Changes to trusts
founder
slip a dollar in her g-string for me
I'm thinking about changing the trust system.
Right now you can fully say you trust a member.
We need a scale for trust that ranges from -5 to 5. That way you can give negative trusts.
Any input will be read and considered.
That is all.
Right now you can fully say you trust a member.
We need a scale for trust that ranges from -5 to 5. That way you can give negative trusts.
Any input will be read and considered.
That is all.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
60 comments
If only VIP members can generate these trusts it may work.
But now that I think about it, I can see the use - e.g. a TUSCL newb could more easily determine who's comments/opinions can be trusted and who is a troll or speaking/posting out of their ass - kinda a way to "separate the wheat from the chaff" sorta speak and more easily identify the trolls. for those not in the know - sorta a way of "reviewing the members/TUSCLers"
But(t) seriously,
Minus 5 to plus 5 would be too many graduations, 11 in all.
Are Papi's contributions (say a 4), worth twice Rick's (say a 2). (no offense, anyone)
Won't dancers try to up their score with more and more boob pictures? Hmm, maybe that would be ok.
Maybe minus 2 to plus 2.
Minus 2 - complete jerk, a-hole, wish they'd go away.
Minus 1 - disagree with much of what they say.
Zero - eh, ok, misspells somme.
Plus 1 - I like, almost as smart as me.
Plus 2 - Mirror, mirror, on the wall. Or he shared his ATF with me, yeah!
How could that go wrongt? 😄
You already have perfectly good contribution metrics, which are the number of approved reviews a user has and the number of clubs he/she has reviewed. In fact, since you added a community approval process, these stats have become even more meaningful. While this is also subject to a certain amount of playing, as has been evidenced by the marked increase of drive by reviews that have been published by relatively new accounts, it is much harder to accomplish than simply creating several troll accounts.
Site features I think would be good:
-- Ability to upvote or downvote posts or even entire threads. See Reddit.
-- "Experience" rating that is separate from "Trusts". Experience would be solely based on the number of approved reviews, number of different clubs reviewed, and number of different regions (if possible).
Trusts would be a solely user-based metric. Experience would be solely review based. Perhaps the two can be averaged together for an overall "Reliability" rating.
My 2 cents.
I guess I wouldn't know til I tried it. 🌞
Why not just come up with an up or down vote on a reputation score. That way if a character like SCpandit shows up talking about spreading HIV it will quickly be reflected in the rep score.
I like the idea of rating, but I'd rate other objects besides users. Rate Threads, Posts, Reviews, etc -5 to +5 (or 10). Then me hide those things based on their scores. If you could use the metrics Rick mentioned (Accepted Reviews, # of Clubs, and maybe age of account too) to weigh those scores, all the better, but maybe not required. The weighting could be fairly simple, anyone with > 10 clubs reviewed scores are worth 2x or something.
If you do change trusts again, I think it's time to clean them up. Last I looked there were still folks out there were seriously inflated numbers from before you made the first change, when "Props" could be given repeatedly. Maybe just start over and call it a reputation score or something.
Or you could go full on points based type thing, where users earn tokens through posting reviews or whatever you feel is something that provides value and use them to give other users points.
Even more than silly and pointless though, I could see it quickly becoming a shit show. Even if it was limited to Verified, the verification standards aren't exactly a high hurdle to clear and we've already had some trolls do it. On a site where multiple aliases are not only allowed, but actually celebrated, there's no way that this doesn't get manipulated.
Don't get me wrong, it could be quite useful as a commercial tool. But if the site becomes a club placement tool available to the ones willing to pay, then founder might as well just add a Manager Login section and be done with it already.
A lot of people use the trust feature solely to pin a shitty opinion to someone else's profile. That would be reduced if it's actually beneficial to the recipient.
And though I like being able to comment when I provide a trust, perhaps that should go away (again).
I would prefer to see it fixed (or improved) rather than deleted. But if it isn't going to be improved, then it should be deleted.
I agree that there should also be an "Experience" metric based solely on accepted reviews.
Also, this is not your normal social site - this place is troll central. What you're suggesting will turn into a Grade A shit show, with ratings being controlled by those with the most time and ability to create new accounts.
It does seem like the acrobatics to avoid any moderation is creating more complexity and effort (and indirect moderation), as compared to what could be achieved with light moderation.
We already argue about review ratings, this would be a shit show with multiple threads devoted to whether anyone is actually 5/5 trustworthy.
Appreciate the effort to innovate but no to this.
If a newbie sees JohnDoe has a 1000 comments and JohnDoe's comments today are trolling/stupid, he can form an opinion quickly that JD is probably a waste of time.
Same situation for GoodGuy, who also has numerous reviews, and his post today is relevant/useful, newbie knows quickly that GG is worth reading, probably trustworthy.
Sadly, I think it's far more likely that the trolls would win out in that type of negative rating game.
I remember there were lists a long time ago too. Those were fun to check out from time to time.
SJG
But I'm all for simpler solutions.
😄