Reputation with previous system

[Bug]

If a user gave you a negative reputation with the old system, and you wanted to dispute it with the current system. You simply can't. You can only attempt to contact the person who gave u it and try change their mind. If a person is inactive on the site and there is no way to get in contact with them, the reputation should simply be removed. I shouldn't need to hire a private investigator to try and locate the user in question, should I?

--
TL;DR: Make it so all old reputation still work with the current system.

 

[bb]

If this is regarding negative rep, I feel like it should have the same system as a scam report. The user should get emailed and have a time frame to reply, otherwise it will be removed.

 

[Bug]

If this is regarding negative rep, I feel like it should have the same system as a scam report. The user should get emailed and have a time frame to reply, otherwise it will be removed.

Yeah that's the current system, Any reputation which was added before this current system simply can't be disputed. Which doesn't seem quite fair.

 

[bb]

Yeah that's the current system, Any reputation which was added before this current system simply can't be disputed. Which doesn't seem quite fair.

Oh. Then idk.

 

[Bug]

Oh. Then idk.

They should make it so all old reputation still work with the current system, I got my feedback dispute denied cause you have to get the user to change their mind and the user hasn't logged on in almost 2 years..

 

[Darl]

seems unfair

 

[Bug]

seems unfair

Hmm? You mean the suggestion or how old reputations can't be disputed?

 

[Darl]

Hmm? You mean the suggestion or how old reputations can't be disputed?

I got my feedback dispute denied cause you have to get the user to change their mind and the user hasn't logged on in almost 2 years..

 

[Jayson]

If I remember correctly, it is this way because the community wanted to stop people from reporting positive feedback. The original plan was to make legacy feedback not count at all, so that was the compromise.

I see both sides having a negative, so if we are to take action on it, what is your view on dealing with positive feedback? Both can be invalid. Remember, individuals can still update legacy feedback to the newer layout and it is not viable for the staff team to go through every legacy feedback. The main problem was legacy feedback not having any proof to it.

 

[Bug]

Negative rep carries a good bit of weight as if you have negs people are going to look at them. Disputing them should be a thing. If the user who gave it wishes for it to stay it should need to be updated with proof to the new system. Doing it for all the positives isnt really realistic as it would be a ton of work for everyone. But the negatives could affect a deal and really do carry more weight. for that reason some of disputing negatives should be a option.

I fully agree with you.

 

[Sullybash12]

Since most people will refuse to deal with people regardless of the reason/validity of a neg rep, it could be the difference between a deal and no deal

 

[Jayson]

No suggestions here. Just considerations.

I personally think the feedback system is broken because there are too many positive ones. We have made it so that they have been disputable from the start, and thus, everyone has disputed negative feedback, even if they are valid. Many feedbacks have been removed because they were not related to a deal in the past, but I believe that has changed now. I would personally enjoy someone who is nice with good ethics over the skill. Such as cases where they no longer have the evidence or possibly if both individuals get mad at each other and the feedback giver uses some wrong language and the receiver drills in the idea that it is harassment to the resolver. Because of this, any negative feedback is recognized as bad while everyone definitely has some bad parts. Just unfortunately it is at a point of disrepair because it is unreasonable to reset it to reverse it.

Really, if you only get positive feedback, what is the point? It basically shows how long you have been registered and trading on-site. I would consider someone from a few years ago with 1 positive feedback reputable in some cases because they may be a server owner that does more off-site and hiring their own people. Everyone's stats are bloated. 96% of the community's feedback is positive or neutral filtering for only those not banned and well...if you ask me that is probably unnatural, especially when there are a lot of services provided and not so much bulk product sellers which in the resources section, there are reviews instead of feedback. And still, 83% of banned feedback is positive or neutral which in many cases the community may hear that they are scamming and flood them with negatives.

 

[Justis]

If a user gave you a negative reputation with the old system, and you wanted to dispute it with the current system. You simply can't. You can only attempt to contact the person who gave u it and try change their mind. If a person is inactive on the site and there is no way to get in contact with them, the reputation should simply be removed. I shouldn't need to hire a private investigator to try and locate the user in question, should I?

--
TL;DR: Make it so all old reputation still work with the current system.

This is how we initially wanted it. Our feedback dispute system has always required evidence in order for feedback to be kept. Long before the dispute system was automated, long before evidence was uploadable to the feedback itself. The issue was only that there was too much feedback being authored for the staff team to get through and verify it all by requesting the required evidence be manually sent.

After we updated to the system which allows the evidence to be uploaded directly, we wanted to force all legacy feedback to be updated to the new system (be provided with evidence there) or be removed, so that we could purge our system of all of the baseless accusations as well as the (far more common) rep-for-rep abuse that occurred back when feedback could be given back and forth as easily as just making up a reason and posting it.

Unfortunately, the our old members didn’t want to have to provide evidence for all of their feedback, because they knew they between not being able to and or being unwilling to put in the time to collect it, they’d lose a lot. So not only were we unable to resolve the problem, but we were being faced with a new problem, where the community was beginning to demand that their legacy feedback be granted immunity to the evidence policies that they were currently and had always been previously subjected to.

In order to try to not upset the community while still resolving the lies/corruption that have occurred from before evidence was uploadable, we proposed making all legacy feedback uncounted in totals, as well as hide the totals from everywhere but the feedback overview page where they could all be viewed, but keeping the feedback public, and immune from the dispute system/report system and evidence related rules just like everyone wanted it.

Unfortunately, there was massive backlash to that suggestion as well. Many of our older members insisted that they be able to keep all of their legacy feedback, never have to provide any evidence for it, and still have all of it counted the same as feedback with evidence, essentially immortalizing the rule violating feedback on everyone’s profiles, untouchable by the staff team, despite us knowing that none of it has any supporting evidence and it was all left back during a time when positive feedback was abusively farmed for high totals on the daily.

