Is it time to change some negative trust ratings to neutral or delete them?

[Pmalek]

This has been discussed multiple times in the past. It's about the trust ratings left by members who are no longer with us. Members who have either passed away or left the forum for good. Whenever a topic like that came up, the OP usually suggested deleting the negative rating altogether. That would then create controversy about which ratings should be deleted and which should be left.

I don't know if theymos can change ratings from negative to neutral. How about altering or deleting only those ratings which would undoubtedly have been changed if the member was still alive and healthy. Especially if we consider that the ratings by other members were also changed for the same issue. One example are members who get tagged for having their accounts hacked. DTs usually add a negative rating, but this rating is later changed to neutral when the account gets returned to the original user.

I found a few examples of trust ratings that are no longer valid and meet the following 2 requirements:

- The problem and reason they were given have been solved/handled.
- Other members who wrote the same feedback changed/deleted their ratings as well.

1.

The negative feedback that was given by Zepher to SwingFirst. SwingFirst had his account hacked, so Zepher tagged him. Zepher sadly passed away, and his account remains tagged.
But the tag was supposed to be of a temporary nature as Zepher pointed out himself:

@OP - I have tagged your account with a temporary negative rating until such time as you regain access to it.

Once you do, shoot me a PM from both this account, the hacked account, along with a link to this thread, and I will happily remove the rating.

Since SwingFirst proved ownership of his account, Zepher's rating is no longer valid. The problem has been solved, and the rating should be removed. suchmoon and Lauda withdrew their ratings, and bones261 added a positive one to counter the negative by Zepher. In my opinion, neither the positive rating issued by bones261 nor the negative by Zepher should stay. Both of the requirements I mentioned earlier were satisfied.


2.

The negative feedback that was given by TMAN to Best_Change. We still don't know what happened with TMAN, but the fact is he hasn't logged in since March 2020. In January 2020, he left a negative rating to Best_Change because of an ongoing scam accusation. In the meantime, that has been handled, and other members have either deleted or changed their ratings to neutral. The only negative that remains is that of TMAN. Again, both of the requirements mentioned above were fulfilled.

3.

The negative feedback that was given by Zepher to Rux. This is a different issue than the two above, but one that still warrants a 2nd look.

In 2017, Rux made a post writing:

wanna buy my account?

It was written in a thread where another user wanted to buy a Bitcointalk account. Zepher tagged him for wanting to sell his account while Rux claims that it was all a bad joke. suchmoon rewrote Zepher's rating after he was excluded from DT, but that rating seems to have been removed, and I can no longer find it.

owlcatz wrote that he was a close friend of Zepher but believed Rux after looking into the case. His response was a neutral rating. That means he believes the account was not sold. Vod also added neutral feedback stating that the account could have been sold.

I was a close friend of Zepher. I believe you after reading the threads. I'm sorry, but even if someone gives  you a green trust, it will still show his yellow as long as he remains in DT2. Don't worry about it.

Zepher was a bit over-protective of the forum for a period of time, and he did it well. Sorry you sort of ended up being collateral damage over joking, but sarcasm isn't recognized in writing really.

Cheers! Btw, I have a yellow mark too, but I wear it with honor!

Edit - left you a neutral, hope it helps. Just stay out of trouble and don't leave, that's silly.

In this particular case, 1/2 requirements are satisfied. There is no proof that Rux didn't sell his account, but there is also no proof he did. He is therefore innocent until proven guilty. Everyone else left neutral ratings or removed their initial negatives.

These 3 cases have one thing in common. The negative ratings that TMAN and Zepher left are the only negatives that those users have.

[suchmoon]

<rose-tinted-glasses>
The real solution is to stop including users who have passed away or are otherwise inactive, particularly after it becomes clear that their ratings are outdated. Admins changing ratings would open a can of worms that is really not worth it, since we have a tool to solve it on our own.
</rose-tinted-glasses>

[ranochigo]

I don't think 2 and 3 are particularly strong arguments. While others may have changed their own ratings, it doesn't necessarily mean that the user who left that rating has changed his mind though there really isn't anything to prove otherwise either. If the forum maintains its position of not interfering with trust ratings, I highly doubt anything can be done about that. There are probably tons of ratings like this and would probably result in people wasting loads of time trying to gather all the evidence and making an impartial judgement after.

