Replacing DefaultTrust

[Tomatocage]

I'm skipping past all the replies, so forgive me if these concerns have already been brought up. First, I'll go on record as saying this system appears cumbersome and somewhat annoying. I'm not just saying that because I'm in the DefaultTrust group and this change would affect my status quo (in fact Theymos even points out that I'd rank #2 for points in this proposed implementation of forum Trust). Right now there's a 1-click barrier to reading a thread, and that's actually clicking the thread link. The new proposed system would increase that click count by at least 300% and possibly by as much as 2000%+. Moreover users would be forced to evaluate each option every time they wanted to view a new thread, and while I'm not speaking for everybody, I'm pretty damn lazy and would probably just end up clicking the 3 check boxes that happened to be closest to my mouse pointer, resulting in totally random Trust ratings displayed within that thread.

That's just my $.02 from an end-user perspective.

[theymos]

Moreover users would be forced to evaluate each option every time they wanted to view a new thread, and while I'm not speaking for everybody, I'm pretty damn lazy and would probably just end up clicking the 3 check boxes that happened to be closest to my mouse pointer, resulting in totally random Trust ratings displayed within that thread.

You're only redirected to this page one time, when you first try to view a trust-enabled topic as a new member. It's for setting up your initial trust list.

[Tomatocage]

Moreover users would be forced to evaluate each option every time they wanted to view a new thread, and while I'm not speaking for everybody, I'm pretty damn lazy and would probably just end up clicking the 3 check boxes that happened to be closest to my mouse pointer, resulting in totally random Trust ratings displayed within that thread.

You're only redirected to this page one time, when you first try to view a trust-enabled topic as a new member. It's for setting up your initial trust list.

Ah, ok. Thanks for clarifying that. I misread it as having to do this every time you wanted to view a new thread

[Tomatocage]

Also, some people who I consider very trustworthy, like DannyHamilton, John K, or DeathAndTaxes didn't make the list simply because they don't spam up every thread with their unsolicited opinion like I do

[Gleb Gamow]

Quote from: Gleb Gamow on January 06, 2015, 03:42:38 PM
Will the new system have the negative trust indexable via the search engines, for as it stands now nary a negative comment has ever been indexed, only found on this forum via jumping through hoops depending on what settings are ticked?

Trust pages are entirely customized per user, so they can't be viewed by non-users such as search engines.

Great! I'm having trouble finding the settings so that my customized posts won't be indexed by non-users such as search engines. Also, I desire to set some settings so that those who speak ill of me in their customized posts are also not indexable, as I'm sure others desire to have access to them same settings.

I'm having a tad bit of trouble getting my heard wrapped around as to how the thousands of negative trust comments penned by those who've taking their valuable time to warn the Bitcoin community and others worldwide of nefarious activities stemming from bad actors is compressed while BCT benefits via the sale of ads to some of the very same bad actors.

Ergo, it reads to me that this trust thingy is only benefiting our little club here, doing a grave disservice to the rest of the world stumbling upon bad actors because due to somebody's infinite wisdom the vital information needed for them to make an informed decision was nowhere to be found unless they came here and read such under an ad espousing the very entity we're trying to warned them about, e.g., GAW comes to mind, of which I'm sure you've heard of them.

For a prime example, here's an entity with 4,059 negative comments that placed an ad or two on this forum: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=44366



Is it possible that nary a one of them 4,059 posters cared less if the search engines indexed their customized comments or not as long as we in our own little club here are made aware, or did a majority of them now falsely assumed that their vital comments about a bad actor would be available to most anybody outside the BCT Country Club? I'm safely assuming it's the latter, probably not giving it a second thought that their comments would be available on the entire internet, them having complete faith in the administrators of this forum that such was truly the case, again, never taking the time to think otherwise.

Thus, by your comment, the trust system thingy was broken, and that this aspect in question will remain in place regardless of what the new trust system thingy will be, correct?

Will the new trust system thingy have its comments like the following found elsewhere on the internet?: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22Failure+to+refund+and+deliver+product+for+over+1+year.+Lies+continually+about+availability+of+their+products.%22

[dogie]

Also, some people who I consider very trustworthy, like DannyHamilton, John K, or DeathAndTaxes didn't make the list simply because they don't spam up every thread with their unsolicited opinion like I do

John K is on the list, he's 3rd?

