[POLL] DT2 Status; how many net inclusions should it take?

[DireWolfM14]

I'm just curious about what you folks think.

Currently, only one DT1 inclusion is required for a member to be included in DT2 status.  In fact, a net score of 0 inclusions is all that is required, for example:  If Alice and Bob are both on DT1, and Alice includes Claire while Bob excludes Claire, Claire will be left with a net score of 0 DT1 inclusions, but that's all that is required for Claire to gain DT2 status.  In this example Claire's reviews will be displayed as "Trusted Feedback" if the user viewing the forum has the default Trust System settings.

Of course anyone can change their own Trust System settings, including the trusted depth of your included members' inclusions.  This is a good way to customize how you see "Trusted Feedback."  However, this is not something most newbies do when they first join the forum.  I don't know what percentage of members use custom trust lists, but I suspect it's on the low side of total active members.

I have mentioned my opinion about this in the past, but I'd rather not sway the voting by expressing it in this post.  I do encourage anyone with an opinion to share it here.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

I'm just curious about what you folks think.

Currently, only one DT1 inclusion is required for a member to be included in DT2 status.  In fact, a net score of 0 inclusions is all that is required, for example:  If Alice and Bob are both on DT1, and Alice includes Claire while Bob excludes Claire, Claire will be left with a net score of 0 DT1 inclusions, but that's all that is required for Claire to gain DT2 status.  In this example Claire's reviews will be displayed as "Trusted Feedback" if the user viewing the forum has the default Trust System settings.

I think having a positive score all it requires to gain DT2. Mathematically 0 is neither positive nor negative but I think in computer language it considers as positive. So when the score after at least an inclusion and exclusion from two DT1 executes, the algorithm considers it positive. The user gains DT2. Hopefully I get your explanation correct. But I will consider x >=1 not x>=0. Right now it must be x>=0.

I don't know what percentage of members use custom trust lists, but I suspect it's on the low side of total active members.

Wait them to see it, you will get the data shortly 😉

[Little Mouse]

What does DT2 mean?

We know how it works. If you list someone in your trust list, they are DT1 for you regardless of who have distrusted them. If they have someone on their trust list, they become DT2 by default (keep the default trust depth apart). So, your 1 inclusion is enough to make someone DT2 for you unless they are on your distrust list.

The same also applies here. But with net score as zero it doesn’t make sense but you need something in between +1 (DT2), -1(off DT2). I don't think this makes a lot of sense. You can't make someone DT status as neutral, something like neither shown nor hidden by default. I don’t know if I was able to make sense but that's the case here in my opinion.

[DireWolfM14]

I think having a positive score all it requires to gain DT2. Mathematically 0 is neither positive nor negative but I think in computer language it considers as positive. So when the score after at least an inclusion and exclusion from two DT1 executes, the algorithm considers it positive. The user gains DT2. Hopefully I get your explanation correct. But I will consider x >=1 not x>=0. Right now it must be x>=0.

According to Bpip you have a net score of +4 inclusions.  Just to eliminate any confusion; for Claire to be on DT2 at least one DT1 member must have her included.  But, if one includes Claire and one excludes he, she will remain on DT2 even though her net inclusions is 0.

I am of the opinion that a net score of +2 should be required for inclusion to DT2.  So, for Claire to be included in DT2, at least two DT1 members would need to include her.  If one DT1 member excludes Claire, she would need a total of three inclusions to be on DT2.  I think this would reduce the Trust System spam that is so common today.  It would also reduce the potential for trust system cliques from developing.

[Poker Player]

It sounds to me that we were talking about this topic in some other meta thread about this. I'm sure LoyceV participated in the conversation, so I'm guessing he'll come around here to comment.

I'm not sure about subtracting exclusions. What I would be fine with is if there were two instead of one inclusion by DT1 to be DT2, I think it would reinforce confidence, and at the same time reduce the number of DT2 that I see it a bit long.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

Just to eliminate any confusion; for Claire to be on DT2 at least one DT1 member must have her included.  But, if one includes Claire and one excludes he, she will remain on DT2 even though her net inclusions is 0.

I explained exactly the same. Right now only one DT1 member adds Claire to his list and it does not matter what equation it is, as long as the score is not negative, Claire is DT2 . It's x >=0.

I think this would reduce the Trust System spam that is so common today.  It would also reduce the potential for trust system cliques from developing.

No wonder we have so many DT2. I do not know what should be the standard score to be in the DT2 but the higher number is always reduce the number of spam in the system. I voted for 1 anyway.