Your post probably mainly highlights the shortcomings of trust system. Most trust ratings are not correctly used anyways; I have seen too many negatives that don't necessarily point to the fact that "trading with this person is high-risk". I agree that the first point could have some form of review though, it is not difficult to get the signed message from the hacked account and restore it.

[dkbit98]

We would need to have special council of all wanted, unwanted and wannabe DT members to discuss this matters, or just remove Default Trust system to fix this problem.

Imagine everyone coming from their hibernating caves to complain about all negative feedbacks Lauda (and other saints) left... and April 1st of 2022 when theymos and mods are manually changing all those feedback to neutral.
That is what we call community manual labor project, and it could happen on different days like Halloween maybe (All Saints Eve) or Thanksgiving.

[Commie]

Trust ratings don't mean f#$k all unless they are tied to a real deal that took place in the forum and can be validated via posts, pm's and so on. A while ago I bought some hardware off a forum member. It went smooth (well with a hiccup - it took the package 3 months to arrive to my place, but it's the postal services to be blamed, not the person), I left positive trust for the guy, he didn't bother doing so back. Ok, no big deal. Then later we communicate again, he was looking for a picee of hardware and I knew someone who sells. So I let him know of the offer and the price, not offering anything. BAM. My correspondent replies along the lines "this price is crazy" and disappears leaving me negative trust and wouldn't reply to my pm's. Took me a while to finally make him take it off me, but the whole trust rating thing doesn't matter jack to me anymore cos I know it can be manipulated.

PS Things mentioned above took place few years ago and at that time I think I posted here asking for advice, if I'm a bit wrong in the details don't blame me.

[ChuckBuck]

If those people are dead or are no longer active on this forum, either way, we won't be able to change their feedback on someone else's account. But we can make those feedback no longer reliable, I think that's the fastest and easiest way. Just remove those people from the DT member system. Like how Lauda left the forum, his feedback can be replaced by other. But I guess, need everyone's consensus to change the trust setting?

[The Sceptical Chymist]

The real solution is to stop including users who have passed away or are otherwise inactive, particularly after it becomes clear that their ratings are outdated. Admins changing ratings would open a can of worms that is really not worth it, since we have a tool to solve it on our own.

I agree with the part about Theymos/moderators deleting or changing feedbacks, but I don't necessarily agree with excluding members who aren't active anymore--as long as the feedback they left is valid.  If a neg was rightly given, it shouldn't matter one whit whether the person who left it is gone.

It's only a problem if the member who's disappeared is somehow still on DT (unless you're bothered by any negative feedback regardless of its weight).  Look at my trust profile.  It's loaded with negatives from idiots who've long since abandoned the forum for whatever reason.  You either accept that that's going to happen or bitch about it or leave the forum.  There aren't really any other options, since I doubt Theymos plans to remedy the situation any time soon.

[Pmalek]

The real solution is to stop including users who have passed away or are otherwise inactive, particularly after it becomes clear that their ratings are outdated.

I have to agree with The Pharmacist on this one. When looking at the ratings issued by TMAN and Zepher, I don't think they should be excluded due to their inactivity unless they are no longer valid of course.  

Admins changing ratings would open a can of worms that is really not worth it, since we have a tool to solve it on our own.

Are you talking about counter-trust ratings? A positive/neutral trust rating is as invalid as the negative rating it's supposed to counter. It boosts a user's trust who would otherwise not have received that rating, so the user now has two ratings he doesn't deserve. One positive and one negative.  

While others may have changed their own ratings, it doesn't necessarily mean that the user who left that rating has changed his mind though there really isn't anything to prove otherwise either.

It's debatable, sure. When picking out those examples I thought about how I would act in those situations. It's subjective, like any change in rating.

Imagine everyone coming from their hibernating caves to complain about all negative feedbacks Lauda (and other saints) left...

Lauda is no longer DT I believe, so her ratings wouldn't fit the profile.  

Just remove those people from the DT member system. Like how Lauda left the forum, his feedback can be replaced by other.

