Why isn't trust visible on every board?

[DaveF]

Taking a cue from this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5283438.0 by marlboroza
I got to thinking. Why cant we see trust everywhere?

It might not be needed everyplace, but it can't hurt to have it shown everyplace.
Would probably help eliminate some crap from other boards too.
"Oh, look they have a -5 trust, lets check that before I reply"
Yeah, very few good posts might take a hit if the OP had massive neg trust for some reason, I just don't think that many would suffer.
And it would kick the crap posts that waste peoples time down a bit.

Was thinking of posts like this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5290478.0
With an OP, with a trust like this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2835857

Just my view.

-Dave

[1714829826]

1714829826

[1714829826]

1714829826

[1714829826]

1714829826

[Husires]

The full name of the trust is Marketplace trust , something that is not subject to central control. It is not possible to check and verify all negative trust are 100% correct. Therefore, such negative trust/postive will affect beginners because they will not believe the information from accounts with a red trust, even if it is correct.

DT member can use it to control content

[Steamtyme]

Would probably help eliminate some crap from other boards too.
"Oh, look they have a -5 trust, lets check that before I reply"

From what I remember when this was brought up in the last few years this is why. theymos didn't want trust to influence overall discussion. It was worse before but there is still no consensus on what warrants negative feedback, and even less universal understanding of how the system works.

In regards to the thread you linked, I guess Ideally that would have been reported to moderator to be moved to Services - as they are looking for a developer to provide a service. Then the trust score would be visible. More often than not when trust would be useful it's likely the post could be moved to a more appropriate board.

[DaveF]

In regards to the thread you linked, I guess Ideally that would have been reported to moderator to be moved to Services - as they are looking for a developer to provide a service. Then the trust score would be visible. More often than not when trust would be useful it's likely the post could be moved to a more appropriate board.

Or altcoins where it would be shown too.
Probably not the best example. But there are other posts across other boards. That was just the one I saw this morning.

So far it seems to be 0:2 against this idea.

I think I am just getting less tolerant of crap posts that look legit on the surface.

-Dave

[The Cryptovator]

I think this subject has been discussed previously. My thought was the same previously, but some of the replies convinced me. For example, every section isn't related to trading, so those boards aren't financially related, then visible trust isn't so important. Even a red-tagged user would participate in constructive discussion, and all the negative feedback probably wouldn't 100% accurate. When a few users will see a post by a red-tagged user then they would ignore it, especially those who are newbies. Most probably that's the reason why the trust system isn't visible everywhere.

[Upgrade00]

I think I am just getting less tolerant of crap posts that look legit on the surface.

Crap post is a forum problem, but the trust system is not the means to check that. If the OP is not offering a service or making a post which could potentially cause users to risk funds, should their trust score really matter? In my opinion, you do not have to trust someone to read and engage their posts.
Reading over some of theymos posts and replies over time, he seems to not want to give too much precedent to the trust system especially as it affects day to day discussions.

[suchmoon]

The "official" reasoning never quite made sense to me. If someone is prone to dismissing or respecting opinions based on trust ratings then in the absence of such they would fall back to even flimsier attributes, like "Legendary" or number of posts. We're basically going out of our way to not offend red-trusted users because someone might see their red trust and think less of them. Boo hoo.

[Joel_Jantsen]

Agreeing with @suchmoon here

I wouldn't really care how much trusted the person is if they answer my query on the Technical Support or Development sections. Having a red trust doesn't invalidate anyone of their opinions in the relevant sections where their trust ratings don't make sense.

Suppose you posted a query regarding cryptography and someone with a red trust gave you a very detailed accurate answer, would you not consider it because of their trust? If you would, then there's no point in showing trust ratings in the first place.

[hilariousetc]

The "official" reasoning never quite made sense to me. If someone is prone to dismissing or respecting opinions based on trust ratings then in the absence of such they would fall back to even flimsier attributes, like "Legendary" or number of posts. We're basically going out of our way to not offend red-trusted users because someone might see their red trust and think less of them. Boo hoo.

I don't think it's about offense, but it just not being relevant to discussion in certain boards.

Agreeing with @suchmoon here

I wouldn't really care how much trusted the person is if they answer my query on the Technical Support or Development sections. Having a red trust doesn't invalidate anyone of their opinions in the relevant sections where their trust ratings don't make sense.

Suppose you posted a query regarding cryptography and someone with a red trust gave you a very detailed accurate answer, would you not consider it because of their trust? If you would, then there's no point in showing trust ratings in the first place.

And that's why it isn't shown as it shouldn't be relevant to that discussion. Someone with red trust could give sage advice but people then choose to disregard it because they see the feedback and it does influence how you perceive a person. Personally I can take it or leave it but we've been over the pros and cons of this numerous times and theymos is unlikely to change it now. I don't think it was that long ago that someone brought this up and everyone chimed in with their reasonings but I can't find the thread.

