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 opinions of 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.

[FinneysTrueVision]

There isn’t a need to make the system more complicated. People are free to ignore feedback if they don’t agree with it. Negative trust doesn’t automatically get users removed from signature campaigns if the manager doesn’t consider it valid. Other than being mildly annoying, being tagged for something frivolous won’t have a meaningful impact on somebody’s account most of the time.

[The Cryptovator]

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.

Could we consider whether there are already two categories? One is a feedback system, and another is a flag system. Feedback serving as a warning, leaving a comment on a user profile and raising a flag against obvious scammers to warn other users. So the current system is working fine for me; each of us would demand changes, and admins won't follow all of us.

Regarding the reference links, I think they should be mandatory. Because sometimes it's hard to understand the real story behind the feedback, so when there is a reference link, then we would know the real story. So if there are no reference links, then they must need to be created by the DT members or those who have been leaving the feedback. One could simply create a thread on a reputation or related board and use it as a reference link.

[ABCbits]

Considering feedback isn't moderated, i can see people would choose wrong category either by mistake or intentional. This is why people should verify detail/reference of the feedback, before deciding it's something that actually agree or not.

Negative trust doesn’t automatically get users removed from signature campaigns if the manager doesn’t consider it valid.

For better or worse, this is also true when account with negative or neutral feedback join signature campaign.

FWIW, some user found out account with many neutral/negative tags accepted on signature campaign.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5535279.msg66553848#msg66553848
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5575985.msg66467314#msg66467314

So IMO there's far less reason not to tag such alt/farm account.

[LoyceV]

A long time ago, the feedback system used to have a field for the amount of Bitcoin that was involved in a transaction. That was removed. When I look at my (received) feedback, most of it wasn't for anything money-related, and I think those are much harder to earn than just taking a loan and paying it back. You could call them subjective, but I like to believe someone who spent years here (currently 602 days and counting) is objectively less likely to scam someone than someone who did a couple of trades and doesn't spend much time on the forum.

That looks.... complicated
What do you do when someone leaves an "objective" rating that's not objective at all? Will Mods have to edit feedback? That's not going to happen.

the forum management feels the way trust system is, is actually okay for the forum.

Citation needed:

For years I've been unhappy with how DefaultTrust ended up as a centralized and largely-untouchable authority, but I was reluctant to change it because the alternatives seemed too messy. However, I've finally decided to try some changes, and we'll see how it works.
~
I am never completely tied to anything, but let's try this for at least a few months and see how it works.

I'd say the current iteration of the Trust system is in place until something better comes along.

[hugeblack]

I think the problem lies in the number of DT1/DT2 members; this large number makes the system less reliable, to the point that some DT1 accounts have -1.

- It might be better to reduce the number of DT1 members to 20 to be chosen from among the top 40 trusted members.
- DT1 can only add 5 accounts to the DT2 list.

We will have fewer than 100 trusted members in total, which is a sufficient number.

[Joy- maker]

There is no point in splitting the feedback system into two categories as you suggested, the system is perfectly ok as it is. What should be looked into is how some DT members are abusing the system, giving negative feedback or neutral feedback to someone  simply because you disagree with his or her opinion doesn't make sense to me.

It is high time that theymos address this issue before it get out of hand, I have seen someone DT members leave feedback that is both illogical and unreasonable as it lacks sound reasoning and doesn't appear to be justified by the circumstances.

[SuperBitMan]

the forum management feels the way trust system is, is actually okay for the forum.

Citation needed:

For years I've been unhappy with how DefaultTrust ended up as a centralized and largely-untouchable authority, but I was reluctant to change it because the alternatives seemed too messy. However, I've finally decided to try some changes, and we'll see how it works.
~
I am never completely tied to anything, but let's try this for at least a few months and see how it works.

I'd say the current iteration of the Trust system is in place until something better comes along.

My citation is the long silence the management has given to the trust system issues, I believe not  all the ideas that has been brought up by members are wrong or bad, some of the ideas will really help in making the trust system work better even though not perfectly well but it would solve a lot of issues, take for example putting a reference when giving a negative feedback I believe this would have solved some issues.
The management should just make a rule that most be followed by all DT members and the punishment that comes with breaking such rules.

