Trust Ratings

How is this trust ratio calculated. I got a 24.23 trust factor but 14 people who trusted me.

I'm guessing Shadow has like a

How in the world can you figure out who, and how many people, trusted you? If I go into Account and click on Manage Trust List, it just tells me who I trusted, not who trusted me.

You can view the top 40 trusted members here

tuscl.net

go to your profile an click on your trust rating. That shows who trusted you.

I'd recommend removing people from your trust list that you no longer know or trust. Also you should be adding members to your trust list that you've gotten good intel from.

Got it, thanks.

Based on the top 40 trusted members, I worry a little bit about our crowdsourcing :) lol...

The scores are calculated on who gave you trust. The higher the "Contribution Level" of the truster, the higher the Trust Rating will be.

It still needs some tweaking, but I think we can all agree that #1 (papi_chulo) is dead on accurate.

Just checked my list of people I trust and there are many names I don't recognize much less trust. Time to do some cutting.

So basically getting trust from someone like Papi Chulo will sky rocket your trust score.

Sounds like something from Xbox live lol.

Yeah, I don't like it either. It seems like a lot of the changes around here occurring for the sole purpose of making changes. The only one I've liked so far is that the site remembers my user ID name so I don't have to type out "orangepicture" every time I visit the site.

For those of us who are a bit newer to the site, what is the trust feature and why would we use it? Like what is the purpose? Just curious as I’m a bit new to the site and am trying to explore it, Thanks

^^^^ like why is trust useful anywhere? It helps others decide who they might be comfortable sharing certain information with or not.

Knowing Shadow/Papi are highly trusted may give the a level of credibility when they provide an opinion or statement about a certain strip club.

It might as well be called Reputation Points or whatever...

SJG is on the top 40 trust list and I am not!

Now I am super depressed. LOL

Good to know, thanks founder

orangepicture... if you want a refund, just let me know.

No no no. I like (love) the site and am glad I joined and have paid towards it in my earlier months. I was just commenting that a lot of the changes, in my opinion, haven't really added anything to the site.

Carry on Founder.

The new calculation makes sense, but I still miss the comments. I like to read other ppl’s trusts and see why ppl trust them. Sometimes it’s reviews, comments on discussion, some shared view, or some other random thing.

-->"It seems like a lot of the changes around here occurring for the sole purpose of making changes."

I dunno, orange, I think the purpose is crystal clear: the place had become a cesspool of trolling. This place has the potential to be THE place to discuss SCs, but who knows how many quality contributors clicked on forum, saw the cesspool, and bolted? I don't know what founder is up to with the trust thing; I'm just glad he's decided to adjust the signal-to-noise ratio, for those of us who prefer signal. In every other site I've been part of, quality discussion on the forum has attracted eyes to the part of the site that makes money, too -- win win.

-->"The new calculation makes sense, but I still miss the comments. I like to read other ppl’s trusts and see why ppl trust them. Sometimes it’s reviews, comments on discussion, some shared view, or some other random thing."

I'd been remiss on using the trust feature; just started doing it now, since it may actually mean something, though might take a few days to remember all the people I trust. But I've been making goofy comments instead of actually why I trust them... ack

I make liberal use of the ignore feature so I don't see the trolls. I guess my concern is that new people were try to pander to the established and most trusted forum members to try to get site red. Maybe it is a non-issue; we'll see.

^^ red = cred.

Orange, it’s not so bad. I didn’t like the changes a few months back but I adjusted. I have to admit that I’m never a fan of changes to websites, immediately. I never update my phone’s operating system, until I hate to.

I found a whole bunch of trusted that I never propped, I just cleaned it out @founder you need to check your data that it isn't corrupted.

Ya, I think those of us who use ignore have it pretty easy -- we see mostly signal, little noise. You can literally put a handful of handles on ignore, and the site is positively great. The thing is, though, there must be guys out there who would be great contributors, who happen to stumble on the site at its worst, and go running. Certainly, if I'd had the bad luck of looking at the forum for the first time during one of the troll revolts, no way I'd have stuck around

The ability to edit a discussion post with in 5 minutes of creating it to catch spelling mistakes would be a worthy addition!

