It was implemented...

[Corey B]

Ratings
The ratings system is a system of points that can be given on another user's post or thread. These ratings represent what users think about the post or thread. Ratings should not be considered as reputation, and not to be used in determining how trustworthy someone is.

+1 K3Feedz

For all of you that thought the opposite and for new members, read above! I believe this thread should be stickied as it is usually the number one argument day by day. Just my opinion.

 

[montyburly]

Why would a thread quoting something written in the official rules be stickied? Either way, most people will always consider ratings to be some sort of rep no matter what. Someone who has invested time and effort into gaining rep on this site will always be more trustworthy than someone who hasn't. It's really just a fact and isn't debatable.

 

[Corey B]

Why would a thread quoting something written in the official rules be stickied? Either way, most people will always consider ratings to be some sort of rep no matter what. Someone who has invested time and effort into gaining rep on this site will always be more trustworthy than someone who hasn't. It's really just a fact and isn't debatable.

How many people actually read the rules? You can tell them but there is no guarantee. No tutorial explaining the site and functions or how things are done. On top of this, Ratings will soon be considered just something to show support. It will not mean Reputation as Low Quality Posters would basically be "trusted" according to your logic.

 

[montyburly]

How many people actually read the rules? You can tell them but there is no guarantee. No tutorial explaining the site and functions or how things are done. On top of this, Ratings will soon be considered just something to show support. It will not mean Reputation as Low Quality Posters would basically be "trusted" according to your logic.

If people don't read the rules do you think they're going to read a post quoting the rules?

Everyone who makes this argument doesn't really have any evidence of sellers who solely gain ratings off of low quality posts. Are there even shop owners on this site who have no ratings from the products they sell? You are acting like people come on here and shitpost and magically earn 1,000 ratings quickly and easily and then scam someone. Gaining ratings is time consuming no matter how low quality your posts are. You won't be able to join the site and get 1,000 ratings the day you come here by shitposting. You'll get banned for post farming, called out for being annoying, or will just become known as a shitposter.

Of course it's not impossible for a high-rep member to scam, but there's no way anyone can argue that it's less likely for them to scam. I will always consider high-rep members to be more trustworthy than low-rep members and I find it funny that it's only the lower rep members who make posts like this. If you want to become a trusted member, spend time on the site and build a reputation for yourself.

 

[n0tzach]

+1

 

[Corey B]

If people don't read the rules do you think they're going to read a post quoting the rules?

Everyone who makes this argument doesn't really have any evidence of sellers who solely gain ratings off of low quality posts. Are there even shop owners on this site who have no ratings from the products they sell? You are acting like people come on here and shitpost and magically earn 1,000 ratings quickly and easily and then scam someone. Gaining ratings is time consuming no matter how low quality your posts are. You won't be able to join the site and get 1,000 ratings the day you come here by shitposting. You'll get banned for post farming, called out for being annoying, or will just become known as a shitposter.

Of course it's not impossible for a high-rep member to scam, but there's no way anyone can argue that it's less likely for them to scam. I will always consider high-rep members to be more trustworthy than low-rep members and I find it funny that it's only the lower rep members who make posts like this. If you want to become a trusted member, spend time on the site and build a reputation for yourself.

You say you find it funny that low members make these posts, only because you are a high rep member. (Which there have been countless arguments with that hasn't there). But anyways, I'm not making this post because I am low rep. I was trusted at rep 50 for multiple tasks. Hence my point, Rep means nothing. Most people write comments to gain rep, I write logical responses.

 

[NotSoBoop]

This is like the 15th thread stating this.

 

[Corey B]

Maybe they can make an actually rep system.

Being trustworthy is more about people who vouch. Not just vouching regularly, but having to deal with services in the past.

This is like the 15th thread stating this.

Except all the countless arguments are over. There is now an actual rule stating this.

 

[NotSoBoop]

Except all the countless arguments are over. There is now an actual rule stating this.

Ah. Alright, thanks for the clarification.

 

[montyburly]

You say you find it funny that low members make these posts, only because you are a high rep member.

No, this argument doesn't make any sense. If you look at the banlist you'd see that most of the people banned for scamming were low-rep members. I actually did a test on this and found that out of 100 people banned for scamming, only 2 had 500+ rep. This isn't even counting the amount of scammers who multi-account and get caught. It is so easy for someone to make an account, scam, change their IP, make a new account and scam again. It is not easy to make a new account and become a trusted member quickly. That is why ratings play an important part in determining whether someone is trusted or not.

 

[Ivain]

Maybe they can make an actually rep system.

