Feedback Tag System

[(BTC)]

It seems that the feedback tag system would be better off if it was split into two categories, no?

One category that is more evidence-based, focused on behaviors, patterns, and history of the user in terms of anything that has to do with money. Ideally, it should always have a reference. Another category, that is more opinionated, not a huge deal if no reference but would be good if there was one, which focuses on the personality, political views, etc of the user.

Objective feedback - Directly has an effect on the #/#/# numbers. Based on verifiable facts, observable reality, revolving around anything that has to do with money, making deals, trading, etc. This category will always be visible.

Subjective feedback - Has no effect on the #/#/# numbers. Based on individual feelings, interpretations, and personal perspectives. This category would be hidden, like untrusted feedback, and would require the reader to click on a dropdown "Show ratings" thingy.

I've read a few guides, and most (if not all of them) say that feedback tags are to be used for commenting on that person's money behavior/history. However, many users here leave red-tag/neutral-tag comments based on the person's content of character. So this leads to situations where people loophole their way around it, by leaving something along the lines of: "This person is rude, posts stupid commentary, and supports a political view that favors deporting immigrants, which is awful, so they must be risky to trade with. ". In turn, users that have never received a negative or neutral tag for money related things, get them for difference in opinions things, which affects the ever so precious colored trust numbers directly under their name, likely eliciting an overtly emotional response/dissatisfaction with the system.

Can someone more experienced than me explain why this is a good change? Bad change? Un-needed change?

Thanks.

[_act_]

If you click on anyone's profile, you will see 'trust' which will take you to the feedback that you are discussing about. It is called the trust feedbacks for a reason which about people you trust and people you do not trust, which supposed to be related to what money is involved like campaigns, lending, buying and selling of goods and services, trades of coins and fiat, and scam.

But there are some reasons that someone can give neutral tag that can be different from money related reasons. Example are: using AI, spamming or if an account change hands after long period of inactivity and whatsoever. All these should fall under neutral feedbacks.

[Mahiyammahi]

Op the trust system is dedicated to community. Majority wins here, also you can't just revoke a system where majority pf people trust a single person. This is what also theymos discussed on that particular thread if you goes to all pages. If you think a individual is operating in a group to abuse the trust system than report with enough evidence mods will definitely look into it.

If you click on anyone's profile, you will see 'trust' which will take you to the feedback that you are discussing about. It is called the trust feedbacks for a reason which about people you trust and people you do not trust, which supposed to be related to what money is involved like campaigns, lending, buying and selling of goods and services, trades of coins and fiat, and scam.

I think OP wants to be in safe side. A red tag don't looks well in profile , so if there's a official statement about this user's can have negative and positive both reaction. Even though ultimately feedback matter's but first impression is always matter while trading.

[(BTC)]

there are some reasons that someone can give neutral tag that can be different from money related reasons. Example are: using AI, spamming or if an account change hands after long period of inactivity and whatsoever. All these should fall under neutral feedbacks.

Yes, I agree with you that's typically how feedback is alternatively used when money is not in the equation. However, you're not engaging with the main argument of how opinianated feedback, regardless of the type (green/white/red), can change the number under someone's profile, which can lead to influence on first impressions as @Mahiyammahi stated. Almost every single thread someone has made, of which the main topic is feedback-abuse, feed-back complaining, etc, generally boils down to facts vs. opinions. It's easier for a fool to make endless circular arguments against DT members when feedback tags (again, regardless of color) aren't seperated by facts and opinions in a sense that one changes the trust number under their name, and one doesn't.

[Vod]

A red tag don't looks well in profile

Even if a user has a dozen negative DT ratings, they can always exclude those users so it appears to them that they are well trusted. 

[SuperBitMan]

I really don’t like discussing about this trust system anymore because no matter how we talk about the trust system nothing will be done about it because the forum management feels the way trust system is, is actually okay for the forum.
A lot of threads has been created for suggestions on how the trust system will function better but nothing has been done, so theirs no point is discussing about it or bringing suggestions that may stabilize things, when we should be making suggestions is when the forum management ask for it.
Right now even some of the rules or things said by the management concerning how the trust system should work is not been followed by members and nothing is been done, so no point in discussing about trust system till when the management are actually ready for a change or amendment so all the loopholes can be covered.

[notocactus]

It seems that the feedback tag system would be better off if it was split into two categories, no?

One category that is more evidence-based, focused on behaviors, patterns, and history of the user in terms of anything that has to do with money. Ideally, it should always have a reference. Another category, that is more opinionated, not a huge deal if no reference but would be good if there was one, which focuses on the personality, political views, etc of the user.

Trust feedbacks need to have references but so far there is no restriction like without a reference link, it's not allowed to leave a trust feedback on any account. Consequently it's impossible to prevent people leaving trust feedbacks without reference links.
With the current trust feedback system, you can read this guide wrote by LoyceV for proper use of it.
LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system.

In fact that forum's trust system has had some changes historically as I collected it in Bitcointalk's important historic changes.

Trust system
1. Original Trust system

• Trust improvements
• Trust vocabulary
• Minor trust score algorithm change

2. Default Trust change;
3. Trust flags (from which we have flags that have separate and different functions than Trust, feedback, to avoid misusing)
I highly recommend the guide from LoyceV: LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system
4. 5 trust feedback per user
It was applied since 2nd February 2019

OK, new limits:
 - You can't give more than 5 ratings to a single user.
 - Your total sent ratings is limited to three times your activity, but at least 1.
 - The comment length is limited to 600 characters, but each newline counts as 120 characters.

[(BTC)]

Trust feedbacks need to have references but so far there is no restriction like without a reference link, it's not allowed to leave a trust feedback on any account. Consequently it's impossible to prevent people leaving trust feedbacks without reference links.

I made this in order to better convey what I'm trying to suggest. The result would be six possible unique feedback tags instead of three:



The current feedback system causes endless disputes over if certain feedback is abusive or not because personal grievances can affect the appearances of the #/#/# under someone's avatar. Splitting feedback into objective/subjective categories, with only objective feedback influencing the #/#/#, implies a sort of burden to prove claims, and allows for opinions to be read for what they are - and that's it. It will allow the receiving end of a tag based on opinions to have the room/comfortability to say "Whatever that's their opinion.", which to me, is an important part of life. If you took everyone's opinions seriously, you'd surely go insane. It's not to say that all opinions are to be minimized because of what they are intrinsically, because I do believe there are good and bad opinions - which is where consensus comes in.

If a user selects an objective tag, the community would expect a reference link, although there can be situations where it may not be needed. Subective tags would also isolates personal opinions behind an extra click - they are recognized as personal opinions, but are hidden under a collapsible "Show ratings" function like "Untrusted feedback" is. This keeps a user's primary public trust score tied strictly to operational objective facts, eliminating circular arguments over personal disputes involving conflicting political views, whether one person thinks another person is an asshole, etc. I know the "Neutral tag" accomplishes the alternate-to-trade-risk reason for leaving feedback, but it still affects appearance. Neutral feedback can be evidence-based and opinion-based too, as my image (hopefully) accomplishes to represent.