[PrimeNumber7]

Perhaps this should be a customizable option for users to set.

I generally agree that in order for someone to be excluded from your trust network, there should be a strong consensus that the person should not be in your trust network, so a maximum of net 0 is appropriate for someone to be included (assuming one inclusion). I also don't think that having a limited number of "bad" people in your trust network is not the end of the world, especially if this person is not regularly sending trust ratings.

I realize that some may disagree with my above opinion, and they should be able to customize how their trust network propagates. I don't think this setting should propagate to others who include you on your trust list, so this particular setting would only apply to you.

[LoyceV]

I counted DT2-inclusions on Trust settings: there are 33 users with 0 (net) inclusions on DT2, and 308 with 1 inclusion.
Longer list (Update: this list includes DT1-members (when included by another DT1-member, they're on DT2 too)):

Code:

-6: 13
-5: 20
-4: 36
-3: 89
-2: 284
-1: 2723
0: 33
1: 308
2: 94
3: 61
4: 34
5: 23
6: 15
7: 9
8: 7
9: 9
10: 10
11: 7
12: 4

I'd say the minimum should be DT2 strength (2). That removes about half the users, and makes it less of a "burden" to include someone.

[DireWolfM14]

I'm not sure about subtracting exclusions.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  So, if Claire was excluded by 3 DT1 members, and included by only two she would remain on DT2?

What I would be fine with is if there were two instead of one inclusion by DT1 to be DT2, I think it would reinforce confidence, and at the same time reduce the number of DT2 that I see it a bit long.

I agree, there should be at least two DT1 inclusions at the very least.

Perhaps this should be a customizable option for users to set.

It is customizable, as you very well know.

I generally agree that in order for someone to be excluded from your trust network, there should be a strong consensus that the person should not be in your trust network, so a maximum of net 0 is appropriate for someone to be included (assuming one inclusion). I also don't think that having a limited number of "bad" people in your trust network is not the end of the world, especially if this person is not regularly sending trust ratings.

I'm not talking about my network, I'm talking about Default Trust.  You obviously know that the Trust System is customizable, or you wouldn't have customized your own.  This wouldn't change anything for those of us who've customized our trust lists, it would only have effect on those who have not customized there's, i.e. newbies and those who've yet to bother.

Here's an example of why I think this is worth discussing; I recently included a member into my trust list who's not very active but has been here for a significant amount of time, and seems to have a good head on his shoulders.  He came to my attention when he questioned me about a tag I left for a suspected scammer, suggesting that I may have jumped the gun.  His concern was admirable, and showed restraint.  I've had the same concerns in other situations.  After looking through the reviews he left for others, and reading some of his posts I decided I wanted to see his reviews in my custom trust system.

Since I'm on DT1, now that I've added him he's on DT2.  My actions have an affect of the trust lists of the majority of forum users.  I don't believe that I alone should have that power.  If some other DT1 member feels the same way about said user, then great, I'm not alone.

Also, if Bob believes he should have that power, that would make Bob specifically the type of person that I say shouldn't have it.

Code:

-1: 2723

WTF?


@LoyceV, any way to tell how many members have a custom trust list?

[LoyceV]

@LoyceV, any way to tell how many members have a custom trust list?

Yes, but you're going to be disappointed:

Code:

wget -qO- https://bitcointalk.org/trust.txt.xz | xz -d | cut -d'>' -f1 | sed s/"\/$"// | sort -u | wc -l
5034

That doesn't include users with zero posts.

[Poker Player]

I'm not sure about subtracting exclusions.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  So, if Claire was excluded by 3 DT1 members, and included by only two she would remain on DT2?

No, on second thought she shouldn't be in DT, the same way as if Claire was excluded by 33 DT1 members and included only by one.

I said earlier that I wasn't sure but I think it would be better to count net inclusions.

-1: 2723

What does that mean?

I counted DT2-inclusions on Trust settings: there are 33 users with 0 (net) inclusions on DT2, and 308 with 1 inclusion.

As you say that I understand that there are 94 users with 2 net positive inclusions, 61 with 3 net inclusions and so on. But continuing the progression with the negative numbers is not clear to me, as it could appear that there are 2723 users with one negative net inclusion (or one net exclusion), 284 with two net exclusions, and so on.

And there are not 2723 users in DT2.

[LoyceV]

it could appear that there are 2723 users with one negative net inclusion (or one net exclusion), 284 with two net exclusions, and so on.

Correct.

And there are not 2723 users in DT2.

That's how exclusions work.

