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

[DireWolfM14]

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

I really like this proposal, so I reset the poll and included this option.  If you've voted, please vote again.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

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

I really like this proposal, so I reset the poll and included this option.  If you've voted, please vote again.

I like the proposal too. At least it's better than having just one inclusion. But I will always like to have higher number of net inclusion. It reduce the chances of spam DT2 members. Right now it is too easy to be in DT2. No disrespect to anyone but many users are using it in their favour very easily.

Voted again but unfortunately I pressed the wrong option LOL
I wanted to go with Net of 3 or more DT1 Inclusions 😂

[philipma1957]

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.

I did at least two and a net of one.

although your net +2 is a tad stricter. I would think either one is better than current set of rules.

so far everyone voted for either of the two above.

[PrimeNumber7]

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.

Oh, you are referring to the default, default settings. I made my argument in the post you cited that the status quo should remain.

The option to customize the number of net inclusions for someone to be included in your trust network is not currently available. Currently, if someone has a net 0 number of inclusions (with at least one inclusion), they will be in your trust network, and the only way around this is to manually exclude them. I was proposing to allow for you to require that at least x number of inclusions to be required for someone to be in your trust network if they are not explicitly in your trust list.

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.

There is one thing you are leaving out -- the underlying reason why someone has this power is that many people have included the person in their trust list. Those who are on DT1 is (somewhat) random, and does rotate, however the people who are on DT1 are not arbitrary, they have effectively been chosen by the community to have this power.

[Timelord2067]

Have you asked hilarious about this?

How? They have blocked PM's from me since their tirade in 2017...

Considering the 2 years between feedbacks, he might not even have noticed he left feedback from 2 different accounts.

Given on the 2020-09-12, 22:09:04 you wrote this: (context - In relation to their two negative trust feedbacks)

I think it's bad if he leaves feedback from both accounts to the same person (as he did to you), but that feedback was removed after several users expressed their disapproval.

You don't suppose they should have gone back over the dozen or so trust feedbacks on their alt accounts and made corrections?

No.  They consciously used two alts for negative trust feedback AND they have also in more recent times used the DT trust to engage in DT trust abuse.  Plain and simple.


Changing the number of DT1/DT2 required to enable the changes proposed by the OP will only mean someone with alts can and will use them to slam their distorted votes on others.

[NotATether]

Mathematically 0 is neither positive nor negative but I think in computer language it considers as positive.

IEEE computer floating-point arithmetic also has a negative zero but nobody with their fancy compiler optimizations respects that anymore.
Anyway, maybe it'd be better for at least a net 1 DT2 score with two inclusions.

[Poker Player]

Do you think there is any chance that theymos will implement a change in this regard?

At the moment the most voted option is: "Net of 1, but with a minimum of 2 DT1 Inclusions"

From what I have seen in all the threads that make proposals for changes to the forum, in the end nothing is implemented.

[Igebotz]

Do you think there is any chance that theymos will implement a change in this regard?

At the moment the most voted option is: "Net of 1, but with a minimum of 2 DT1 Inclusions"

From what I have seen in all the threads that make proposals for changes to the forum, in the end nothing is implemented.

I noticed theymos only contribute to a topic he likes/support the idea.

Well, i can't recall the last time theymos implemented anything on this forum; I believe he's been preoccupied with the new forum software, I could be wrong, but I believe that most of our suggestions will be implemented in the new forum. theymos appears to be only concerned with the weekly DT elections and the yearly merits source appointment. All other suggestions have been like throwing water on the back of a fowl.

[LoyceV]

i can't recall the last time theymos implemented anything on this forum

I can: May 9, 2022

[Igebotz]

i can't recall the last time theymos implemented anything on this forum

I can: May 9, 2022

However, those changes would only affect a small number of people who use the auction sub-board; we want to see something more general, and we have had a few suggestions over the years, but none have been implemented. This OP pool is just one of many.

Edit: thanks for the reminder! 

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

so far everyone voted for either of the two above.

Whatever the net everyone is thinking, it is obvious that a net of 0 does not work properly, very easy to misuse.

Do you think there is any chance that theymos will implement a change in this regard?

This is a very good question. History tells us that there are very little chance for him to do something about it. He must have other priorities 😉

[The Sceptical Chymist]

No wonder we have so many DT2.

No shit; it's definitely not the way it used to be.  I haven't read this thread in full (yet), but IIRC before Theymos made the rotating system change, a member needed two DT1 inclusions in order to be on DT2--and even then, if some other DT1 member(s) decided to exclude you, off DT2 you went.  

I say all of that because that's exactly what happened to me at some point in 2018, right around the time the merit system came out.  Blazed and Hilariousandco included me on their trust lists, but OgNasty and Tomatocage subsequently excluded me.  T'was a very strange period indeed.

I voted for two inclusions, but seeing as how there are so many DT2 members the standards really ought to be higher.  People might forget that even being on DT2 brings with it a lot of power with respect to the weight of your feedback and to a lesser extent whether people will automatically trust you when doing a deal.  It's not a trivial matter--not then, not now.

i can't recall the last time theymos implemented anything on this forum

I can: May 9, 2022

G'damn, you are the reigning master of statistics and of forum history.  I bow humbly before you, sir LoyceV.

[dkbit98]

I voted for third option Net of 1 with a minimum of 2 DT1 Inclusions.
If we are already changing how DT2 members are elected maybe we should think about reducing number of DT1 members as well.
One part of DT1 members could be moved to DT2, and I don't know exact number but I think we do need some reduction, like some members suggested before.
I am not great in math, so I will leave calculations to other people.

