Trust improvements

[hilariousandco]

Yeah, positives should be green imo. I don't like the current bold/black. Either black or blue or something for neutral would be good as well.

[bluemountain]

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.

I think that positive and neutral should def not have the same color. Neutral having the same color as positive implies that neutral is positive but just less "strong"

[freedomno1]

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 was originally thinking a more dark yellow than the bright yellow the forum uses
Perhaps more closer to amber
Couldn't find the right shade of yellow so will just say grey olive or goldenrod look nice
grey
gold
olive
khaki
goldenrod
brown
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Shades_of_yellow

[Loophole]

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.

That would work very well.
Also, green is the complementary color of red. So when you mix red (a negative trust) and green pigment (a positive trust), it will appear to be black (a neutral trust).

[Vod]

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.

That would work very well.
Also, green is the complementary color of red. So when you mix red (a negative trust) and green pigment (a positive trust), it will appear to be black (a neutral trust).

Green is hard to see unless it is bolded.

[dooglus]

Also, green is the complementary color of red.

This makes it hard for colour-blind people to tell them apart.

Some (any?) other combination would be better.

[TECSHARE]

This did not fix the problem of trust disputes. Here is a thread about Butterzone in the EXACT same situation I was, yet this thread some how is ignored by the staff and administrators. The user says he has been PMed by admins. Amazing how they take this consideration for their buddies, but for anyone else they turn it into a big public shit show of shaming and remove them from the default trust tree. I don't expect Butterzone will be untrusted any time soon in spite of him using his trust exactly the way I did.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=858730.0

[uki]

The problem with the current rating is that upon trading the account the "old" trust becomes irrelevant, as the new user has nothing to do with the old one. This can be abused by scammers who want to invest in buying such trust-positive high status accounts. Here is my proposal on how to further improve this current trust ranking, and bring it a bit closer to significance in such cases. I know that it is impossible to ban trading accounts, but how about adding -50000 to the trust, if there is clear evidence that the account has been traded, e.g., unusual IP address and device and location should trigger a mail to the original email address that the account was registered - upon no response, we may have already solid evidence (if someone is unhappy with this criteria we may discuss how to improve them). That way trading for trust could be significantly reduced.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Many of them here uses email addresses which they don't open frequently. They will miss emails sent to them and also there is a possibility of change in location of the VPN. So it isn't a good idea IMHO.

   -MZ

[abyrnes81]

The problem with the current rating is that upon trading the account the "old" trust becomes irrelevant, as the new user has nothing to do with the old one. This can be abused by scammers who want to invest in buying such trust-positive high status accounts. Here is my proposal on how to further improve this current trust ranking, and bring it a bit closer to significance in such cases. I know that it is impossible to ban trading accounts, but how about adding -50000 to the trust, if there is clear evidence that the account has been traded, e.g., unusual IP address and device and location should trigger a mail to the original email address that the account was registered - upon no response, we may have already solid evidence (if someone is unhappy with this criteria we may discuss how to improve them). That way trading for trust could be significantly reduced.

The other question is that the buying/selling of forum accounts is not moderated, the staff interfere only if the account is stolen/hacked.

[hilariousandco]

The problem with the current rating is that upon trading the account the "old" trust becomes irrelevant, as the new user has nothing to do with the old one. This can be abused by scammers who want to invest in buying such trust-positive high status accounts. Here is my proposal on how to further improve this current trust ranking, and bring it a bit closer to significance in such cases. I know that it is impossible to ban trading accounts, but how about adding -50000 to the trust, if there is clear evidence that the account has been traded, e.g., unusual IP address and device and location should trigger a mail to the original email address that the account was registered - upon no response, we may have already solid evidence (if someone is unhappy with this criteria we may discuss how to improve them). That way trading for trust could be significantly reduced.

Account selling is allowed and it's unfair to suddenly make them look like the biggest scammer on the forum just because an account is suspected of trading hands, plus the way you is describe is unenforceable and can lead to false positives as many people change IPs/computers or use tor/proxies. It's also not the admin's job to investigate such infractions and they certainly don't have the time or desire to investigate every case and that's one of the main reasons why scams, trust and account sales etc are not moderated. Besides, you're still putting too much faith into the trust system as it is far from foolproof and scammers can just as easily abuse it with fake accounts and trades then scam when they've built up enough confidence anyway.