[suchmoon]

I think it should be Net 1 but with 2 inclusions minimum (i.e. like the current formula but bumped up by 1).

One inclusion, no exclusions - not in DT2.
Two inclusions, no exclusions - in DT2.
Two inclusions, one exclusion - still in DT2.
Two inclusions, two exclusions - no longer in DT2.

And so on.

This would reduce the chances of (lone) rogue "includers" and rogue "excluders" from messing with the system (self-scratching etc).

I am of the opinion that a net score of +2 should be required for inclusion to DT2.  So, for Claire to be included in DT2, at least two DT1 members would need to include her.  If one DT1 member excludes Claire, she would need a total of three inclusions to be on DT2.

I don't like this asymmetry (you need to gain two inclusions to get in, but one asshole can kick you out). The current system is also asymmetric in the other direction (you need just one inclusion to get in, but only a gang of two assholes can kick you out). I prefer a balanced amount of assholery.

[yahoo62278]

I'd like to see 5 inclusions or more personally. It has already been shown multiple times that quite a few members have no idea how the trust system works, but if multiple users include the same person it makes it more likely that person is a little more trustworthy.

Of course we would have to monitor the recent inclusions at 1st and make sure lowlifes aren't just adding their scammer buddies just to try n scam the system.

[Poker Player]

And there are not 2723 users in DT2.

That's how exclusions work.

But not exclusions that include a member in DT2.

So as far as I can see the list gives us information about the members in DT2 from 0 onwards but the negatives are only the exclusions, not being able to deduce if there is among these any DT2 member  (someone for example with one DT1 inclusion and excluded by another two DT1).

According to my count from 0 to 12 inclusions there would be 614 members, and according to the last Complete overview of users on DT1 and DT2 and their ratings there were 611 DT2 members.

It will probably be because there are at least 3 new DT2s since the last update.

In any case, it seems that there is no one of what DireWolfM14 said:

So, if Claire was excluded by 3 DT1 members, and included by only two she would remain on DT2?

It is far from being a generalized problem.

In the end, the conclusion I draw from the discussion is this:

I'd say the minimum should be DT2 strength (2). That removes about half the users, and makes it less of a "burden" to include someone.

The 5 inclusions proposed by yahoo62278 are too radical a change in my opinion and I doubt that theymos would be willing to make such a change, besides it would mean moving to a somewhat aristocratic system.

[LoyceV]

I think it should be Net 1 but with 2 inclusions minimum (i.e. like the current formula but bumped up by 1).

I like it, this makes even more sense than requiring 2 inclusions.

I'd like to see 5 inclusions or more personally.

Most of the members with 5 inclusions on DT2 have been on DT1 at some time. Asking for 5 DT1 inclusions makes DT2 harder to reach than DT1, so DT2 will be mostly limited to members who lost the monthly DT1-election.

And there are not 2723 users in DT2.

That's how exclusions work.

But not exclusions that include a member in DT2.

I only added the negatives to show how many users are excluded. But it doesn't really mean anything for DT2. Most (2443) of the 2723 users with DT1 strength (-1) are excluded by a single DT1-member.

According to my count from 0 to 12 inclusions there would be 614 members, and according to the last Complete overview of users on DT1 and DT2 and their ratings there were 611 DT2 members.

It will probably be because there are at least 3 new DT2s since the last update.

That's not right. It turns out the data I posted on "DT2" in this topic includes DT1-members. I overlooked that last night. The 614 DT2-members you mentioned from my other topic don't double count DT1-members.
I've added a warning, but won't do a recount.

[Timelord2067]

I'm just curious about what you folks think.

Here is an example of how a DT1 member is abusing the system:

Trust list for: hilariousandco (Trust: +26 / =3 / -0) (1180 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP) (created 2022-06-25_Sat_05.09h)
Back to index

hilariousandco Trusts these users' judgement:
6. hilariousetc (Trust: +4 / =2 / -0) (2172 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

hilariousandco Distrusts these users' judgement:

3. ~Timelord2067 (Trust: +12 / =11 / -1) (906 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

Trust list for: hilariousetc (Trust: +4 / =2 / -0) (2172 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP) (created 2022-06-25_Sat_05.09h)
Back to index

hilariousetc Trusts these users' judgement:
-

hilariousetc Distrusts these users' judgement:
1. ~Timelord2067 (Trust: +12 / =11 / -1) (906 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)


hilariousetc's judgement is Trusted by:

3. hilariousandco (Trust: +26 / =3 / -0) (1180 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

by promoting their alt to DT2 status, their alt can then go on to give positive trust feedback to others - in this case unnoticed:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=507936;page=trusted;offset=0;dt

hilariousetc

2017-11-09

Paid me multiple times for my signature. Thanks.

hilariousandco

2019-11-18

Set me up a Canadian streaming account. Really appreciate it.