But if the no longer valid feedback just gets replaced by another invalid feedback, nothing changes. The problem didn't go away.

Look at my trust profile.  It's loaded with negatives from idiots who've long since abandoned the forum for whatever reason.  

True, but those ratings bear no significance whatsoever. A rating by a DT member does.

[Quickseller]

I think the 1st case is a good example as to when the admins should remove a rating someone else left. This is based on the following:
*Zepher clearly stated the rating was intended to be temporary
*Zepher clearly stated he would remove the rating once the account was restored to its prior owner
*It appears the prior owner is now back in control of his account
*Zepher is no longer with us unfortunately

This may be a bit of a moot point in this case because the person in question has not posted since he recovered access to his account.

For examples 2 and 3, it is probably a fair argument that TMAN and zepher should reconsider their ratings if they were using their forum accounts and still with us, but this would be ultimately up to TMAN and zepher respectively. If the admins were to remove these ratings, they would be substituting TMANs and zepher's judgement for their own.

[suchmoon]

I have to agree with The Pharmacist on this one. When looking at the ratings issued by TMAN and Zepher, I don't think they should be excluded due to their inactivity unless they are no longer valid of course.

Given how big DT has become, there should be no lack of duplication for any valuable ratings. Inactive person in DT is not a good use of the trust system. This is a position of some responsibility that should be taken seriously.

Are you talking about counter-trust ratings? A positive/neutral trust rating is as invalid as the negative rating it's supposed to counter. It boosts a user's trust who would otherwise not have received that rating, so the user now has two ratings he doesn't deserve. One positive and one negative.  

No, I'm still talking about excluding/not including inactive users. This is the tool that we have and we should use it. If you see any of Zepher's/TMAN's ratings that are valuable and would disappear with their exclusion, you can copy them... but on the other hand there is always a chance than any given user will drop out of DT due to lottery so it's a moot point.

[owlcatz]

No, I'm still talking about excluding/not including inactive users. This is the tool that we have and we should use it. If you see any of Zepher's/TMAN's ratings that are valuable and would disappear with their exclusion, you can copy them... but on the other hand there is always a chance than any given user will drop out of DT due to lottery so it's a moot point.

This would be the correct answer here for sure...

For the record, I've removed them both, however I'm now blacklisted from DT1 on my own request as of today,,, but I do still care about the forum.  

Cheers

[Vod]

but on the other hand there is always a chance than any given user will drop out of DT due to lottery so it's a moot point.

Does 0% still count as a chance?   

[Timelord2067]

Perhaps if a negative trust feedback were to "decay" over time if an account that left the feedback becomes inactive for a period of time.  Eventually, a behind the curtain score starts at 100 then dwindles away to zero at which point the feedback reverts to neutral.

THEN if the account continues to remain dormant, the neutral feedback also diminishes from e.g. 1,000 (10,000??) down to zero and then disappears

I think it'd be reasonable if both the 100 to zero and 1,000/10,000 clocks ticked over once per week (100 weeks is close to two years - more than enough time for others to be warned).

Perhaps to counter if a user is away then returns; for each one month the score ticks over one notch in the opposite direction until it returns to the 100% score??


I personally feel Banned users trust feedback and default trust should time out and evaporate regardless of an inactive user coming back and recharging the score.

Likewise, any "Nuked" user's trust feedback and default trust should be "nuked" when the account is.

[DaveF]

Perhaps if a negative trust feedback were to "decay" over time if an account that left the feedback becomes inactive for a period of time.  Eventually, a behind the curtain score starts at 100 then dwindles away to zero at which point the feedback reverts to neutral.

THEN if the account continues to remain dormant, the neutral feedback also diminishes from e.g. 1,000 (10,000??) down to zero and then disappears

I think it'd be reasonable if both the 100 to zero and 1,000/10,000 clocks ticked over once per week (100 weeks is close to two years - more than enough time for others to be warned).

Perhaps to counter if a user is away then returns; for each one month the score ticks over one notch in the opposite direction until it returns to the 100% score??


I personally feel Banned users trust feedback and default trust should time out and evaporate regardless of an inactive user coming back and recharging the score.

