Trust improvements

[wry]

I made three improvements to the Trust system:

Firstly, there is now a neutral rating type. Neutral ratings don't affect a person's trust score at all. On a person's trust page, positive ratings are bold, neutral ratings are italic, and negative ratings are red bold-italic.

Thanks for improving the trust system!  Can I change my current trust feedback from one rating to another?  I see delete but not "edit" when I go to revisit my rating.

Thanks!

[1714181295]

1714181295

[1714181295]

1714181295

[1714181295]

1714181295

[1714181295]

1714181295

[1714181295]

1714181295

[1714181295]

1714181295

[dooglus]

Almost back to square one, then?! What's the point of having neutrals? Belief is not the same as proof, and should be a lesser rating level (that still displays in yellow on poster_info).

I don't see why I would ever give anyone a neutral rating. If I have had no dealings with them and haven't seen them acting in an untrustworthy fashion, I'll just not leave any rating.

Currently I see a bunch of dice sites taking "investments". Historically that's been pretty dodgy, with a few sites running off with the invested coins. Does that mean I should leave a "neutral" rating for the sites which are still running successfully saying I suspect that they might run off with the coins even though I have no proof that they have any such intention?

[TheButterZone]

Almost back to square one, then?! What's the point of having neutrals? Belief is not the same as proof, and should be a lesser rating level (that still displays in yellow on poster_info).

I don't see why I would ever give anyone a neutral rating. If I have had no dealings with them and haven't seen them acting in an untrustworthy fashion, I'll just not leave any rating.

Currently I see a bunch of dice sites taking "investments". Historically that's been pretty dodgy, with a few sites running off with the invested coins. Does that mean I should leave a "neutral" rating for the sites which are still running successfully saying I suspect that they might run off with the coins even though I have no proof that they have any such intention?

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy right now. Since neutrals (I'd prefer they be called "suspect") don't get reflected in the design scheme to the left (poster_info) in rating display=on subforums, there's no point in leaving any, or having a neutral rating selector, at all.

[freedomno1]

There's this cause "You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.", so a negative feedback is certainly sanctioned.

OK, so it changed again. Yesterday it just said "You were scammed".

Problem solved then I guess.

Yep looks like Theymos read it and fixed it
Neutral will just exist for non-impact ratings I guess where one won't receive positive trust or negative trust.
But agree that a suspect categorization would work better

[bluemountain]

Almost back to square one, then?! What's the point of having neutrals? Belief is not the same as proof, and should be a lesser rating level (that still displays in yellow on poster_info).

I don't see why I would ever give anyone a neutral rating. If I have had no dealings with them and haven't seen them acting in an untrustworthy fashion, I'll just not leave any rating.

Currently I see a bunch of dice sites taking "investments". Historically that's been pretty dodgy, with a few sites running off with the invested coins. Does that mean I should leave a "neutral" rating for the sites which are still running successfully saying I suspect that they might run off with the coins even though I have no proof that they have any such intention?

I don't think dice sites would ever be a very good candidate for neutral feedback (with the exception of maybe holding escrow for the dice site - if you hold escrow for someone it would not necessarily mean that they are trustworthy). I think better examples of instances of when it is appropriate to leave neutral feedback would be found in the (digital) goods, lending and currency exchange sections (as well as auctions)

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Yep looks like Theymos read it and fixed it
Neutral will just exist for non-impact ratings I guess where one won't receive positive trust or negative trust.
But agree that a suspect categorization would work better

Or "bought something from this user with escrow".

[Vod]

Thanks for improving the trust system!  Can I change my current trust feedback from one rating to another?  I see delete but not "edit" when I go to revisit my rating.

You can change your current trust feedback by deleting it and re-adding it.

[KWH]

Almost back to square one, then?! What's the point of having neutrals? Belief is not the same as proof, and should be a lesser rating level (that still displays in yellow on poster_info).

I don't see why I would ever give anyone a neutral rating. If I have had no dealings with them and haven't seen them acting in an untrustworthy fashion, I'll just not leave any rating.

Currently I see a bunch of dice sites taking "investments". Historically that's been pretty dodgy, with a few sites running off with the invested coins. Does that mean I should leave a "neutral" rating for the sites which are still running successfully saying I suspect that they might run off with the coins even though I have no proof that they have any such intention?

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy right now. Since neutrals (I'd prefer they be called "suspect") don't get reflected in the design scheme to the left (poster_info) in rating display=on subforums, there's no point in leaving any, or having a neutral rating selector, at all.

I would like to see a yellow number under the User name with the amount of warnings to entice others to view, but we have a workable fix for now. Thanks Theymos.
Keep in mind: Almost any system implemented will have bugs and abuse at some level.

[deluxeCITY]

Almost back to square one, then?! What's the point of having neutrals? Belief is not the same as proof, and should be a lesser rating level (that still displays in yellow on poster_info).

I don't see why I would ever give anyone a neutral rating. If I have had no dealings with them and haven't seen them acting in an untrustworthy fashion, I'll just not leave any rating.

Currently I see a bunch of dice sites taking "investments". Historically that's been pretty dodgy, with a few sites running off with the invested coins. Does that mean I should leave a "neutral" rating for the sites which are still running successfully saying I suspect that they might run off with the coins even though I have no proof that they have any such intention?

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy right now. Since neutrals (I'd prefer they be called "suspect") don't get reflected in the design scheme to the left (poster_info) in rating display=on subforums, there's no point in leaving any, or having a neutral rating selector, at all.