[takagari]

The only issue I see once some picks a person. If that person falls from grace. What than? You have thousands of people with them ticked,  and most won't know to remove him or her.
Sorry if mentioned, I read the 7 pages quickly buta have misses.it.
reading off.phone

[ABitNut]

I share the concern that the list of suggestions is too easy to game. Others have mentioned it before, but I didn't see the issue being addressed anywhere. There are already entities "farming" signature campaigns with multiple accounts. There will be entities seeding feedback to several accounts to get themselves on the suggested list. Legendary / Hero accounts are for sale.

New users are the easy fruit for scammers. New users are most likely to use the suggested list. Thus it becomes very attractive to get yourself in the suggested list. You target audience will actually be encouraged to trust you by the system!

So, I'm voting for the current default trust system.

Edit: I would like to note that the difference between feedback (I trust/do not trust this account) and trust lists (I want to see who this person trusts / doesn't trust) seems difficult to grasp for some people. Maybe we should just get rid of Default Trust. If a user has an empty trust list then consider all feedback "untrusted".

[Madness]

I was thinking about replacing DefaultTrust in the following way:

When users first try to view a topic in a Trust-enabled section, they will instead see this page and be forced to select some users to trust before being allowed to continue to the topic. In addition to the empty text box currently on the Trust settings page, up to 30 users will be suggested.

Suggested members must meet the following criteria:
- Full member or above
- At least one post in the last 60 days
- At least 10 people listed in their trust list
- At least 20 points (see below)
Each person gets N points whenever they are trusted by someone, and loses N points whenever they are distrusted by someone, where N = 0 if the rater is less than a full member and N = [rater's activity]/120 if the rater is at least a full member. The 60 people with the highest scores are selected, this list is randomly sorted with a higher weight given to people with higher scores, and the top 30 people in the resulting list are suggested.

When the change is made, everyone who currently has only DefaultTrust in their trust list will be redirected to the Set Initial Trust page.

What do you think of this?

I found it not bad at all , pretty good idea .
But if you ask me , I would totally change it and make everyone able to rate .
Basically each user have the following on their profil and we should add "Request Trade" so we know that they really made a thread by giving a reference link or something .

Marketplace :  0/0/0  (Positive/Neutral/Negative)
Everyone who is "Sr.Member" or above can rate the other users  (so less abusing on the system).

[TECSHARE]

I was thinking about replacing DefaultTrust in the following way:

When users first try to view a topic in a Trust-enabled section, they will instead see this page and be forced to select some users to trust before being allowed to continue to the topic. In addition to the empty text box currently on the Trust settings page, up to 30 users will be suggested.

Suggested members must meet the following criteria:
- Full member or above
- At least one post in the last 60 days
- At least 10 people listed in their trust list
- At least 20 points (see below)
Each person gets N points whenever they are trusted by someone, and loses N points whenever they are distrusted by someone, where N = 0 if the rater is less than a full member and N = [rater's activity]/120 if the rater is at least a full member. The 60 people with the highest scores are selected, this list is randomly sorted with a higher weight given to people with higher scores, and the top 30 people in the resulting list are suggested.

When the change is made, everyone who currently has only DefaultTrust in their trust list will be redirected to the Set Initial Trust page.

What do you think of this?

I found it not bad at all , pretty good idea .
But if you ask me , I would totally change it and make everyone able to rate .
Basically each user have the following on their profil and we should add "Request Trade" so we know that they really made a thread by giving a reference link or something .

Marketplace :  0/0/0  (Positive/Neutral/Negative)
Everyone who is "Sr.Member" or above can rate the other users  (so less abusing on the system).

Some kind of mutually agreed upon agreement to enter into an exchange before being able to leave trade related trust ratings might VASTLY reduce problems with trust. Some other neutral type rating could be reserved for preemptive warnings or notes about abuse from uninvolved parties.

[redsn0w]

I was thinking about replacing DefaultTrust in the following way:

When users first try to view a topic in a Trust-enabled section, they will instead see this page and be forced to select some users to trust before being allowed to continue to the topic. In addition to the empty text box currently on the Trust settings page, up to 30 users will be suggested.

Suggested members must meet the following criteria:
- Full member or above
- At least one post in the last 60 days
- At least 10 people listed in their trust list
- At least 20 points (see below)
Each person gets N points whenever they are trusted by someone, and loses N points whenever they are distrusted by someone, where N = 0 if the rater is less than a full member and N = [rater's activity]/120 if the rater is at least a full member. The 60 people with the highest scores are selected, this list is randomly sorted with a higher weight given to people with higher scores, and the top 30 people in the resulting list are suggested.

When the change is made, everyone who currently has only DefaultTrust in their trust list will be redirected to the Set Initial Trust page.

What do you think of this?

