yours, I believe there is less drama on it. In contrast, if you include the word counter (to someone else's feedback), there will be more drama.

I think people are free to leave feedbacks (positive or negative) based on their opinion, but should not include the word counter in their feedback descriptions.

[suchmoon]

I think people are free to leave feedbacks (positive or negative) based on their opinion, but should not include the word counter in their feedback descriptions.

It should be fine to include any relevant words in the description. Drama can happen for any reason or no reason at all - we probably shouldn't base trust ratings on the fear of drama.

If Bob posts a negative rating for Alice and Carol thinks that Alice is not a high-risk in trades, Carol has a couple of choices (assuming Bob is not willing to remove the rating):

1) Post a neutral rating for Alice explaining why Bob's rating is incorrect. This is probably a better form of "counter" in this new system since neutrals are nearly equally visible in the trust score.
2) Post a positive rating for Alice. This can also be a "counter" as long as it explains why Alice is unlikely to scam (a prerequisite for a positive rating) and is not merely "because Bob is wrong".

Carol can also uninclude or exclude Bob but that's a whole different topic.

[Upgrade00]

Realistically, not every feedback can be scrutinized by other members, except the user chooses to draw attention to it and I wouldn't like to see multiple posts complaining about the feedback people left on them. So counter feedback may not be the best solution for a wrong negative but it can serve as a preemptive measure at least until the issue is resolved

Feedbacks are personal suggestions about a member often backed with a reference. I'm of the opinion that a negative feedback should always have a reference link attached, so people can check and determine if it was a right one (in their opinions, this would also give you an idea of who to include or ~ in your customer trust list). If more people agree that it's wrong, they can follow some of the steps listed by suchmoon above.

If it's not an isolated case and a user is giving multiple feedbacks that majority agree to be wrong then the trust system would limit how much weight their feedback carries.

[FIFA worldcup]

Realistically, not every feedback can be scrutinized by other members, except the user chooses to draw attention to it and I wouldn't like to see multiple posts complaining about the feedback people left on them. So counter feedback may not be the best solution for a wrong negative but it can serve as a preemptive measure at least until the issue is resolved

Feedbacks are personal suggestions about a member often backed with a reference. I'm of the opinion that a negative feedback should always have a reference link attached, so people can check and determine if it was a right one (in their opinions, this would also give you an idea of who to include or ~ in your customer trust list). If more people agree that it's wrong, they can follow some of the steps listed by suchmoon above.

If it's not an isolated case and a user is giving multiple feedbacks that majority agree to be wrong then the trust system would limit how much weight their feedback carries.

I see many negative feedback on the profiles with no link attached due to which it is hard to find why was the negative feedback given. Writing a generic reason with no link should be avoided. I think it would be better if attaching a link with a negative feedback is made mandatory.

[LoyceV]

Maybe it could eventually become green

I think it did indeed: new positive ratings could "overrule" the negative in the old Trust system.

1) Post a neutral rating for Alice explaining why Bob's rating is incorrect. This is probably a better form of "counter" in this new system since neutrals are nearly equally visible in the trust score.

That's what I did for WhyFhy:

I second Steamtyme's disagreement with the red trust. See Reference link and the 2 posts that follow it.

It doesn't fit this category:

Code:

Positive - You think that this person is unlikely to scam anyone.

If Neutral can do the job, don't use Negative or Positive.

I see many negative feedback on the profiles with no link attached due to which it is hard to find why was the negative feedback given. Writing a generic reason with no link should be avoided.

It depends: on Mobile, copy/pasting and adding evidence is a lot of work. So I only leave negative feedback for obvious scammers waiting to get Nuked. In retrospect, this one would be better with a link, but luckily the "Untrusted feedback" on the account explains it.

[marlboroza]

a counter positive feedback in response to a positive feedback does actually nothing.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5261194.msg54772281#msg54772281

[The Cryptovator]

Counter feedback isn't 'good' solution but at least there is solution at all. It's like something is better than nothing. To be honest I am not a fan of 'counter feedback', it's better if possible solution by discussion. But if a user become inactive for some reason who have left negative feedback then there is no other way except counter feedback (if case has been solved). Doesn't matter if both rating reflect on profile, when someone will read feedback then they will realize everything. Also the warning for newbies and guests will be removed by leaving counter feedback. So somehow this is a solution although isn't better.

[Casdinyard]

Counter feedback isn't 'good' solution but at least there is solution at all. It's like something is better than nothing. To be honest I am not a fan of 'counter feedback', it's better if possible solution by discussion. But if a user become inactive for some reason who have left negative feedback then there is no other way except counter feedback (if case has been solved). Doesn't matter if both rating reflect on profile, when someone will read feedback then they will realize everything. Also the warning for newbies and guests will be removed by leaving counter feedback. So somehow this is a solution although isn't better.

Indeed. If it was the case that someone would counter feedback, it would be pretty much mostly based off as a revenge with pure subjective reasons and criticisms. In which is still happening especially if the accusation was based on hate from certain arguments that leads to further investigation of a user's past and finding a little mistake out of it. Meanwhile, IMO, I still don't bother nor judge those who had gain negative trust while having positive trusts as well, because old and veteran users here in the forum often tends to see the validity of the reference of each flags first.

And you're right, CF must only be applied if and only if an inactive only had been active just for a negative feedback on someone. But still, opening a thread in reputation before red tagging a user either a feedback or a counter feedback is the best way to solve a certain issue.

[khaled0111]

I believe you are asking this because of Betnomi negative trust and red flag appeal !
Anyway, we can take it as an actual exemple.

tldr; ICOEthic, who has been inactive for long time, left betnomi a negative feedback which is not valid anymore. Some DTs suggested a counter feedback.

Personally, I don't think this is the right way to solve the issue as the red orange -1 will be always there on betnomi's profile. Besides, leaving a positive feedback as a counter can be missleading too or undeserved to say the least.
"Two wrongs don't make a right"