You'd be surprised with the amount of people who like to do good stuff for free here.
Comment has been collapsed.
You mean so groups of people can exploit the system? :)
Comment has been collapsed.
The existing system can also be easily exploited (eg. write a bot to upvote every negative rep comment it comes across except for ones that match comments on specific profiles). They want to make it completely automated but history has shown that simply won't work.
They need to take a page from wikipedia or stackoverflow: flags can be used to indicate which rep needs to be looked at, but all removed rep needs to be vouched a trusted human-being first.
Comment has been collapsed.
erm nope... not really... do you know what are the chances for such a bot to actually getting to ANY of predesignated comments? minimal. That's why current system while I agree that will not get a lot of attention is still better than what you propose, because your idea is easilly exploitable without any effort - have army of alts or a group downvote neg rep and it's cleared, current system is not exploitable, at least unless you have army of hundreds of bots hoping to get lucky before they get banned (because yes, SG monitors traffic and in the past did give a 24h warning ban to GA entering bots already, so monitoring and permabanning trade exploitation bots would be easy).
Comment has been collapsed.
However, people do read others' negative rep, when they are actually looking to trade with them. There should be the ability to up/downvote rep on profiles so that I can vote on the rep during the times I actually read it.
Not possible. If you know on whose rep you're voting people would get their friends to get the negative rep removed.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'll quote my other comment:
They want to make it completely automated but history has shown that simply won't work [..] all removed rep needs to be vouched a trusted human-being first
Comment has been collapsed.
Yea, I read that but I still don't know what you're trying to say. Probably because I'm not familiar with the way Wikipedia editing or stackoverflow works.
Comment has been collapsed.
There's been over 21,000 votes in the first 5 hours, so we're off to a promising start, even with the expected slowdown in voting.
We'll look at the data in the next few weeks and see how the user votes compare to the opinions of our support members. If the two are inline, then I'd consider the system a success. If not, then we can look at different approaches, such as using the votes in combination with support. We have no way of knowing until we collect more data and analyze it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Is it just a coincidence or we actually get to review older feedbacks firstly? Checked a few and most were dated as 4 years ago, which is rather odd as most of those people aren't even trading by now.
Edit. All of them are 4 years old to me. That's not really effective to deal with such outdated (and probably forgotten) stuff instead of fresher cases.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're right, it's showing you the oldest reviews first. I thought that would be the fairest way to display them, so a user that has been waiting patiently for a couple of years, isn't left waiting even longer. In a week, or a month, we should catch up on reviews. At that point you'll be voting on negative reviews posted the same day, and negative reviews will be posted, voted on, and removed if necessary within a matter of hours.
Comment has been collapsed.
Alright. Thank you very much for clarifying this. Is there any info regarding how this percentage needed for auto-removal of negative feedback is calculated, though? For instance, 10 downvotes to 1-3 or just a certain number of d'votes in general, or ~70% of people voting for removal.
P.S. I'm getting 3 years old reviews now so it's actually progressing smoothly, but like you said it will still take about a month most likely due to a rise of activity on the site 2 years ago (and so rise of trades > negs).
Comment has been collapsed.
The possibility of voting stopped for me at 1159 votes. I guess there's a safety reason that caps the limit on voting but can I ask if that cap will be changed or not in the future so users can vote some more?
Comment has been collapsed.
Voted on ~ 62 something negative ratings ... hadn't known what kind of negative feedback gets reported but its ludicrous.
Seemed like 85% are useless and unintelligible remarks, regardless who wrote it and for what reason.
Detailed negative feedback requires time to check ... and even then, it might not be clear to due
circumstance or screenshots provided. Those are the ones one would have to see the users but
you'd see them anyway through the links/pics provided - if that doesn't make it clear > leave it as it is.
Wasn't confident about this at first but it looks like the road to get to a proper rating system,
that will be plastered with tons of innocent and guilty negative feedbacks along the way lol.
edit: hadn't checked the most recent update on votes ... now its
getting interesting, also easier to access the feedback correctly
Comment has been collapsed.
Wasn't confident about this at first but it looks like the road to get to a proper rating system
And I think that's the real point. Although only implied, what we're really doing is building a new reputation system from scratch. So much of the old feedback was so completely nonsensical and useless, that this process of weeding out the crap is necessary, even if it means that a few valid negatives get removed. People have to be trained to start giving feedback in a more comprehensible form, and this is the start of that training, exposing everyone to the filth that currently exists so they will learn to avoid replicating it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah this would totally make sense, as long it won't just repeat itself all over again, until
scamming equals a free pass for those unable to write/protocol a proper negative feedback.
Comment has been collapsed.