Why does this matter?  The person who received these two trust feedbacks then has a higher overall score on BPIP and also in the forum:

https://loyce.club/trust/2022-06-25_Sat_05.09h/507936.html

Trust list for: DarkStar_ (Trust: +67 / =3 / -0) (DT1! (40) 1969 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP) (created 2022-06-25_Sat_05.09h)
Back to index

on BPIP: https://bpip.org/Report?r=mosttrusted their score would be 614 not 624 - their overall recognition score would be 897.333 not 900.333 and put them into 17th place behind Lauda on a score of 898.000

(Let's not forget this user has in the past knowingly used the trust feedback by both their DT1 and DT2 to dispense *negative* trust feedback).


This is the slippery slope you go down - when you set the bench mark at one level, there will be those who are able to clear that hurdle and then are able to elevate those around them - sometime unnoticed, other times noticed after the fact.

I have no doubt DarkStar_ did not notice this - and I have no doubt DarkStar_ was NOT a participant in it occurring.

Counting zero as a positive score is an oddity I'll give you that.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I think it should be Net 1 but with 2 inclusions minimum (i.e. like the current formula but bumped up by 1).

I've voted "None of the above", because I agree with this.

I've said this before:

I've said multiple times before: DT2 members should require to be included by at least 2 different DT1 members (maybe even 3) in addition to having a net positive number of inclusions. This removes all the "soft" inclusions as well as removing the issue of people artificially inflating their own trust scores.

I used to browse the forum on occasion with the ;dt tag appended to every page, because sometimes it is useful to see what the vast majority of other users are seeing. I don't anymore, though, because DT is a complete mess. The number of users on DT2 with a single inclusion who have been included for all the wrong reasons is far too high, as Loyce's numbers above show.

Since I'm on DT1, now that I've added him he's on DT2.  My actions have an affect of the trust lists of the majority of forum users.  I don't believe that I alone should have that power.  If some other DT1 member feels the same way about said user, then great, I'm not alone.

I used to think like this too, but given what a mess DT is now, any inclusions/exclusions I make are based entirely on what I want to see when I browse the forum. It is my trust list, after all. Any effects this has on DT (short of blatantly inflating my own trust score) do not factor in to my decision at all. If I go way off base with my inclusions, then I'm certainly people will let me know and exclude me in turn. But I still agree that any one person should not have the power to add someone to DT2 without any input whatsoever from anybody else.

[LoyceV]

by promoting their alt to DT2 status, their alt can then go on to give positive trust feedback to others - in this case unnoticed:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=507936;page=trusted;offset=0;dt

hilariousetc

2017-11-09

Paid me multiple times for my signature. Thanks.

hilariousandco

2019-11-18

Set me up a Canadian streaming account. Really appreciate it.

Have you asked hilarious about this? Considering the 2 years between feedbacks, he might not even have noticed he left feedback from 2 different accounts.
Since hilariousetc has DT2 strength (8), DireWolfM14's proposal isn't going to change this.

[suchmoon]

Here is another nuance with the new proposals: DT1 lottery.

(double check the math below before making long-reaching conclusions, as it could be completely wrong because Saturday and... you know...)

If there are 125 candidates to select DT1 from (AFAIK typical these days), the chance of any candidate to be in DT1 in any given month is 80%. Under current rules, that's also the chance of a DT2 member to be in DT2 if that DT2 member has bare minimum of inclusions (one).

If we bump this up to two inclusions, then even if a DT2 member has the required minimum of inclusions (two), their chance to be in DT2 is ~64% since they need both of their "includers" to be in DT1 at the same time (0.8 * 0.8 = 0.64).

Of course it gets more convoluted once you add exclusions and/or more inclusions. For example someone with one inclusion and two exclusions (barely out of DT2 under current rules) still has a ~16% chance to "sneak" into DT2 if one of their "excluders" is not in DT1 (20% chance) and their "includer" is in. Adding two required "includers" drops that chance to ~13% (0.64 * 0.2 = 0.128).

If the DT1 candidate pool is 150, then the numbers above change from ~ 67% to 44%, and from ~ 33% to 15%, so a larger pool appears to make the proposed rules even tougher. But this doesn't consider the increased chances of someone being included or excluded by a potential DT1 member because there are more potential DT1 members.