@Subraman. Yes, that is definitely a possibility. But I have only been on the site for around 5 months and I know people enjoy my highly detailed reviews so the trolls didn't scare off this new guy :)

The ability to put @orangepicture on timeout with in 5 minutes of reading his post would be a worthy addition!

Oh no.

My self-esteem depends my TUSCL trust rating and I'm afraid it will tank when people start cleaning up their lists.

Our discussion board can be a little messy, but I love how candid it is.

Papi Chulo for the win!!!!

Nobody even close to him score wise.

I'm one to try to adhere to the K.I.S.S. principle - on the surface the new Trust calculation seems a bit too-complex (at least too-complex for the subject-matter) - just having the gross #s is more straight-forward IMO, the calculation is less intuitive and newbs are gonna constantly be wondering what it means (how it's calculated).

I'm also concerned about the GIGO effect (garbage in garbage out) w.r.t. the source data used for the calculations - TUSCL is a bit quirky w/ quirky characters that happens to be the source of the data (i.e. I think one will get quirky input data to some extent) - the Contri-level is somewhat vulnerable to the quirkiness of TUSCL - there can be great contributors w/ low Contri-levels b/c for example they don't comment as much but know their shit - and there can be guirks w/ high Contri-levels but 3/4 of what they say is gibberish/noise.

On the basis of the K.I.S.S. and GIGO principles, I think the new Trust ratings will lead to more confusion/opaqueness and IMO it is vulnerable to somewhat questionable input data.

But, like others, I'm usually not a fan of changes so good-chance I'm being bias w.r.t. the change, and it could be for the better - I assume Founder is trying to make it more meaningful and perhaps less prone to shenanigans, but he had in part already addressed this a while back I believe by allowing a TUSCLer to Trust another TUSCLer only once (I believe one used to be able to Trust another TUSCLer as much as one wanted to).

In the end is not a huge deal either way; just my 2.5 cents.

^ Not a huge deal you say?!?!?!

Stop patronizing me.

Trusts are difficult for any social networking platform to get right, and I think they do provide value at TUSCL to the casual reader. Having a weighted metric for them is a good idea.

Trusts are something I don't use because I haven't found a way to apply them consistently. There are many great reviews and reviewers I'm not aware of. Club ratings are different because I've been there and each club has the same chance to score well or not per visit.

tuscl.net

This guy needs to stfu

Dont worry founder, I will dump a load on their heads if you need me to

Almost forgot. It would be nice to be able to see the trust details again, even if it were just for the user receiving the trust.

^ excellent point. Trucidos has a level 3, and he should be in the negatives.

this feature seems to be a bit buggy. i see lots of names i don't recognize, don't recall ever giving trust to, and who don't even seem to be active or maybe i've just hit early senility?

Juice was the power vote for Trucidos BJ. I suppose this will be one way to detect the Juice aliases when he is just about the only one giving them props ;)

^ I don’t ignore anyone, but that’s reasonable. I think it should could for less tho since some ppl are just trolls ab it.

Upright: ya, the weakness in the system seems to be that some of the trolls have so many troll accounts, they can all upvote each other. I'm assuming that's what accounts for the handful of very surprising names on the top 40 list (although most of the folks there are who I expected). I'm guessing founder is logging all IP addresses and could disambiguate the troll votes if he had a lot of free time on his hands :)

I did just unprop a troll I propped a while ago when I posted a smart ass troll comment back then. I think the best way to fight high troll ratings is unprop your previous "troll the troll" props.

w/o seeing the comments on my Trust(ee) list, makes it harder to know if I trusted that TUSCLer or not

I assume founder isnt finished yet updating the site but in regards to the trusts, i think its flawed if motorhead and jerikson are on the top 40, since they have been MIA for almost a year. Also, alucard(RIP) is on there and hasnt logged on in 3 or 4 years. Again, i assume founder isnt done yet and the algorithm may change but just "constructive criticism".

Correction: jerikson was last seen december 17. But it does seem to be some bugs. Who the hell is lapdanced?

So a dead guy and at least one crazy person are in the Top 40? Yep, that's about right.

I just cleaned out my trust list of several dozen that I didn't recognize and have no memory of ever trusting. How did they get on my trust list?