[DireWolfM14]

Currently, if someone has a net 0 number of inclusions (with at least one inclusion), they will be in your trust network, and the only way around this is to manually exclude them.

No, that's not how it works.  No amount of inclusions or exclusions affect my trust network.  Only my inclusions and exclusions have any effect.  If I have my trust system depth set to 1 or (the default) 2, then those who are included by the members I've included will have an effect.  Again, you're missing the point; this proposal has nothing to do with inclusions and exclusions on their own.  It's about those 100 or so members who are on DT1, and the affect their inclusions have on the system as a whole.

There is one thing you are leaving out -- the underlying reason why someone has this power is that many people have included the person in their trust list. Those who are on DT1 is (somewhat) random, and does rotate, however the people who are on DT1 are not arbitrary, they have effectively been chosen by the community to have this power.

Indeed, they have been chosen by a very small minority of the community:

Code:

5034

A little over 5,000 users have voted, and those votes affect the forum's trust system for millions of users.  Not my idea of good representation.  Doubling the threshold for DT2 inclusion isn't going to fix all the abuses from which the trust system suffers, but it'll make it a bit harder to abuse.

Do you think there is any chance that theymos will implement a change in this regard?

This is a very good question. History tells us that there are very little chance for him to do something about it. He must have other priorities 😉

I disagree.  Let's be real, this is theymos' forum and he may disagree with the premise of this thread.  What he chooses to do is purely up to him, but he's been accommodating in the past.  Not long ago I made a stink about all the AWS scammers in the digital goods section, and he responded by banning those sales:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5173486.msg52093309#msg52093309

[Welsh]

A little over 5,000 users have voted, and those votes affect the forum's trust system for millions of users.  Not my idea of good representation.  Doubling the threshold for DT2 inclusion isn't going to fix all the abuses from which the trust system suffers, but it'll make it a bit harder to abuse.

Yeah, it's somewhat bad that so many users are potentially blindly trusting the DefaultTrust. However, 5000 users voting isn't actually to bad. I mean there's a common belief with statistics that at the very minimum 1000 should be in the dataset, which we're above at the least. Obviously, the more, the better that goes without saying.

Although, 5000 users including various different users, isn't a terrible representation. It would be interesting to see how those 5000 trust lists differ. You know, if they aren't changed all that much, and only adding a few users to the list, or excluding some, that would could be more of an issue. However, 5000 users on face value alone, doesn't strike me as terrible. I'm actually surprised it's that many to be honest. Not everyone trades on the forum, and not everyone necessarily needs the trust system.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

I disagree.  Let's be real, this is theymos' forum and he may disagree with the premise of this thread.  What he chooses to do is purely up to him, but he's been accommodating in the past.  Not long ago I made a stink about all the AWS scammers in the digital goods section, and he responded by banning those sales:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5173486.msg52093309#msg52093309

I missed that topic. Good job for letting him doing it.

What I understand, he has a list of priorities and none of us know what's in the list. Something is very important to us could be less important for him, not saying that changing the net score is something very important right now. It's working but it would be better if the score is higher. Hopefully he also see the importance like us.

I remember when I was asking to change the display name, his response was very quick in PM.

[Welsh]

What I understand, he has a list of priorities and none of us know what's in the list. Something is very important to us could be less important for him, not saying that changing the net score is something very important right now. It's working but it would be better if the score is higher. Hopefully he also see the importance like us.

I'll have to find it, or rely on someone who's a little bit quicker, but there was a time where theymos gave his opinion on certain features that were suggested over the years, and they categorised them in terms of priority or at least what they somewhat agree with, and don't.

It was a pretty extensive list. So, we got a little insight into their priorities, as well as how their mind works when it comes to implementing things into the forum. I don't specifically recall the trust system being mentioned though. Although, it might have been. Think this post is a few years old at this point.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Here you go: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4893744.msg44432901#msg44432901

[Welsh]

Right, so while theymos didn't necessarily categorise them based on priority, you can kind of read between the lines, and establish what might be implemented before something else. Ok/maybe obviously being better than the no category.

Obviously, this was back in 2018, and some of these changes have actually been implemented.

Here you go: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4893744.msg44432901#msg44432901

Cheers, I tried searching through my merit history with theymos as I was sure I would've merited it. However, didn't.

Also, 2018! Time flies.

[DireWolfM14]

It's been almost two weeks since I updated the poll, and so far no one has voted for a net score of 0, which is the current setting.

Suchmoon's suggestion of net 1 with a minimum of 2 inclusions seems to be the crowd favorite.  It is interesting that all who've voted would like DT2 inclusion more restrictive that it currently is.

Right, so while theymos didn't necessarily categorise them based on priority, you can kind of read between the lines, and establish what might be implemented before something else. Ok/maybe obviously being better than the no category.

Obviously, this was back in 2018, and some of these changes have actually been implemented.

Which of the "Ok" items have not been implemented?  Most of those seem like old features to me, lol.  Several of the "Maybe" items seem to have been implemented as well, and the Bpip extension takes care of at least one.

I'm tempted to resurrect that thread to suggest an onion address for the site.

Cheers, I tried searching through my merit history with theymos as I was sure I would've merited it. However, didn't.

Lol, I don't use it as such, but it is a handy way to "bookmark" posts to which you'd like to refer at a later date.

Also, 2018! Time flies.

I was still in diapers, probably running around in the alts board during those days.