The (literal) best one was a youtube video link, because the person was using fraps while trading and recorded every single second of the trade :D
Other than that, so many, MANY "scammerrrrr" and such, even people openly giving -rep because a friend was scammed. It's a mess. :\
Comment has been collapsed.
Yup a mess indeed ... even when there's the 10 - 20% that provide info it still might not
be clear (when the profiles don't tell you anything) but at least its something.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's just so bad to see that the -reps are either just scammer and such, or they contain a story that anyone could just write. I think I found less than 10 reviews being actually useful (video, screenshot, warning link to steamrep) out of ~ 200. for whatever reason I thought the situation is better :\
Comment has been collapsed.
contain a story that anyone could just write
what is one supposed to write then though? Isn't any scammer story generally imaginable? Or is a screen mandatory? I doubt anybody but 5 people make actual videos.
Comment has been collapsed.
I just said that video is really useful, and also a screenshot of the chat. Even steamrep doesn't accept copy-pasted chat as a proof, because it doesn't took much time to forge one. Seriously, I'm kind of a distress because by my experience this would mean well above 70-80% of the reps would be removed, but why on earth should I believe in a situation like this: a comment that's telling me that X took a user's Y game, and all I can check that yes, that person has Yactivated. And skip is not an option for this, because it's objectively lacking any proof, nobody else could determine it as well.
Comment has been collapsed.
So essentially w/o a screen a -rep is useless then? Then it should be clearly included in a notice box when choosing -rep that shows the need for one.
Considering that isn't in place, I surely wouldn't want to see actual scammers to get whitewashed in the process. There are several cases where certain overlapping reports clearly show potential issues with a trader, even though they have no screen provided.
Personally I keep chat screens just to be on the safe side, but realistically hat's already too much effort for cheapo bundle games.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is exactly my gripe as well, the rep system was totally unkept, there was not a single guideline about it... I guess there will be no consequences for the old reps, but holy sh*t, the amount of improper, abusive, passive-agressive, or active-agressive revenge reps I've seen it's safe to say about 20% of the reps could be the ground for a permasuspension because rep misuse. Also if you add up that someone let's say has 7 -reps, 5-6 being just "scammer" and one being okay-ish without screen, that still easily could be from a group of people. There is so much uncertaintity to it that I seriously lose willingness to continue, because what you said about potentially whitewashing someone :(
Comment has been collapsed.
Misuse of Trade Feedback 'only' gets you 5 days.
Revenge reps were a necessary evil because there was no other reply possibility. They can get removed now, but before they showed a flaw in the system going for years.
For me credibility of -reps is dependent on if the writer has some amount of +reps themselves. Those <10 aren't really believable most often.
Comment has been collapsed.
Reviewing is easy with this vote system. Give it a chance and let cg and his team makes proper adjustment if required :-)
I voted Yes on a review... but there should be some kind of report buttons in case of racist comments...
Comment has been collapsed.
considering how many people request to help out support.
are there really that many? Last I remember was about 30.
Comment has been collapsed.
SillyScream plz. :|
couldn't resist
Depending on how many downvotes necessary to remove, it'd be a lot less than 600/day. :P
600/day assumes only one downvote per review is needed.
Now you have me wondering how many downvotes are needed before a negative rep is removed. -_-
Comment has been collapsed.
SillyScream plz :|
I wonder what the minimum #'s necessary before removal are, or what % of total votes have to be downvotes for removal.
And yes, it's definitely a good thing, :3
Comment has been collapsed.
The thing is, the voters don't know the backstory what happend, most people just comment SCAMMER etc, and don't post any screenies. Als what I'm wondering is, can they read the replies that the person gave?
Comment has been collapsed.
So is there any info on how many downvotes or what percentage of them is needed for auto-removal? Was anyone cleared of negative already? Or maybe system just counts votes for now without actually doing anything.
Comment has been collapsed.
So is there any info on how many downvotes or what percentage of them is needed for auto-removal?
Knowing the exact threshold would be something that could be exploited. They'll never tell us that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Erm, no? People should know what it takes for false feedbacks left on their profiles to be removed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Looks like votes stop automatically after 100 votes, it's been stuck at that number for a week for me... However I'm at 88% removal and nothing's been done yet. I'd be willing to bet the feature isn't done being implemented yet. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
You're going to have a boost of people voting for the first few days, then barely anyone. Very few people are going to go out of their way to police content.
However, people do read others' negative rep, when they are actually looking to trade with them. There should be the ability to up/downvote rep on profiles so that I can vote on the rep during the times I actually read it.
[Edit] gg inbox, I forgot how smug and condescending people are on the Internet.
Comment has been collapsed.