^ hey, it's TUSCL

:)

I also cleaned several dozen names out of my trust list that I'm sure I've never seen before. I'm astounded that Alucard, who has been physically dead for years, and SJG, who has been socially dead his entire life, are in the Top 40. OTOH, I'm amused that dougster and I have exactly the same trust rating! Though I tend to resist change, I applaud founder for trying to drain the TUSCL swamp. This seems like a step in the right direction.

I think it would be a good idea to have at least a version based on the past 12 months. Same for club rankings - how good it was e.g., 5 years ago when its ratings started (and it may have had a lot more people reviewing it) might not be as relevant when looking for a club to visit tonight.

I suspect that some of the people on my trust list are in prison so I'm torn as to whether to bounce them or not. They might be rehabilitated when they get out. Or maybe not. Such decisions.

(I propped you flagooner. I don't want to see your self-esteem take a shit. Besides - you're cool beans with me.)

Perhaps this is a “trust” exercise.... I just “revoked” a ton of names that I never intentionally “trusted”. Perhaps in the early days a comment on a topic, logged as a trust.

I don't think a TUSCLer should be removed from the top 40 (or TUSCL) just b/c they are not active any more - if their past contributions legitimately put them in the top 40 then they should be there IMO

Dear Founder:

Are the trust ratings going to be used to modify the club ratings (e.g. ratings weighted by user trust rating)? If so, thank you.

I wiped out my old trust list. I didn’t recognize a single name. I don’t know how they got there. Fat finger error, probably.

I added a dozen names that I’ve actually gotten good intel from. I noticed some of their trust scores edged up as a result. Cool.

I’m still not clear how trust scores are used. I guess we’ll find out.

I don't think a TUSCLer should be removed from the top 40 (or TUSCL) just b/c they are not active any more - if their past contributions legitimately put them in the top 40 then they should be there IMO

I think a fair compromise would be to have both a top 40 of the past 12 months' active members and a hall of fame going back to the beginning of the records.

IMO, it would especially be useful since trusts were relatively recently renamed from props with currently-active members are revamping their lists to match up to the current goals of trusts. In other words a trust from 2018, carefully evaluated or removed, likely has more value to the person giving it than a "prop" in times past for making a good point in a discussion.

I assume most, if not everyone's, profile got all those inadvertent Trusts by accident as Founder was doing his changes (since it seems to have happened to a lot of folks if not everyone)

I also saw a bunch of names I did not recognize on my trust list. I have periodically gone through my list and know I haven't trusted many of the names. I'll adjust accordingly.

I like this idea and hope it will clean some things up. Especially when the trolls use their alias' to bump up the number of trusts they have.

I'm new here. If I haven't met anyone, how can I really trust them? Reputation points makes sense. Maybe reliability of reviews?

would a ‘trust’ be similar to a ‘like’?

Just an FYI... Trusts we're converted from props. That's why there may be names you don't recognize. If you propped a review, that got converted to a trust. That's why I'm asking for you all to take a look at your trust list to see if you needed to remove anyone.

I have doled out 8 trusts, and I'm fine with who they are. None assigned to the mouth breathers who troll & spam the discussions with their sophomoric bullshit.

I only have 1 trust given to me, so I guess I'm in a heated race to the bottom. Oh well.

The reviewer's i've "propped" (really i just commented on them) haven't shown up on my trust list. It's just random peeps i've never interacted with before, some who weren't even seen after i joined, lol. I have removed them.

@JohnTitor All you have to do is grow some tits and playfully flirt/banter with other TUSCLers. You should see your trusts skyrocket!

You can even be passive aggressive or just straight out aggressive like that pothead stripper and still people will "trust" you!

(In deep, James Earl Jones voice) Papi Chulo, the most trusted name in TUSCL

In the view for trusts/ignores, can we get back the little profile stats like we have in discussions. Like the joined/last seen & review count & so on? I clean out my ignores periodically for people who haven't logged in for a long time & thats useful there. Looking at all the review props I made (mostly as comments, not actual "props") it might be nice to see some of that to make it easier to clean up

Thanks, I wasn't aware that non-VIPs could trust people. I'll use it more.

As one of the few who actually go to clubs and review them I find the Trust list to be beyond inane. Dougie at 15? Come on Founder if you want some of us to leave just say so.

ski: I was surprised at that, but then Founder filled in the blanks when he said props were converted to trusts... so trusts aren't just a function of the forum, anyone who wrote lots of good TRs might have been loaded w/ props.