The citation you brought shows the management are concern in doing something about the trust system issues but it’s been 7 years + now since that statement of concern was made.

I think the problem lies in the number of DT1/DT2 members; this large number makes the system less reliable, to the point that some DT1 accounts have -1.

- It might be better to reduce the number of DT1 members to 20 to be chosen from among the top 40 trusted members.
- DT1 can only add 5 accounts to the DT2 list.

We will have fewer than 100 trusted members in total, which is a sufficient number.

I don’t believe the problem lies by the numbers of DT members in the forum, the problem lies in lack of rules to guide the operation of DT members.
When a system is created and then people are given some powers, to make sure that they don’t act with emotion, anger, fear etc. a rule should be made with clear punishment for rule breakers.
when this is done the problems are solved.

[LoyceV]

The management should just make a rule that most be followed by all DT members

That's not going to happen:

the forum's mission to be as free as possible.

on Trust, the community polices itself.

[SuperBitMan]

The management should just make a rule that most be followed by all DT members

That's not going to happen:

the forum's mission to be as free as possible.

on Trust, the community polices itself.

But the forum is not entirely free because we have rules that when broken can lead a member from being ban from the forum for example plagiarism, so the forum is not entirely free, we also have rules preventing people from doing AItcoin giveaways on the forum and when broken will lead to temporary ban, No begging on the forum.
We have many rules that restrict people from being free in the forum and this rules and the punishment attached in it are the reason why the forum is functioning properly and better.
Just imagine we don’t have all this rules and punishments that are attached to it on the forum, how do you think the forum would have been?

If the forum management are not ready to make a rule that all DT members must follow they should no we will keep having issues about the trust system, no matter how reputable and reasonable a person is, a day will come when they will surely act or use their power inappropriately, but with rules they will be guided no matter the circumstances they find themselves since their is a punishment for every inappropriate act by them.

[LoyceV]

But the forum is not entirely free

You seem to ignore the "as free as possible" part.

[lovesmayfamilis]

But the forum is not entirely free because we have rules that when broken can lead a member from being ban from the forum for example plagiarism, so the forum is not entirely free, we also have rules preventing people from doing AItcoin giveaways on the forum and when broken will lead to temporary ban, No begging on the forum.
We have many rules that restrict people from being free in the forum and this rules and the punishment attached in it are the reason why the forum is functioning properly and better.
Just imagine we don’t have all this rules and punishments that are attached to it on the forum, how do you think the forum would have been?

If the forum management are not ready to make a rule that all DT members must follow they should no we will keep having issues about the trust system, no matter how reputable and reasonable a person is, a day will come when they will surely act or use their power inappropriately, but with rules they will be guided no matter the circumstances they find themselves since their is a punishment for every inappropriate act by them.

You always have the opportunity to disqualify any DT participant by giving him a tilde; read what needs to be done for this, and Satofan is a good example that, in some cases, the forum is unanimous (not all, but many). The problem is that people who complain about the unfair system still don't really understand it, don't know how to use it, and sometimes don't have their own trust lists. What kind of double or triple systems can we talk about if it is difficult for people to understand a single one?

[(BTC)]

Reserved. Super appreciative you guy's I've quoted here in this post for actually commenting on the objective/subjective stuff. Just want remind everyone reading this thread that's the main discussion point I want to engage with here. This isn't about the whole trust system, trust lists, or overall feelings of the current trust system, although I do recognize tying in the system as a whole can be relevant in terms of discussing feedback tags. Just got back from work, going sleep first before I respond to these quotes properly.

There is no point in splitting the feedback system into two categories as you suggested, the system is perfectly ok as it is.

I'm following you so far. You think splitting sent feedback into subjective/objective is pointless - system is perfectly ok.

What should be looked into is how some DT members are abusing the system, giving negative feedback or neutral feedback to someone  simply because you disagree with his or her opinion doesn't make sense to me.

Now I'm lost. You're complaining about the feedback system you said was perfectly fine.

~

~

~

~