It should be obvious from my tone how I felt about those ideals.
A counter suggestion was made to at least make the legacy feedback totals separate from the regular totals, and display a warning explaining why they are separate, but essentially otherwise give into the demands of the community, and grant the legacy feedback immunity. We haven’t had an opportunity to separate the totals, but it otherwise has been implemented. Which means the community got what it wanted.

I believe that as time passes, we may be able to go back and write those wrongs, as the community fills with people who won’t be so bias in their own favor, who prioritize their own interest in their high totals over the accuracy and consistency of the reputation system and its enforcement. Eventually, I believe we’ll be able to properly deal with the old feedback.

This suggestion is essentially asking for a reversal of the demands we were forced to accommodate. I would love nothing more than to be able to enforce our rules consistently and remove all of the feedback that can’t be provided evidence, but I think it’s probably too soon for the community to accept a change like that.

 

[Bug]

This is how we initially wanted it. Our feedback dispute system has always required evidence in order for feedback to be kept. Long before the dispute system was automated, long before evidence was uploadable to the feedback itself. The issue was only that there was too much feedback being authored for the staff team to get through and verify it all by requesting the required evidence be manually sent.

After we updated to the system which allows the evidence to be uploaded directly, we wanted to force all legacy feedback to be updated to the new system (be provided with evidence there) or be removed, so that we could purge our system of all of the baseless accusations as well as the (far more common) rep-for-rep abuse that occurred back when feedback could be given back and forth as easily as just making up a reason and posting it.

Unfortunately, the our old members didn’t want to have to provide evidence for all of their feedback, because they knew they between not being able to and or being unwilling to put in the time to collect it, they’d lose a lot. So not only were we unable to resolve the problem, but we were being faced with a new problem, where the community was beginning to demand that their legacy feedback be granted immunity to the evidence policies that they were currently and had always been previously subjected to.

In order to try to not upset the community while still resolving the lies/corruption that have occurred from before evidence was uploadable, we proposed making all legacy feedback uncounted in totals, as well as hide the totals from everywhere but the feedback overview page where they could all be viewed, but keeping the feedback public, and immune from the dispute system/report system and evidence related rules just like everyone wanted it.

Unfortunately, there was massive backlash to that suggestion as well. Many of our older members insisted that they be able to keep all of their legacy feedback, never have to provide any evidence for it, and still have all of it counted the same as feedback with evidence, essentially immortalizing the rule violating feedback on everyone’s profiles, untouchable by the staff team, despite us knowing that none of it has any supporting evidence and it was all left back during a time when positive feedback was abusively farmed for high totals on the daily.

It should be obvious from my tone how I felt about those ideals.
A counter suggestion was made to at least make the legacy feedback totals separate from the regular totals, and display a warning explaining why they are separate, but essentially otherwise give into the demands of the community, and grant the legacy feedback immunity. We haven’t had an opportunity to separate the totals, but it otherwise has been implemented. Which means the community got what it wanted.

I believe that as time passes, we may be able to go back and write those wrongs, as the community fills with people who won’t be so bias in their own favor, who prioritize their own interest in their high totals over the accuracy and consistency of the reputation system and its enforcement. Eventually, I believe we’ll be able to properly deal with the old feedback.

This suggestion is essentially asking for a reversal of the demands we were forced to accommodate. I would love nothing more than to be able to enforce our rules consistently and remove all of the feedback that can’t be provided evidence, but I think it’s probably too soon for the community to accept a change like that.

You make alot of fair points, but during the old days, most feedbacks were just ones due to rep4rep and basically farming reputation. When you look at a old members profile it's really hard to get a view of their reputation, including positive ones. Most if not all old reputation is basically meaningless and, positive-reputation wise It's insanely hard to determine whether your dealing with a trusted user or not, due to that fact. All new members aren't aware of this, which could easily lead to users being scammed. If there's no way to provide evidence that a deal has happened between 2 users, it should be removed. Whether or not it actually happened, well we really have no idea.. I'm not just saying this to get my negative reputation removed, I do have a couple positive ones from before this system and I don't mind them getting removed just to make everything a bit better. I'm sure theres theres people who have a hundred+ rep from the old system that they'd lose.. but isn't that reputation meaningless anyways? This is a fair bit controversial of course, but if you had gained 100+ rep with the old system why would you not continue to gain more rep with the new system. The main problem is that the system had to be implemented from the beginning to be more fair. As of now, a very big % of everyone's reputation is just farmed reputation, meaningless basically.

 

[Mick]

Back about a year ago we introduced some pretty radical changes to the way that we handle reputation. We made all reputation left by banned members be marked as uncounted in your reputation totals and disabled the reporting functionality to reduce abuse and targeted. The changes that we made were certainly controversial at the time, but looking back I'm a firm believer that the changes we made back then were the best that we could have made.

Our reputation system is very far from being perfect in its current state, and we fully recognise that. Since it's introduction we've changed many policies and spent countless hours developing new custom systems, such as disputing feedback.

At the moment we aren't planning to do any more development for our site until we can migrate to XF2. We're also not going to be making any changes to our policies surrounding reputation. Our system is stable at the moment, and making a change now when we're going to be redeveloping everything shortly isn't beneficial. Perhaps once we move to XF2 and have fixed all the bugs that come with that and have more time for some new development and to consider the impact that instituting new policies will result in.

Until then, I'll move this to denied. Once we migrate to XF2 if you feel that this is still relevant please create a new suggestion thread and we can look into it once again. Thank you to everyone for your support and criticism of our systems, it is definitely the best way for us to improve.

Thank you,