[Csmiami]

---

Don't think that's the best example here. Tech Support is something that should consider trust, because in that same scenario, imagine the negatives in the "helper's" profile come from promoting malware or any previous attempt to scam a user requesting support. It'd have to be checked before considering how useful the information provided is.

I can think of some other boards where trust would make no real sense, and it could even prevent constructive threads. I'm talking about Serious discussion and Meta mostly, but I can't think of any reason why trust should be shown in Off topic boards, for example. Local boards do have a general problem with the way trust is shown in some boards and not in others; but the English forum works pretty well as a whole in my opinion. I'd' bring Vod's request of adding it to the Project Development board, for the exact same reasons Tech Support must have it, you never know who you are talking to and should always double check, but a heads up is always helpful.

Edit: Just to add to the discussion, thanks icopress for the suggestion.

Right now it's a server side setting, applied to certain boards - maybe a profile setting, that defaults to false, that displays the trust data for all sections? Because pretty sure not everyone would want to see it everywhere. And on top of that, we don't know if there's demand for it and the computing cost of it all.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

From what I remember when this was brought up in the last few years this is why. theymos didn't want trust to influence overall discussion. It was worse before but there is still no consensus on what warrants negative feedback, and even less universal understanding of how the system works.

Yeah, I definitely remember this issue being brought up, though it's been a while.  I don't remember Theymos's response, but I'll take your word for it that what you wrote above is correct.  I'm not sure I agree with that, but you're certainly correct that negative feedback can and is handed out for many reasons that have nothing to do with whether a member is actually trustworthy.

On the other hand, it's the DT negatives that make a member's trust score red when it's displayed near the avatar and one would hope that DT members would be responsible when tagging someone--but of course determining whether they really are would open up a gigantic can of worms. 

Regardless, I do think trust ought to be visible on all the sections and to guests who might be lurking but haven't registered yet.  I think the positives outweigh the negatives, but it's not my decision.

[actmyname]

Regardless, I do think trust ought to be visible on all the sections and to guests who might be lurking but haven't registered yet.  I think the positives outweigh the negatives, but it's not my decision.

The possibility of letting people fall prey to red-trusted, higher-ranked individuals is there and IIRC this situation has occurred in the past.

Frankly, anyone who dismisses a post based on trust is probably the same idiot that will assume that high trust = knowledgeable. They might also do the same if yer spelin is bed or grammar suck.

[pugman]

Yeah, I definitely remember this issue being brought up, though it's been a while.  I don't remember Theymos's response, but I'll take your word for it that what you wrote above is correct.  I'm not sure I agree with that, but you're certainly correct that negative feedback can and is handed out for many reasons that have nothing to do with whether a member is actually trustworthy.

On the other hand, it's the DT negatives that make a member's trust score red when it's displayed near the avatar and one would hope that DT members would be responsible when tagging someone--but of course determining whether they really are would open up a gigantic can of worms. 

Regardless, I do think trust ought to be visible on all the sections and to guests who might be lurking but haven't registered yet.  I think the positives outweigh the negatives, but it's not my decision.

I kind of agree with you, only with the point of trust not being disclosed to a new user at all. What I mean is, there is no mention of something like a trust rating to a random new visitor for the forum.

So if someone reads a post about something without logging in, the person most likely is never know that something like a trust system exists. To counter this, I suggest putting a text that says: "Trust Rating for this user can only be viewed when logged in. Please register or log in to view this user's trust rating", something like this:



Thoughts?

[ranochigo]

I kind of agree with you, only with the point of trust not being disclosed to a new user at all. What I mean is, there is no mention of something like a trust rating to a random new visitor for the forum.

So if someone reads a post about something without logging in, the person most likely is never know that something like a trust system exists. To counter this, I suggest putting a text that says: "Trust Rating for this user can only be viewed when logged in. Please register or log in to view this user's trust rating", something like this:



Thoughts?

For those who aren't logged in, if a trust flag is in place with sufficient support, they'll have a warning to warn the user. I don't like how the trust system has evolved into something more political and serves less of its original purpose. Trust flag would serve as a sufficient warning though they'll only appear in the relevant boards.

DTs has improved from the past but is still far from perfect.
Having a forum wide trust system would be useful but I imagine the justification of it inhibiting discussion is understandable as well.

[hilariousetc]

I kind of agree with you, only with the point of trust not being disclosed to a new user at all. What I mean is, there is no mention of something like a trust rating to a random new visitor for the forum.

So if someone reads a post about something without logging in, the person most likely is never know that something like a trust system exists. To counter this, I suggest putting a text that says: "Trust Rating for this user can only be viewed when logged in. Please register or log in to view this user's trust rating", something like this:



Thoughts?

