Trust Ratings
founder
slip a dollar in her g-string for me
Hi All
I recommend you all take a look at your trust list and make sure you have people on there that you actually trust. If you like a person on here, please trust them. If you think they are full of shit, then do NOT trust them
https://www.tuscl.net/trusts.php
This will be a very important stat going forward.
I recommend you all take a look at your trust list and make sure you have people on there that you actually trust. If you like a person on here, please trust them. If you think they are full of shit, then do NOT trust them
https://www.tuscl.net/trusts.php
This will be a very important stat going forward.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
138 comments
I'm guessing Shadow has like a
https://www.tuscl.net/tt.php?m=u&i=2
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.
Based on the top 40 trusted members, I worry a little bit about our crowdsourcing :) lol...
It still needs some tweaking, but I think we can all agree that #1 (papi_chulo) is dead on accurate.
Sounds like something from Xbox live lol.
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...
Now I am super depressed. LOL
Carry on Founder.
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.
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
My self-esteem depends my TUSCL trust rating and I'm afraid it will tank when people start cleaning up their lists.
Nobody even close to him score wise.
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.
Stop patronizing me.
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.
This guy needs to stfu
:)
(I propped you flagooner. I don't want to see your self-esteem take a shit. Besides - you're cool beans with me.)
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 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 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 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.
Reputation points makes sense. Maybe reliability of reviews?
I only have 1 trust given to me, so I guess I'm in a heated race to the bottom. Oh well.
All you have to do is grow some tits and playfully flirt/banter with other TUSCLers. You should see your trusts skyrocket!
What I"m confused about is how some of Dougster's (or juice's? Who even knows) alternative troll handles got so high up
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
Pretty sure my trust rating is correct.
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.
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 got crushed to death by a dancer that was more than a little on the thick side. (:
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1600&b…:
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).
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 <x> 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.
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
_________________________
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.
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/…
Fuck you Jackie errrrr Papi
:)
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
https://www.tuscl.net/?page=post&id=5312…
OT: Book Publishing Industry
https://www.tuscl.net/?page=post&id=5072…
SJG
Aeon Byte Knights Templar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1epqclX6…
"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 "<user> has a shitty trust level, he must be talking out his ass" or "<user> 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
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
SJG