I found it not bad at all , pretty good idea .
But if you ask me , I would totally change it and make everyone able to rate .
Basically each user have the following on their profil and we should add "Request Trade" so we know that they really made a thread by giving a reference link or something .

Marketplace :  0/0/0  (Positive/Neutral/Negative)
Everyone who is "Sr.Member" or above can rate the other users  (so less abusing on the system).

I like this idea , every feedback ( positive , neutral and negative) will appear under your forum username. It will be a new transparent  trust system  , and why not  "visible in all the forum board".

[Madness]

I was thinking about replacing DefaultTrust in the following way:

When users first try to view a topic in a Trust-enabled section, they will instead see this page and be forced to select some users to trust before being allowed to continue to the topic. In addition to the empty text box currently on the Trust settings page, up to 30 users will be suggested.

Suggested members must meet the following criteria:
- Full member or above
- At least one post in the last 60 days
- At least 10 people listed in their trust list
- At least 20 points (see below)
Each person gets N points whenever they are trusted by someone, and loses N points whenever they are distrusted by someone, where N = 0 if the rater is less than a full member and N = [rater's activity]/120 if the rater is at least a full member. The 60 people with the highest scores are selected, this list is randomly sorted with a higher weight given to people with higher scores, and the top 30 people in the resulting list are suggested.

When the change is made, everyone who currently has only DefaultTrust in their trust list will be redirected to the Set Initial Trust page.

What do you think of this?

I found it not bad at all , pretty good idea .
But if you ask me , I would totally change it and make everyone able to rate .
Basically each user have the following on their profil and we should add "Request Trade" so we know that they really made a thread by giving a reference link or something .

Marketplace :  0/0/0  (Positive/Neutral/Negative)
Everyone who is "Sr.Member" or above can rate the other users  (so less abusing on the system).

I like this idea , every feedback ( positive , neutral and negative) will appear under your forum username. It will be a new transparent  trust system  , and why not  "visible in all the forum board".

Yay , Really happy to see that some people actually like my idea <3
thanks mate , appreciate it
who knows , maybe the developpers of the new forum software will take it seriously and add it 

[Blazr]

One problem with the trust system that would be great to try and solve it retaliation feedback. Often times people are afraid to leave someone who they think is untrustworthy negative feedback because that person has DefaultTrust and a high trust score and they fear retaliation negative feedback. I'm not sure of a good way of mitigating this, but it would be very useful.

[TECSHARE]

One problem with the trust system that would be great to try and solve it retaliation feedback. Often times people are afraid to leave someone who they think is untrustworthy negative feedback because that person has DefaultTrust and a high trust score and they fear retaliation negative feedback. I'm not sure of a good way of mitigating this, but it would be very useful.

IMO, removing the default trust list, and creating some sort of system to have BOTH users agree to a transaction before any trust ratings that can effect your trust score can be left would go a long way in doing this. People would still be able to comment on your trust page with neutrals, but it would not impact your trust rating. This 100% ensures only directly involved individuals in a transaction have the power to damage another persons trust score. Furthermore it may even be good policy to require users post the agreement first and reference during this mutual agreement function it so any disputes can be arbitrated based only upon the agreement the two entered into.

[iCEBREAKER]

One problem with the trust system that would be great to try and solve it retaliation feedback. Often times people are afraid to leave someone who they think is untrustworthy negative feedback because that person has DefaultTrust and a high trust score and they fear retaliation negative feedback. I'm not sure of a good way of mitigating this, but it would be very useful.

IMO, removing the default trust list, and creating some sort of system to have BOTH users agree to a transaction before any trust ratings that can effect your trust score can be left would go a long way in doing this. People would still be able to comment on your trust page with neutrals, but it would not impact your trust rating. This 100% ensures only directly involved individuals in a transaction have the power to damage another persons trust score. Furthermore it may even be good policy to require users post the agreement first and reference during this mutual agreement function it so any disputes can be arbitrated based only upon the agreement the two entered into.

I think your 'trust escrow' approach is a good idea and mutual pre-agreement would prevent abusing the system as an 'I don't like you' (un)popularity contest.

[deadley]

I will suggest just 1 thing. That is we will allow only to give 1 feedback each account not like multiple feedback.
Taking feedback from same person multiply times rating increase so much and don't give true sense.

So better if it will only give us chance to feedback once.We will able to  update/modify that if we want but not multiply the feedback many times.

[dogie]

I will suggest just 1 thing. That is we will allow only to give 1 feedback each account not like multiple feedback.
Taking feedback from same person multiply times rating increase so much and don't give true sense.