What I"m confused about is how some of Dougster's (or juice's? Who even knows) alternative troll handles got so high up

Just a reminder... I am still tweaking the algorithm. Don't put too much thought into who is in the top 40 at this point.

The unfortunate side effect of converting individual review Props to Trusts is that for a while, a Prop was the only way to alert on obvious fake reviews. I tried flagging a couple of times, but the review stayed up and the comments pointing out the problem never appeared on the review (e.g., a club only ever open on night shift had a day shift review)

Awesome....

Here's another algorithm to consider:

Only credit Discussions that have more than 5 unique user comments.

Shouldn't be to hard to write with few distinct statements

@founder tweaking the algorithm is fine I think for the trust ratings to be credible you or someone you designate needs to be a bit involved in adding or subtracting trust points maybe you could add weight to a prop by you or Emily as I believe that you running the show adds some credibility that might have been lacking. Jes my penny worth.

Tolls and Alias always plaster the board with bullshit... I hate for them to get credit as real contributers to the discussion board when they're not

@25...nobody wants to maintain the Trust calc manually. Which is why we try to write a robust enough algorithm. But hey a few troll might make it through so be it...

Discussions and comments don't have much weight in the algorithm

Founder- it may already be in here (I'm relatively new), but I haven't been able to find it, can you share any details on the contribution level metric?

@GACA that was why I suggested he add more weight to certain props if you notice the most highly rated guys very rarely join in on these bulshit flame outs.

You get points for each contribution. Reviews, articles, discussion and comments. The number of different clubs you review also plays a part.

Good deal..

Are the points weighted differently?

Never mind you answered it above

Yes they are, papi.

I checked - and my trusts appear to be legit members. No trusts from Indian movers and packers...

“Just a reminder... I am still tweaking the algorithm.”

Pretty sure my trust rating is correct.

I prefer when the stripper tweaks my algorithm. But I’m not gonna judge Founder. He can tweak his own if he wants.

^ She's tweaking your inhibition, not algorithm.

I, for one, give Founder credit for trying to do ... something. This is a board that comes with inherent challenges, but it's worth it to try and make it better for those who are trying to use it for its intended purpose.

We're all talking anonymously about activities that largely lurk in the shadows. Given the nature of this hobby, I think 99 percent of us want the board to be anonymous. With anonymity, though, comes little personal responsibility and few consequences for actions, unless they're essentially self-imposed. Accordingly, some people who just want to have an outlet for acting goofy will treat such a forum as a Petri dish for trolling. 'Ignore' functionality, and just ignoring, is a small way of fighting it, but as mentioned, a lot of folks probably just lurk for intel and don't actually get an account or post, much less hit 'Ignore'. As such, if you're not doing that, this place can look like a troll farm.

Also, while it's not like we're necessarily in need of taking our conversations onto the dark web, we are discussing something — patronizing strip clubs — that many look down upon and some would probably like not to be possible, at least in a NIMBY sort of way. That doesn't even take into account discussion of activities that may be beyond the scope of what is considered legal ... you know, like when we drive 10 over the speed limit because we're eager to get to the club, ahem. As such, I think we look like worthy targets for trolling, as we're already on the seedy side to begin with, fast drivers that we are.

All of us that take this a little bit seriously have a bit of a libertarian bent in the sense that we don't particularly like rules and don't necessarily see why an exchange of cash for services should be wrong for either party. However, when the trolls take over in spurts, I think those of us non-trolls agree that it gets annoying having to sort out the legit content. As such, getting together and using a collective presence to encourage an authority figure (Founder) to do something about it seems like a logical progression.

Other sites have cut down on trolling by attaching identity, like Facebook or whatever, but again, that would largely kill off this board, not to mention that we're finding out first-hand that Facebook probably has incentive to encourage trolls in ways. Also, this is another time when folks should be reminded that not only is everything on this site a work of fiction, it's also good to be careful with what details go where. All I'll say is "PM me for more info," if you know what I mean.

So yeah. It's not going to be perfect. There may be some very trustworthy folks here that just don't club very much, but do a good job with what reviews they do submit. There may be others who are great reviewers but really idiotic on the message boards. Hard to say. But at least someone's trying to make it better. I appreciate that.