[erikalui]

Can there be a rule implemented where members selling their accounts with a green trust made to remove their trust from the account before selling it? The trust is given to the member who sells the account and not the one who buys it but members sell it with the trust as well.

Also, what is the difference between untrusted feedback and trusted feedback? Is the feedback given by newbies considered untrusted here?

[Quickseller]

Can there be a rule implemented where members selling their accounts with a green trust made to remove their trust from the account before selling it? The trust is given to the member who sells the account and not the one who buys it but members sell it with the trust as well.

Also, what is the difference between untrusted feedback and trusted feedback? Is the feedback given by newbies considered untrusted here?

the trust system is not moderated. The person receiving trust has zero control over if trust remains on their profile, it is up to the person sending the trust.

Trusted trust is generally people in the default trust network (although it is actually from anyone in your trust network)

[hilariousandco]

Can there be a rule implemented where members selling their accounts with a green trust made to remove their trust from the account before selling it? The trust is given to the member who sells the account and not the one who buys it but members sell it with the trust as well.

Also, what is the difference between untrusted feedback and trusted feedback? Is the feedback given by newbies considered untrusted here?

There could be but I doubt it will happen because as Quick said the trust system isn't moderated and it is also very hard to enforce or police. Trusted feedback is from those who have been put on the default trust list by someone already on there and therefor their feedback is considered 'trusted' and holds more weight.

[erikalui]

There could be but I doubt it will happen because as Quick said the trust system isn't moderated and it is also very hard to enforce or police. Trusted feedback is from those who have been put on the default trust list by someone already on there and therefor their feedback is considered 'trusted' and holds more weight.

@black: Is it that the mods cannot delete any feedback from the user's account? I have seen mods of other forums able to do that and hence I asked.

@green: OK just got the logic now and I added the users who send me feedback in my trusted list. I guess they have sent me neutral trust and hence the trust is shown as 0.

[hilariousandco]

There could be but I doubt it will happen because as Quick said the trust system isn't moderated and it is also very hard to enforce or police. Trusted feedback is from those who have been put on the default trust list by someone already on there and therefor their feedback is considered 'trusted' and holds more weight.

@black: Is it that the mods cannot delete any feedback from the user's account? I have seen mods of other forums able to do that and hence I asked.

Mods can't, admins can but they do not unless in exceptional circumstances. I think it works best this way though obviously people don't like it when they get unjust feedback, but this is yet another point why the system is just a guide to help others make their own mind up and you can choose to disregard or trust their ratings if you wish

@green: OK just got the logic now and I added the users who send me feedback in my trusted list. I guess they have sent me neutral trust and hence the trust is shown as 0.

You have three positives but they're from 'untrusted' users. If they ever get added to default trust then those three feedbacks would become trusted.

[uki]

The problem with the current rating is that upon trading the "old" trust becomes irrelevant, as the new user has nothing to do with the old one. This can be abused by scammers who want to invest in buying such trust-positive high status accounts. Here is my proposal on how to further improve this current trust ranking, and bring it a bit closer to significance in such cases. I know that it is impossible to ban trading accounts, but how about adding -50000 to the trust, if there is clear evidence that the account has been traded, e.g., unusual IP address and device and location should trigger a mail to the original email address that the account was registered - upon no response, we may have already solid evidence (if someone is unhappy with this criteria we may discuss how to improve them). That way trading for trust could be significantly reduced.

Account selling is allowed and it's unfair to suddenly make them look like the biggest scammer on the forum just because an account is suspected of trading hands, plus the way you is describe is unenforceable and can lead to false positives as many people change IPs/computers or use tor/proxies. It's also not the admin's job to investigate such infractions and they certainly don't have the time or desire to investigate every case and that's one of the main reasons why scams, trust and account sales etc are not moderated. Besides, you're still putting too much faith into the trust system as it is far from foolproof and scammers can just as easily abuse it with fake accounts and trades then scam when they've built up enough confidence anyway.