So better if it will only give us chance to feedback once.We will able to  update/modify that if we want but not multiply the feedback many times.

Then you're weighting multiple successful trades the same as one.

[hilariousandco]

One problem with the trust system that would be great to try and solve it retaliation feedback. Often times people are afraid to leave someone who they think is untrustworthy negative feedback because that person has DefaultTrust and a high trust score and they fear retaliation negative feedback. I'm not sure of a good way of mitigating this, but it would be very useful.

IMO, removing the default trust list, and creating some sort of system to have BOTH users agree to a transaction before any trust ratings that can effect your trust score can be left would go a long way in doing this. People would still be able to comment on your trust page with neutrals, but it would not impact your trust rating. This 100% ensures only directly involved individuals in a transaction have the power to damage another persons trust score. Furthermore it may even be good policy to require users post the agreement first and reference during this mutual agreement function it so any disputes can be arbitrated based only upon the agreement the two entered into.

Then what happens when I agree to a trade with a newb and he doesn't pay or tries to scam? I leave negative then he returns the favour? This retaliatory feedback is what used to happen on ebay but now only buyers can leave feedback but then they often just leave negative for the slightest of things and it'll happen here. You can agree to sell something to a newbie and then what's to stop him from leaving feedback for no valid reason? This system also won't stop scammers and warn others before they scam and it's too late after they do.

[deadley]

I will suggest just 1 thing. That is we will allow only to give 1 feedback each account not like multiple feedback.
Taking feedback from same person multiply times rating increase so much and don't give true sense.

So better if it will only give us chance to feedback once.We will able to  update/modify that if we want but not multiply the feedback many times.

Then you're weighting multiple successful trades the same as one.

Yes, we can update BTC section if we want and we can update feedback by saying did multiples trades. But multiple feedback give more value suddenly, that's why it's not look good on trust system.
I do lot's of trade. And even I gave once feedback even they always again ask feedback for every trade.
I don't think if we already gave feedback it will be necessary. One feedback each account will fulfill the requirement of true Trust system.

[TECSHARE]

One problem with the trust system that would be great to try and solve it retaliation feedback. Often times people are afraid to leave someone who they think is untrustworthy negative feedback because that person has DefaultTrust and a high trust score and they fear retaliation negative feedback. I'm not sure of a good way of mitigating this, but it would be very useful.

IMO, removing the default trust list, and creating some sort of system to have BOTH users agree to a transaction before any trust ratings that can effect your trust score can be left would go a long way in doing this. People would still be able to comment on your trust page with neutrals, but it would not impact your trust rating. This 100% ensures only directly involved individuals in a transaction have the power to damage another persons trust score. Furthermore it may even be good policy to require users post the agreement first and reference during this mutual agreement function it so any disputes can be arbitrated based only upon the agreement the two entered into.

Then what happens when I agree to a trade with a newb and he doesn't pay or tries to scam? I leave negative then he returns the favour? This retaliatory feedback is what used to happen on ebay but now only buyers can leave feedback but then they often just leave negative for the slightest of things and it'll happen here. You can agree to sell something to a newbie and then what's to stop him from leaving feedback for no valid reason? This system also won't stop scammers and warn others before they scam and it's too late after they do.

Thats why you get rid of red and green ratings and have everyone make custom trust lists. There is no reason anyone needs to preemptively destroy a users reputation even if they are highly suspected of scamming. This preemptive "scambusting" mentality has done more damage to this community than it has helped. Also, this is what the neutral ratings are for, for people to comment about suspected scams and the like without effecting trust ratings.

Which is the bigger barrier? The one VOD puts up for scammers via shotgunning negative ratings everywhere with little or no evidence, or the honest users that have all of their time money and effort wasted who at THE VERY LEAST have to wait months to even discuss having it removed. IMO this is just leading to innocent users being falsely accused and either driving them away or driving them into the ranks of trolls and scammers.

I repeat - A scammer can just get a new name or buy a new account. An HONEST USER loses all the time, money, and effort they invested into their username (often years of work) over accusations that VOD does not even bother to verify most of the time. Several of his ratings are simply for "annoying" him or "lying". Last time I checked that is not an acceptable use of the trust system. VODs practices are FAR MORE DESTRUCTIVE to this community than the good he may or may not do "stopping" scammers (who return minutes later).

This is a well known subversion tactic. Get the enemy playing whack-a-mole so much that thy start catching up honest people, then as more and more honest people are burned sentiment turns against the authority handing these dictates down. It is a recipe for this community's destruction.