@Founder

Would it be possible to add a "multiple delete" option to one's Trust list - I have 100s of Trusts in my Trust(ee) list that don't belong there and having to delete one by one is proving exceedingly tedious.

Perhaps adding a check-box next to each one and a "Select All" option to delete all of them at once (while unchecking the ones I wanna keep which are only a couple of dozen).

@Papi stop patronizing @founder I found over 50 that needed to be deleted and I did it the hard way one at a time so can you, you lazy bastard ;)))

Papi - I had to delete about 200. The only 3 names I recognized were yours, Alucard & Yoda. Those last 2 are dead. Hope you aren't. :)

Yeah @shadowcat I hope he’s not dead also. ;)

I've got bad news, guys.

Papi got crushed to death by a dancer that was more than a little on the thick side. (:

If you are not referring to my personality then I'm still alive and (fairly) well.

;)))

@Papi just a quick question would that be death by chocolate? ;)

It was close, but I survived (give the image about 2 seconds to refresh):

google.com:

If you guys think you have it bad, imagine what it will be like for desertscrub go to through years of converted review props calling out CLUB AD OF THE DAY ;)

Are some of the people on the top 40 trust list now deceased, such as Motorhead? I suspect that it is virtually impossible to get confirmation of the passing of a member of an anonymous discussion board, but you could consider an automatic removal policy after passage of a generous time without any contribution? Perhaps removing those members who have not posted anything in a year or more?

Yikes, Papi !! There's a lot of chocolate there !!

Papi - That was gross! :)

Nah - it's good to honor those that came b/f us and contributed significantly to the site - I like seeing a list of the TUSCL G.O.A.T.s (even if there may be some that don't belong on there)

The horror I think I might go intentionally blind

You guys are too-soft

You are a cockroach only a cockroach could survive that holocaust ;)

:)

I'll be seeing that in my nightmares.

Huh.. it could almost be a giant pussy. Funny how asses can look like other stuff.

well... late to the show as usual. I guess I'm confused. I can see editing the 'trust' (formerly props) which you have given to other people if you don't think they deserve it anymore. But why would you turn down trust/props received from others? Isn't trust/props inherently cumulative? The more people who find you trust worthy adds upregardless if you 'know' the person who has bestowed trust on you.

hi mjx... You wouldn't turn down someone trusting you (in fact, I think there is no way to do that anymore). Let me know if that is not the case.

Hi Founder, thanks for the reply. I believe you are correct there is no option to turn down someone else trusting you.

FWIW.... my list of 'trusts given' was totally messed up. Only had about 9 I think before the site changes. I just checked it and had a much longer list. Had to cut lots of users. Probably cut a few I didn't intend to (oops).

The trusts were transferred from props (in hindsight probably not the best idea).

How do you easily trust everyone except fishsticks and SJG?

Looking at the top 40 trust list, some of those members are either entertaining, prolific, or controversial. It’s the definition of trust as it exists in the Internet age. It used to be that being boring and soft spoken predicted trust. No longer.

Props should've been comments in the first place, it looks like.

Occasionally I saw them used as (and tried to use them as) a genuine "hey, this is a good review," but most of it was people trolling (or maybe not trolling) about club ads, etc. It also makes me wonder how many of them actually were club ads, and how many were newbie Seattle mongers who just had a good experience and caught shit for it - which means they never came back.

More directly on topic: I like the concept of the trust system, but much like "props" above for comments, I think it needs a new name. Is "like this review" (or hell, even "prop this review" as an action separate from a comment) a possibility for trust?

Is it possible (or even useful) to have a split sort of trust? That is to say, "Reliability" for the review side of things, and "Trust" for the discussion forum side of things?

I might think that (for example) desertscrub wrote a perfectly fine review for club X, but I've got him on my ignore list for comments because they're all just accusing everyone of writing a club ad. Note, his review sucked too - just a hypothetical here. ;)

On the flip side, Papi_Chulo was on my trust list for some reason and I felt no reason to take him off. His contributions to the discussion forum are always well-written and to the point. On the other hand, I know his tastes run pretty opposite to mine when it comes to ladies at clubs - I'd absolutely read his reviews if he was doing one for a club I was near, but only to say "okay, this club has what I DON'T like." In a vacuum, I probably wouldn't "trust" his review because it doesn't focus on what I'm interested in (although if it were called reliability, I'd be slightly more likely to do so.)