However much I would like to agree, how would that work? I can't think of any reasonably simple way to make it, without letting trolls and haters lower people's reputation or letting people farm reputation similar to the way people can farm ratings now.[DOUBLEPOST=1448490175,1448490072][/DOUBLEPOST]

No, this argument doesn't make any sense. If you look at the banlist you'd see that most of the people banned for scamming were low-rep members. I actually did a test on this and found that out of 100 people banned for scamming, only 2 had 500+ rep. This isn't even counting the amount of scammers who multi-account and get caught. It is so easy for someone to make an account, scam, change their IP, make a new account and scam again. It is not easy to make a new account and become a trusted member quickly. That is why ratings play an important part in determining whether someone is trusted or not.

To summarize what you're saying here (so I'm sure I understand it correctly), your view on ratings is that the amount of ratings a person has compared to the amount of posts they have shows the average overall quality of their posts, and thus if people have a lot of both they can be said to be active on here with lots of good quality posts?

 

[Corey B]

However much I would like to agree, how would that work? I can't think of any reasonably simple way to make it, without letting trolls and haters lower people's reputation or letting people farm reputation similar to the way people can farm ratings now.

I try to help Mick per day but I am busy with exams soon like him.

My idea was to maybe hire more staff, then they can moderate ratings for/from users. Or possibly making it so you need a reason for every rating given and you cannot really Fake that. There are ways I just haven't listed pros and cons yet.[DOUBLEPOST=1448490316,1448490229][/DOUBLEPOST]

No, this argument doesn't make any sense. If you look at the banlist you'd see that most of the people banned for scamming were low-rep members. I actually did a test on this and found that out of 100 people banned for scamming, only 2 had 500+ rep. This isn't even counting the amount of scammers who multi-account and get caught. It is so easy for someone to make an account, scam, change their IP, make a new account and scam again. It is not easy to make a new account and become a trusted member quickly. That is why ratings play an important part in determining whether someone is trusted or not.

You know why people multi account? They get banned without knowing the rules fully. Or maybe you are right and they like scamming. But you are being stereotypical in saying "low rep members can't be trusted". How would they gain rep then...?

 

[Ivain]

I try to help Mick per day but I am busy with exams soon like him.

My idea was to maybe hire more staff, then they can moderate ratings for/from users. Or possibly making it so you need a reason for every rating given and you cannot really Fake that. There are ways I just haven't listed pros and cons yet.[DOUBLEPOST=1448490316,1448490229][/DOUBLEPOST]

You know why people multi account? They get banned without knowing the rules fully. Or maybe you are right and they like scamming. But you are being stereotypical in saying "low rep members can't be trusted". How would they gain rep then...?

No offense, but having a reason for every rating given would kill the rating system.
How many people would be willing to give a rating if they had to first explain why they want to give the rating?
If that system was implemented everyone's ratings would need to be reset, since from that point onwards it would be a LOT harder to gain ratings.

I get the idea, and I agree, but like so many great ideas it is unlikely to ever become practical.

 

[sdlkajsda]

+1

 

[montyburly]

To summarize what you're saying here (so I'm sure I understand it correctly), your view on ratings is that the amount of ratings a person has compared to the amount of posts they have shows the average overall quality of their posts, and thus if people have a lot of both they can be said to be active on here with lots of good quality posts?

Regardless of the quality of the posts they make, if they have a lot of posts and a lot of ratings that shows that they've put time and effort into the site, meaning they are less likely to scam than someone who has put no time and effort into it.

You know why people multi account? They get banned without knowing the rules fully. Or maybe you are right and they like scamming. But you are being stereotypical in saying "low rep members can't be trusted". How would they gain rep then...?

I never said low rep members can't be trusted, because there obviously are some who can be. I was one, you were one, every reputable member on the site was one. I'm saying it's less likely for a higher rep member to scam, so the low-rep member should always go first in deals. Low rep members gain their reputation the same way we all did: by spending time on the site. They can earn vouches by going first in deals and selling to high rep members as well. That's how casual online transactions work here and everywhere else.

 

[nara~kavi]

If you invest more time in a website gaining ratings, making posts, and building a name for yourself, then it is far more unlikely that you will scam someone because then all of the time that you invested into the website would go to nothing. Does anyone honestly think someone like Doge. or OGMaster, or yes Montyburly & I, would scam? Of course not. Because we make hundreds and hundreds of dollars off of this website and it would never make sense for us to scam one single thing and get banned over it.

Ratings do not = Reputation, this is obvious. However, ratings are something that should be taken into account. The simple fact of the matter is that if somebody has a large amount of ratings they'd be far more unlikely to scam than somebody with few posts and ratings. Statistically speaking, almost every single person who is banned from this website for scamming has under 1000 ratings. Jurhed is the only notable exception to this and he did it on his way out the door from the site because he was tired of it.

Ratings will always be an easy way for members to look and determine whether or not someone is trust-able. It isn't *all* they should look at, but it is fine for it to be there as an option.

And yes, it's easy to say that the only reason Monty & I argue this is because we have high ratings, but it just seems like common sense to me.

 

[Ivain]

To make this simple, the point of most of our lengthy posts is that ratings do show a correlation towards reliability, but that they are far from a guarantee.