The radar map now has a "before/after" block: click 3, 6, or 12 months ago and it shows two small maps side by side - back then vs. today - plus a one-line summary ("Then: X incidents in Y countries. Today: ... Since then: +Z incidents, +W affected countries."). Useful for seeing whether enforcement in a region is trending up or has been flat.
It's a nice addition, but it'd be better if you could automatically list the changes when someone clicks any of those periods
[those tiny maps make it a bit harder to hover over certain countries without zooming in].
- Did I get it right that +Z and +W are supposed to be the keyboard shortcuts for showing the incidents and affected countries? It doesn't seem to do anything.BTW, the full English translation still doesn't seem to apply to some elements.
Thanks for the detailed feedback, taking each point:
Auto-listing the changes on click: that's actually already there, you may have just missed it. When you click one of the three period buttons, a summary line appears right below the two mini-maps in the same card ("Back then: X incidents in Y countries. Today: X incidents in Y countries. Since then: +N incidents, +M countries."). If it didn't show up for you, see the translation point below - that's very likely why.
+Z / +W keyboard shortcuts: I went back through the code and the live page for this, and there's no keyboard-shortcut feature anywhere on that page (or anywhere else on the site, actually - I checked). I'm not sure where that reference came from. Could you tell me where you saw it mentioned? Happy to add real shortcuts if there's a genuine use case, but right now there's nothing wired up to a key at all.
Translation: confirmed and fixed. The entire before/after comparison card - the heading, the three period buttons, the "Today" label, and the auto-generated summary text mentioned above - was hardcoded in German and never went through the site's translation layer, unlike every other label on that page. So switching to English left that whole block stuck in German, which is also almost certainly why the summary you asked about in point 1 looked like it wasn't there - it was rendering, just in the wrong language if you were viewing in English. That's live now.
Thanks for taking the time to actually poke at the details, this is the kind of feedback that gets things fixed.
Quite a substantial update. The provider verification is a good addition, especially since you clearly separate domain ownership verification from an endorsement of the service.
396 services is also a solid number, although I think the harder part for any directory starts after that: keeping hundreds of listings accurate over time and making sure trust scores remain transparent and understandable rather than becoming just another number on the page.
One thing I’m particularly curious about is the escrow part. You mention fixed transparent wallet addresses where neither you nor either party can unilaterally control the funds. How exactly is that implemented? Multisig? And in case of a dispute, who ultimately participates in deciding where the funds go?
Overall, definitely interesting to watch how this develops.
Thanks, glad the verification split read clearly - keeping "domain ownership verified" separate from "we endorse this service" matters a lot to us, and it's an easy thing for people to conflate, so good to hear it landed.
You're also right that 396 listings is the easy part. Most of the actual effort at this point goes into the less visible stuff: re-checking existing listings instead of only adding new ones, and tying incident tracking directly into each service's trust score instead of letting it sit in a separate silo, so the score is something you can actually trace back to specific events rather than a static badge.
On escrow - good question, and I'd rather give you the accurate answer than the cleaner-sounding one we'd previously used. It's not multisig. It's a single fixed on-chain address per currency that we (the platform) control. The buyer pays into it, confirms receipt, and the release to the seller is an admin-side action - meaning us, not an automated contract and not something either the buyer or seller can trigger alone. So our earlier wording ("neither we nor either party can unilaterally control the funds") overstated it - we can release it unilaterally, the two trading parties individually can't. I've corrected that description on the site to say what it actually does instead of what it was supposed to sound like. Real multisig for the marketplace is in planning so the operator stops being the single point of control, but that's not live yet.
If a trade is disputed, it opens a dedicated thread in the forum's dispute category where both sides post their evidence, and moderation makes the call after reviewing it - that decision is binding per the marketplace rules. It's a person looking at both sides, not an algorithm.
Appreciate you asking the pointed version of the question instead of taking the one-liner at face value.
