I am in favor of 'undoing' the conversion of props to trust across the board... and I will go print out a copy of my current trust list so I don't forget who to re-trust. I know that I used props frequently to comment on reviews once upon a time. If I recall correctly, it was the only alternative to a flag at the time.
I think that is throwing out the baby with the bathwater, I think that just leave it to settle down, I'm sure it will right itself in a few weeks, if it's left alone .
I think it would be the best idea to start trusts over. Ideally display something on the account page only visible to that logged in user with "Here are the members we thought you might have trusted" with the list as it is now, except without converted review props if at all possible.
Otherwise, maybe giving a week or so notice to give people time to save their current lists.
DIsplaying a username as trusting someone they didn't explicitly trust seems like putting words into their mouth and would make trusts less trustworthy in general if some were converted.
While I don’t greatly care one way or another, I agree with 25 on this. Maybe give it some time to settle out.
As far as trusting folks generally on here, I don’t rely on a score or number anyway. Most on here have earned my trust in the sense of they make good comments, or they are good natured, or they are funny smart asses, or they write useful reviews. In other words I’d probably have a beer with them if I met them. There are exceptions, but only a few.
So I’d say get some sleep. Let things play out a bit. You’ve gotten a lot of feedback the last few days and don’t be in a hurry to do anything.
I don’t write reviews, or give trusts based on them, but I worry ab how that would affect member who never really read the board. They might use their trusts as a sort of friend list, in order to read that member’s reviews, or message them. I get the impression that only a fraction of regualar reviews, and readers, are active on the discussion board.
My corrupted Trust list is over 2000 - if other TUSCLers' corrupted lists are a lot shorter then those can be cleared manually as some have done already, and the lists that are very-large perhaps you can wipe out on an individual basis when the user has had a chance to go thru th list and pick out the folks he would wanna re-trust?
Although I wonder how big the problem is - i.e. are there lots and lots of fake Trusts in the system due to the large #s TUSCLers that are rarely on the board and most likely unaware of the corruption, or are no longer active - and if so what effect would this really have w.r.t. what Founder plans to use the Trusts for - oh the humanity
I'll see how easy it is to scan my list for the names I wanna keep/re-Trust - I'll send u a PM later this week but my huge list will need to be nuked either way
Looking at the most recent top 40 Trusts list, it doesn't seem as if anyone's Trust count has gone up significantly, and in some cases it looks like it has gone down a bit, thus how big of an issue is it other than corrupted individual lists?
I would say no, don't do anything with them. I have several of them from people who posted years ago and have passed away or for whatever reason have left the board. I lime seeing their trusts still. Call me sentimental or whatever... my two cents worth
I don't think there's a perfect system, but I understand why you are considering it. I would vote no but if someone (like Papi) needs something specific done then roll with that.
He helps our diets by encouraging us no to even enter a McD's. He is the person who thought me the term "upper decker". He inspired me to consider installing a bidet. The list goes on!
I'm a casual user of this site, only have 10 trusts. No problems, so I don't see the need to change anything.
I have read some b.s. reviews and some very truthful, witty, and honest reviews here. Because I am a casual user, I don't necessarily remember all the aliases/names, I like the ability to sort it all out using the trust identifier.
I say clear the trust lists, if not do away with them entirely. The worst spammers that founder has had to censor on this site have made certain that all their aliases have liked or trusted their main accounts to give them an aura of credibility and prop up their damaged little egos.
Awe gamma.. it’s okay that you don’t have many trust bc I’m sure your penis is SO BIG! What can those guys w more trusts have over you when I’m sure their penises are very small. A few of us don’t even have a penis! :( you are so much better off w your HUGE penis, than a bunch of silly little trusts. :)
I’m for doing what makes it simpler and more usable too. If clearing the trusts helps to give the site a fresh start - and provide more usability - then that sounds good.