What will be the effects of trust in the discussion forum? Something like Slashdot, where comments from anyone with a rep below won't show up unless I click a button? Similarly, will I be able to "like" a discussion comment, saying "hey, this actually contributes to the conversation?"

For trust in the club reviews section, will we have the ability to "sort by trust for the past 12 months?"

Wow. Wall of text. I'll stop now.

Some excellent ideas there anon . I will consider them

Oh... Yeah... Trust levels won't affect the ability to post.

Other than bragging rights, I still don’t know what purpose either Trust or Contribution values serve. Weighting of Club Review ? Factor for evaluating accuracy of a review ?

I don’t want “likes.” Ppl already prop each other in discussions, by stating that they agree. I know there are lurkers, but I try not to think ab it too much.

I think we're making the Trusts thing way more complicated than it needs to be - IMO it was fine when it was just a simple Prop acknowledging a fellow TUSCLer - the anonymous quirky nature of TUSCL IMO means that not much stock/weight should be put on it, IMO

Papi sounds like a guy who after making his fortune doesn't know why money is a big deal to the rest of the world.

Well guess what... I want to by my own submarine too PAPI. Wait till I get my 1k plus trust waiting before we start talking about what complicated and unnecessary

@Mark93: "Other than bragging rights, I still don’t know what purpose either Trust or Contribution values serve. "

Under the new rules, the most highly-rated members get a Pulitzer Prize and an engraved plaque.

I sure hope the new algorithm recognizes @Dugan for "The System" and his extraordinary contribution to the science of paying for sex.

images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com

Actually it's a long time TUSCL tradition from yesterday that we send our tide (via Square or Google Wallet) to the most Trusted of the bunch so that they can supplement their activities and continue to provide the most trusted advice they are reputed for.

Are the Trust comments coming back?

^^^ I thought they didn’t matter ;))) Fuck you Jackie errrrr Papi

^ I was asking for GACA

:)

RIGHt YA

As I know trust ratings are in part a back patting thing, but they are also for newbies to see how highly regarded a member is.

That Papi would be at the very top makes perfect sense to me. Its not only the veracity of what he says, it's also his beneficent intent in his postings. No other regular poster even comes close.

SJG

OT: Computer Programming tuscl.net

OT: Book Publishing Industry tuscl.net

I hate it when people post just to patronize others. Is there a way to decrease their contribution and trust level when they do that?

^^^Potmeet kettle.

flagooner, that would be difficult, requiring human interpretation of posts. Trust systems aren't that sophisticated.

SJG

Aeon Byte Knights Templar youtube.com

^^^Intro to sarcasm 101 that’s a course that might benefit you @SJG.

@Bj99:

"san_jose_guy As I know trust ratings are in part a back patting thing, but they are also for newbies to see how highly regarded a member is."

This is really my thought about "likes" or whatever for posts and/or club reviews.

As a newbie, I could say " has a shitty trust level, he must be talking out his ass" or " has a really high trust, he must really know his shit." It's a shorthand for something that would otherwise take quite a bit of reading to figure out.

I don't particularly like the use of the word "trust" for it as I mentioned above, but I'm not sure I've got a better idea either. I also think it should indicate -something- useful. If it doesn't and is just for e-peen comparison, the place would be better off without it. ;p

^^ Intro? More like remedial.

Jeez - I was attempting to clean up my Trust list and it seems I have over 2,000 on the list w/ only 2 or 3 dozen valid-ones - some major corruption going-on - some of my Trust(ees) had zero reviews so IDK how I may have ever Trusted/Propped them

As boards get bigger and bigger, Trust Ratings become more important.

TUSCL does seem to have more and more new members posting. Much of what they tend to talk about are things which others have talked about over some years. Though people may not agree, there is nevertheless a shared understanding which has developed about many things.

Need access to our old threads and posts! And we should be continuing them as the topics get more information.

SJG

Profiles are important. I for one had had a kind of a directory of important posts on mine.

SJG

^ it makes it easy to copy/paste comments over and over again?