Additional work for forum admins that is indeed the only weak point of my proposal. I agree it is a substantial one. Although, I think it would limit to writing a proper script to monitor per user: range of IP addresses, devices and locations. that would suffice to filter out most of the false positives you mentioned. There are not many users in this forum moving, e.g., between Germany and China on a permanent basis and changing all three mentioned parameters.

Last but not least, current system that allows for trading of accounts with high status and high trust (that takes a long time to achieve) is already unfair and my proposal wouldn't make it more unfair.

[Quickseller]

The problem with the current rating is that upon trading the "old" trust becomes irrelevant, as the new user has nothing to do with the old one. This can be abused by scammers who want to invest in buying such trust-positive high status accounts. Here is my proposal on how to further improve this current trust ranking, and bring it a bit closer to significance in such cases. I know that it is impossible to ban trading accounts, but how about adding -50000 to the trust, if there is clear evidence that the account has been traded, e.g., unusual IP address and device and location should trigger a mail to the original email address that the account was registered - upon no response, we may have already solid evidence (if someone is unhappy with this criteria we may discuss how to improve them). That way trading for trust could be significantly reduced.

Account selling is allowed and it's unfair to suddenly make them look like the biggest scammer on the forum just because an account is suspected of trading hands, plus the way you is describe is unenforceable and can lead to false positives as many people change IPs/computers or use tor/proxies. It's also not the admin's job to investigate such infractions and they certainly don't have the time or desire to investigate every case and that's one of the main reasons why scams, trust and account sales etc are not moderated. Besides, you're still putting too much faith into the trust system as it is far from foolproof and scammers can just as easily abuse it with fake accounts and trades then scam when they've built up enough confidence anyway.

Additional work for forum admins that is indeed the only weak point of my proposal. I agree it is a substantial one. Although, I think it would limit to writing a proper script to monitor per user: range of IP addresses, devices and locations. that would suffice to filter out most of the false positives you mentioned. There are not many users in this forum moving, e.g., between Germany and China on a permanent basis and changing all three mentioned parameters.

Last but not least, current system that allows for trading of accounts with high status and high trust (that takes a long time to achieve) is already unfair and my proposal wouldn't make it more unfair.

If someone used tor then their location would appear to change every 10 minutes. I imagine many people use VPNs to connect to the forum as well and not only would it be trivial to make it look like an account was not purchased you would get more false positives.

[kuusj98]

Ok, and now I want to know:
I appear absolutely nowhere on the default-trust page (not even at level 4 depth) but to every member I leave a trust rating (be it positive or negative) the trust is still counted as "default trust" on my account at least.
Is that because I am green? I really don't freaking get it. I made an account (not going to do anything with it: sjefsjaak) to see it from other users perspective and there I see that I have a 4: -0 / +3(3) rating instead of the 3: -0 / +2 (2) I see on myself on my own account. On that new account, all trust I gave is untrusted on those users profiles.

Why can't I see my trust exactly the same as everyone else, this gives me false impressions...

[SaltySpitoon]

Ok, and now I want to know:
I appear absolutely nowhere on the default-trust page (not even at level 4 depth) but to every member I leave a trust rating (be it positive or negative) the trust is still counted as "default trust" on my account at least.
Is that because I am green? I really don't freaking get it. I made an account (not going to do anything with it: sjefsjaak) to see it from other users perspective and there I see that I have a 4: -0 / +3(3) rating instead of the 3: -0 / +2 (2) I see on myself on my own account. On that new account, all trust I gave is untrusted on those users profiles.

Why can't I see my trust exactly the same as everyone else, this gives me false impressions...

There isn't a universal trust score for people, you are exactly right. On your personal trust list, you trust feedback from Default Trust, and yourself (Assuming you haven't made any modifications to your trust list) however, one can modify their trust list however they like to modify how they see trust. If you remove default trust from your trust settings, you won't see feedback left by default trust members as "Trusted". If you add XScammurzUrMoniesX to your trust list, you will see feedback they leave as "Trusted" feedback, but no one else will.