I'm kinda with gmd, but without knowing any more I'd say flush them and start over. Or of they can go back to being props and you can establish a "new" trust system. The reason I'd lean towards dumping them is that a lot of folks used review Props as a way to comment on reviews, often in a negative way. Now those negative comments have turned into positives for those reviewers when the writer of the comment was intending it as a negative. Not everyone is going to go clean up their trust list after the change.
I kinda favor a system where individual reviews/comments are marked as good/bad. For example, if I read one of PC's reviews and think its useful I mark it as such. If I read one of vpeterson's (account used to shill for a Key West rip off joint) I could mark it as bad. The same idea could apply to discussion threads. Those could be tallied & then I could have a preference that controlled how I wanted to view the site, for example maybe only showing things with more positive than negative points. If you wanted to extend it to reward/punish good/bad posters it seems as though it could extend there too. Another preference could show/hide content based on a posters avg score for their comments; for example always hide comments from a person with a -5 or worse avg score. You could extend it to VIP credit, revoking credit for largely negative scores on reviews. You could extend it to the discussion board privileges, limiting the number of comments/new threads/day for users with low scores.
The big reason I favor that system is I think it would help make reading reviews for a club much more useful, if I could quickly get the top rated reviews for a club.
54 comments
Not a big deal to me but would suck for the long timers.
Otherwise, maybe giving a week or so notice to give people time to save their current lists.
DIsplaying a username as trusting someone they didn't explicitly trust seems like putting words into their mouth and would make trusts less trustworthy in general if some were converted.
Let's see how my wife takes to my new motto.
As far as trusting folks generally on here, I don’t rely on a score or number anyway. Most on here have earned my trust in the sense of they make good comments, or they are good natured, or they are funny smart asses, or they write useful reviews. In other words I’d probably have a beer with them if I met them. There are exceptions, but only a few.
So I’d say get some sleep. Let things play out a bit. You’ve gotten a lot of feedback the last few days and don’t be in a hurry to do anything.
I'm sure Papi and Shadow will jump back to the top of the board by tomorrow. And BJ (cuz she's got a vagina)
But it'd be interesting to see who else would make the top if we started over. And maybe it could be like a rolling 12 type deal.
Keep the boards fresh and up to date that way.
Is there an easy way to find the top 40 trust list? I don't want to trust the wrong people on here. I have enough con artists trying to con me.
The top 40 lists are accessible via the home screen (tuscl.net or just click on the purple text at the top of the discussion page)
But what do I know? My trust number is in the single digits.
Flagooner and Twentyfive:
http://www.faithanddoubt.com/wp-content/…
That way we can have a fresh start and we all have a chance to catch up with papi chulo LMFAO
But keep the trusts as is. I got a new one yesterday and it made me smile for a brief moment in my dreadful existence.
Au contraire. He has many brilliant qualities:
He helps our diets by encouraging us no to even enter a McD's. He is the person who thought me the term "upper decker". He inspired me to consider installing a bidet. The list goes on!
I have read some b.s. reviews and some very truthful, witty, and honest reviews here. Because I am a casual user, I don't necessarily remember all the aliases/names, I like the ability to sort it all out using the trust identifier.
You probably aren't speaking for me on that one, but I don't know for sure.
http://southpark.cc.com/clips/103420/jap…
I kinda favor a system where individual reviews/comments are marked as good/bad. For example, if I read one of PC's reviews and think its useful I mark it as such. If I read one of vpeterson's (account used to shill for a Key West rip off joint) I could mark it as bad. The same idea could apply to discussion threads. Those could be tallied & then I could have a preference that controlled how I wanted to view the site, for example maybe only showing things with more positive than negative points. If you wanted to extend it to reward/punish good/bad posters it seems as though it could extend there too. Another preference could show/hide content based on a posters avg score for their comments; for example always hide comments from a person with a -5 or worse avg score. You could extend it to VIP credit, revoking credit for largely negative scores on reviews. You could extend it to the discussion board privileges, limiting the number of comments/new threads/day for users with low scores.
The big reason I favor that system is I think it would help make reading reviews for a club much more useful, if I could quickly get the top rated reviews for a club.