Likewise, any "Nuked" user's trust feedback and default trust should be "nuked" when the account is.

I agree with this just about 100%. People change over time.
If I (or anyone) leaves someone good or bad trust and then never check in here again it could be sitting out there for years while something changed in their lives and they went over to the other side.

On that same note, people who are inactive here should have their positive trust decay. Yes, it's a bit unfair to leave the negative out there but if you have not logged on for 2+ years are you really the same person you were back then? Probably, but you might not be.

Just my view. I think we are all certain that the way it works is not going to change but we can hope.

-Dave

[ChuckBuck]

Just remove those people from the DT member system. Like how Lauda left the forum, his feedback can be replaced by other.

But if the no longer valid feedback just gets replaced by another invalid feedback, nothing changes. The problem didn't go away.

No, that's not what I mean. The DT members can replace the feedback with other feeback. But only really useful feedback was replaced. Feedback similar to those listed above should be ignored. I take the example of TMAN, we can replace all his feedback by other DT, except for the feedback on BestChange account. Since you commented on TMAN's inappropriate feedback, I think it's the best one to remove.
But if TMAN and others are excluded, those that are included by TMAN will be at a disadvantage. I think that's not a good thing, they won't want TMAN to be excluded, maybe

[NotATether]

Perhaps if a negative trust feedback were to "decay" over time if an account that left the feedback becomes inactive for a period of time.  Eventually, a behind the curtain score starts at 100 then dwindles away to zero at which point the feedback reverts to neutral.

THEN if the account continues to remain dormant, the neutral feedback also diminishes from e.g. 1,000 (10,000??) down to zero and then disappears

What happens to real scammers tagged by now-inactive accounts? (Historic accounts and their taggers from ~4 years ago) This method is going to decay their trust as well, and if said scammers ever wake up/get reanimated the red trust will be gone.

Not that this even matters for guests since they can't see trust ratings in the first place, but they should be able to. They need to know about users' behavior too because most people won't bother registering an account.

[examplens]

Just remove those people from the DT member system. Like how Lauda left the forum, his feedback can be replaced by other.

The real solution is to stop including users who have passed away or are otherwise inactive, particularly after it becomes clear that their ratings are outdated.

I have to agree with The Pharmacist on this one. When looking at the ratings issued by TMAN and Zepher, I don't think they should be excluded due to their inactivity unless they are no longer valid of course.  

here we are talking about a couple of cases. But Lauda leaves a lot of ratings, perhaps most on the forum, negative or positive no matter. Removing/ignoring her tags would apply to everyone else even those who deserved it and there are plenty of them.
How much Lauda's tags need to be replaced?

[Timelord2067]

There were a group of users who, when Lauda was removed from the DT a couple of years ago (for previous indiscretions) blindly copied Lauda's Negative trust feed-backs dishing out identical negatives as thought they were their own.  No checks or balances to ensure that the negatives were truthful, thus perpetuating grudges in some cases that Lauda has/had with others.

As some have said in the immediate previous posts, peoples views can, do and should change over time with new information and a better understanding of what had occurred in the past.

Who is going to chase up those mirrored negative trust feed-backs to ensure they decay or are removed later on?  Answer - no one.

[suchmoon]

How much Lauda's tags need to be replaced?

Perhaps none, since Lauda has been out of DT a few times already and the world did not end. I doubt that any one person in DT is irreplaceable. There is quite a bit of redundancy. Also keep in mind that all those scammers tagged by Lauda won't automatically start to scam the minute Lauda is out of DT, nor are Lauda's ratings disappearing - just moving to the "Untrusted" part for most users, except those with custom trust lists.

[ChuckBuck]

How much Lauda's tags need to be replaced?

Maybe I came back too late to oppose your opinion as suchmoon and timelord responded to you. But, I still want to confirm my opinion.
Why should we replace Lauda's feedback when he's not a DT? His feedback were almost worthless at this point, but for TMAN and others, their feedbacks are visible to a lot of members, it can be a minus point during the trade.
Perhaps you misunderstood my opinion when I mentioned Lauda. I mentioned Lauda and the replacement of his feedback because marlboroza did. In particular, marlboroza replaced the feedback to the fraudulent account.