As ranochigo said above, a warning is shown when users have flags, but I think theymos should put a warning up in the digital goods forum on all threads on new users or maybe up until Junior Member or Member or something as far too many people get scammed by users who don't have flags. Not a this user is a scammer, warning but maybe to just urge caution when buying from untrusted sellers and to consider an escrow etc. I think that would stop a lot of scams fro happening without DT members having to get involved tagging every one of these accounts. If someone has an autobuy link they're almost certainly a scammer and many of the others who are selling digital goods will just scam you if you're naïve enough to send money to them. There's too many of them to police effectively and they will often have multiple accounts bumping multiple times a day and reports probably come in on a daily basis from users complaining that they've been scammed, and a lot of the time it's for a couple hundred dollars as well.

[pugman]

For those who aren't logged in, if a trust flag is in place with sufficient support, they'll have a warning to warn the user. I don't like how the trust system has evolved into something more political and serves less of its original purpose. Trust flag would serve as a sufficient warning though they'll only appear in the relevant boards.

DTs has improved from the past but is still far from perfect.
Having a forum wide trust system would be useful but I imagine the justification of it inhibiting discussion is understandable as well.

As ranochigo said above, a warning is shown when users have flags, but I think theymos should put a warning up in the digital goods forum on all threads on new users or maybe up until Junior Member or Member or something as far too many people get scammed by users who don't have flags. Not a this user is a scammer, warning but maybe to just urge caution when buying from untrusted sellers and to consider an escrow etc. I think that would stop a lot of scams fro happening without DT members having to get involved tagging every one of these accounts. If someone has an autobuy link they're almost certainly a scammer and many of the others who are selling digital goods will just scam you if you're naïve enough to send money to them. There's too many of them to police effectively and they will often have multiple accounts bumping multiple times a day and reports probably come in on a daily basis from users complaining that they've been scammed, and a lot of the time it's for a couple hundred dollars as well.

I get both your points, and I do think the trust system now is not what it was intended to be.

But an indication like what Hilariousetc said might help out really well. Perhaps the administration could block out some of the autobuy links for ranks till Full members.

Or what if, we make it that all trading related boards can only be viewed if a user logs in? Unless they log in, they can only see a blurred version of the page. That might majorly help imo.

[Vod]

and I do think the trust system now is not what it was intended to be.

Agreed.  I've been forced to leave negative trust for users because they are posting self-moderated in project development.   I've never traded with them, they have never scammed, but they probably will unless I warn others.

Or what if, we make it that all trading related boards can only be viewed if a user logs in? Unless they log in, they can only see a blurred version of the page. That might majorly help imo.

A fresh idea for a change!   However, changing readable HTML into garbage would reduce search engine rankings.  :/

[Mrengage]

Taking a cue from this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5283438.0 by marlboroza
I got to thinking. Why cant we see trust everywhere?

It might not be needed everyplace, but it can't hurt to have it shown everyplace.
Would probably help eliminate some crap from other boards too.
"Oh, look they have a -5 trust, lets check that before I reply"
Yeah, very few good posts might take a hit if the OP had massive neg trust for some reason, I just don't think that many would suffer.
And it would kick the crap posts that waste peoples time down a bit.

Was thinking of posts like this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5290478.0
With an OP, with a trust like this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2835857

Just my view.

-Dave

I was just aware that the trust I see it's for the real members of the forum in which if you check very well you notice they don't get involved in shits post or conversations. IMO I was thinking that it should just be members with at least 2 to 3 trust should make Bounty post on the thread.

[WhyFhy]

The full name of the trust is Marketplace trust , something that is not subject to central control. It is not possible to check and verify all negative trust are 100% correct. Therefore, such negative trust/postive will affect beginners because they will not believe the information from accounts with a red trust, even if it is correct.

DT member can use it to control content

Who's to say I couldn't be in technical support intentionally steering noobs in the wrong direction.
Create financial loss, Or in mining, tell someone to overdue their overclock?.
Or in off topic slandering people?

Personally I think displayed trust should be everywhere here for pretty obvious reasons, its a consensus decision on ones character.
Take it with a grain of salt , or really try to see someone's contributing perspective.

[pugman]

Agreed.  I've been forced to leave negative trust for users because they are posting self-moderated in project development.   I've never traded with them, they have never scammed, but they probably will unless I warn others.

I think it is time to change these kind of feedbacks, isn't this why flag system was created? People are out here handing trust rating like its some candy given to a kid on Halloween. Halloween is past over. Its Christmas, snow em down.

A fresh idea for a change!   However, changing readable HTML into garbage would reduce search engine rankings.  :/

Maybe search engine rankings will tank, but I don't think the administration cares all that much about it? I could be wrong, but the rankings hasn't affected anyone. And the forum is making good revenue regardless if that is the concern.