I would like to see a yellow number under the User name with the amount of warnings to entice others to view, but we have a workable fix for now. Thanks Theymos.
Keep in mind: Almost any system implemented will have bugs and abuse at some level.

I don't think a neutral trust rating is actually meant to be a warning, only something that would allow someone who is potentially going to trade with a user to see what people have said (that should be neither negative nor positive). One example would be that a user has used escrow several times to do deals; this would show that a user is willing to use escrow

[TheButterZone]

If a user uses escrow and the escrow goes well, then you rate the user for 0 risked BTC and the escrow agent for x risked BTC, both positively...

[monnecon]

If a user uses escrow and the escrow goes well, then you rate the user for 0 risked BTC and the escrow for risked BTC, positively...

Right now escrows are leaving positive trust feedbacks for people just for using their services. So that's probably a great idea.
People can't just get positive feedback because they have done a smooth deal through an escrow, IMO.

[TheButterZone]

If a user uses escrow and the escrow goes well, then you rate the user for 0 risked BTC and the escrow agent for x risked BTC, both positively...

Right now escrows are leaving positive trust feedbacks for people just for using their services. So that's probably a great idea.
People can't just get positive feedback because they have done a smooth deal through an escrow, IMO.

If I were an escrow agent, I probably wouldn't ever leave positive trust, only a negative on the scammer's side (the thing I'm escrowing does not meet the terms of contract) - or a neutral/suspect (one side I suspect to be a scammer, but the escrow is completed with merely suspicious behavior over the time elapsed, or suspiciously fails prematurely, like during the pre-delivery phase).

[Vod]

If a user uses escrow and the escrow goes well, then you rate the user for 0 risked BTC and the escrow agent for x risked BTC, both positively...

Right now escrows are leaving positive trust feedbacks for people just for using their services. So that's probably a great idea.
People can't just get positive feedback because they have done a smooth deal through an escrow, IMO.

If I were an escrow agent, I probably wouldn't ever leave positive trust, only a negative on the scammer's side (the thing I'm escrowing does not meet the terms of contract) - or a neutral/suspect (one side I suspect to be a scammer, but the escrow is completed with merely suspicious behavior over the time elapsed, or suspiciously fails prematurely, like during the pre-delivery phase).

I was recently an escrow, and one of the parties PMed me asking for positive trust.  My response was to deny positive trust because I didn't need to trust them to do my escrow. 

[kingscrown]

can we have default list updated too?

[hilariousandco]

I think the neutrals should be a yellow colour or something and show up in the trusted section if they're from users on the default trust. Just saw one vod left and thought he'd left a positive and been removed from default trust for a minute  .

[Peter882]

I think the neutrals should be a yellow colour or something and show up in the trusted section if they're from users on the default trust. Just saw one vod left and thought he'd left a positive and been removed from default trust for a minute  .

Yellow text will be very hard to read. What about using blue for positive ratings and black for neutral ones?

[guitarplinker]

I think the neutrals should be a yellow colour or something and show up in the trusted section if they're from users on the default trust. Just saw one vod left and thought he'd left a positive and been removed from default trust for a minute  .

Yellow text will be very hard to read. What about using blue for positive ratings and black for neutral ones?

Or even a green font might work well for positive ratings, and black for neutral.

[peligro]

Good move, but you also need to reset the whole trust ratings. I see a lot of green accounts, and digging deeper it shows that they sent first or used an escrow.

Look at cooldgamer's sent feedbacks. He is on the default trust list so all those he trusts show up as trustworthy, and he didn't take any risk with them.

[hilariousandco]

I think the neutrals should be a yellow colour or something and show up in the trusted section if they're from users on the default trust. Just saw one vod left and thought he'd left a positive and been removed from default trust for a minute  .

Yellow text will be very hard to read. What about using blue for positive ratings and black for neutral ones?

Or even a green font might work well for positive ratings, and black for neutral.

Yeah, yellow was a bad choice but I think it should be some neutral-ish colour. I don't think they should be green though, that makes them look like positive.

Good move, but you also need to reset the whole trust ratings. I see a lot of green accounts, and digging deeper it shows that they sent first or used an escrow.

Look at cooldgamer's sent feedbacks. He is on the default trust list so all those he trusts show up as trustworthy, and he didn't take any risk with them.

People are free to leave those feedbacks and there's not necessarily anything wrong with it, but you can choose to disregard those feedbacks if you wish. The feedback system is there as a guide and for you to make your own mind up. Having lots of green trust doesn't = they can be trusted. I see lots of people with green trust but once you read it and see it's for several $5's worth of PayPal or whatever I know that feedback is worth very little regardless of whether it is from someone trusted or not. That feedback essentially means they can be trusted with $5 worth of Paypal (or maybe not anything if the chargeback period hasn't ended) or maybe it's worth nothing at all and even the opposite if you suspect he's just trying to cheaply build up feedback/trust.

[mprep]

I think the neutrals should be a yellow colour or something and show up in the trusted section if they're from users on the default trust. Just saw one vod left and thought he'd left a positive and been removed from default trust for a minute  .

Yellow text will be very hard to read. What about using blue for positive ratings and black for neutral ones?

Or even a green font might work well for positive ratings, and black for neutral.

Yeah, yellow was a bad choice but I think it should be some neutral-ish colour. I don't think they should be green though, that makes them look like positive.

I'd say red for negative ones, green for positive ones and standard color (black) for neutral ones. That way one could indicate how much feedback a user has quite quickly.