Trader's Ratings feedback

Do you want the Trader's Ratings opened to voting by non-paying members?

  • Total voters
    51
WebSlave

WebSlave

Maybe seeing a light at the end of the tunnel.
Staff member
Staff
Endowment
Resident Demon
Joined
Feb 3, 2002
Messages
20,177
Reaction score
803
Points
113
Location
Crawfordville, FL
OK, I'm about tired of getting emails grousing about this and seeing people posting complaints about my restriction on non-paying members not being able to provide feedback in the Trader's Ratings. Case and point -> http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=442497

As mentioned, the reason I have this restriction is because without it, ANYONE can create multiple bogus accounts and either pump up their own ratings, pump up someone else's, or slam someone with negative feedback because they have some bone to pick with them. But if this is a real problem for people who want to have the ratings opened up, along with the warts mentioned above, then who am I to stand in their way?

The caveat, of course, will be that if YOU suffer bogus feedback from it, then that will just have to be tough on you. I'm not about to try to clean up any messes that result from it. Nor someone clicking the wrong button. Or really anything that might go wrong there. And I don't expect the mods to step on there neither. I tried to try to keep the BOI from having a plethora of bogus posts made there a long while back by limiting it to paying members only to post there, and that got handily shot down in flames. So screw it. If you all don't care, then certainly neither do I.

So I'm setting up a simple YES or NO poll with this thread to see if enough people want that Trader's Ratings feedback to be available from non-paying members for me to remove that restriction.

Let me know in the poll, please. Anyone who doesn't vote has no say in the matter either now or in the future. If you don't vote, you don't count. Simple majority tells me what you all want. I will make the voter's names visible in the voting so no matter which way it goes, then you can thank THEM, not me.
 
:) Rich, it sounds like you want to let it go enough as is. It sounds like it would be EASIER to just let it go... Youre still dealing with negative feedback about it, or you would be dealing with negative feedback regarding bogus hits. Its too bad there would not be a way to allow two users to agree to the transaction. " User A would like to leave you feedback, do you accept?" blah blah blah. Im sure you dont want to deal with having somebody write code for that, so probably a moot point, but hey. *shrugs*
 
Mooing Tricycle said:
:) Rich, it sounds like you want to let it go enough as is. It sounds like it would be EASIER to just let it go... Youre still dealing with negative feedback about it, or you would be dealing with negative feedback regarding bogus hits. Its too bad there would not be a way to allow two users to agree to the transaction. " User A would like to leave you feedback, do you accept?" blah blah blah. Im sure you dont want to deal with having somebody write code for that, so probably a moot point, but hey. *shrugs*
Click to expand...

Could modify some of the Ticket Systems that are already out there. They usually have a verification process and post-action ratings on them.
 
This will be abused/gamed if made possible. It has elements of imperfection as is, but it would be made worse with less refined control of submission. The incentive to do damage to competition is there. The financial barrier helps to prevent that.

I would rather see it completely eliminated over being made capable of being heavily abused.

I would rather see it stand as it is than see it eliminated.

Are paying members and non-paying members allowed to vote for this? If so, those inclined to abuse will be given a voice. Those inclined to trade a small amount of money for the privilege can easily be outvoted from the get-go. Two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner fits that well, coincidentally, with payment being the armament or deterrent. I would like to receive positive feedback from the many great customers I have who are not contributors, but having people organizing anonymous smear campaigns, which is sure to happen to at least some paying members regardless if it does or does not affect my situation, is damaging. I see more downside than upside as presented by the prospect of the newer rating system if opened up so fully.

Just my perspective.
 
Last edited:
WebSlave said:
As mentioned, the reason I have this restriction is because without it, ANYONE can create multiple bogus accounts and either pump up their own ratings, pump up someone else's, or slam someone with negative feedback because they have some bone to pick with them.
Click to expand...
Since I'm not familiar with the back-end code for the site I'll ask - is it possible to open up ratings for non-paying members whose account has been active for a certain amount of time, say 6+ months, and who have a minimum number of posts and/or karma points?

Or could a paying member's rating be weighted more heavily than a non-member's in the rating calculation?

Neither would completely stop the bogus account issue, but people doing it would have to waste so much time setting it all up that most wouldn't bother.
 
Mooing Tricycle said:
:) Rich, it sounds like you want to let it go enough as is. It sounds like it would be EASIER to just let it go... Youre still dealing with negative feedback about it, or you would be dealing with negative feedback regarding bogus hits. Its too bad there would not be a way to allow two users to agree to the transaction. " User A would like to leave you feedback, do you accept?" blah blah blah. Im sure you dont want to deal with having somebody write code for that, so probably a moot point, but hey. *shrugs*
Click to expand...

Not sure how well that would work. In effect, the Trader's Ratings would likely become a positive feedback only function, since it is highly unlikely that anyone would want to allow publicly viewable negative feedback about themselves. So with veto powers, most will certainly exercise it. Not to mention that some sort of custom programming would be necessary. Please see my later comment about that below.

bcr229 said:
Since I'm not familiar with the back-end code for the site I'll ask - is it possible to open up ratings for non-paying members whose account has been active for a certain amount of time, say 6+ months, and who have a minimum number of posts and/or karma points?

Or could a paying member's rating be weighted more heavily than a non-member's in the rating calculation?

Neither would completely stop the bogus account issue, but people doing it would have to waste so much time setting it all up that most wouldn't bother.
Click to expand...

Anything is usually possible with custom programming. But I can't see the value of doing so. It would make the code more complicated, and certainly just as many people would complain about such changes as they are now about how the function is today. So nothing would be gained and I would have thrown money away for such mods.

Yes, I know this isn't perfect, and there doesn't appear to be any fixes that would make it more nearly so. This was offered as just another tool for YOU all to utilize. Personally I don't care either way. I'm just tired of the complaints from people who just have not expended any brain cells to figure out the ramifications of what they are asking for when they bitch about not being able to vote in the Trader's Ratings because they are not a paying member. Like I haven't given this a lot of thought myself and am just doing something stupid by not doing it the way they want it to be.

Anyway, spread the word to others to vote on this. Someone not hearing about it and not voting will have the same weight as someone knowing about it and not voting. Which is NONE. No matter which way this goes, when future complaints come in to me, I will merely simply point them to this thread and that is the end of the conversation as far as I am concerned. It will not be addressed again.
 
I always just considered it one of the little, not worthless but not really significant, benefits of being a paying member, after all, you need at least a number of perks to get people to pay out for it. It's a nice extra little something you can give someone you've had a good deal with or to really get your point across in a bad deal. But I at least am going to be more influenced by what I read on the BOI, which is open to everyone, allows way more words and actual discussion, than with how many and what kind of Trader's rating someone has, although that gets weighed too, when thinking of doing business with someone.
 
I'm totally with Justin and Amanda above on this. Want to leave trader ratings? Pay to support the site you want perks from. It's that simple.

Rich, you have my accolades for dealing with miserable stuff like this. I give you props for wanting to make this site better and at the same time eliminating a headache. This is one of the most honest (and no BS) sites out there. I'd hate to see its integrity in question because of trader ratings that don't equate with BOI. And excuse my pessimism, but if it's able to be taken advantage of, someone will.

My vote says leave it how it is.
 
Rich, the poll is only letting me vote once. That's ridiculous and a rip-off...I mean, between the 8 yrs I've been a member, the fancy red coins, and my name being blue, I figure I should be able to vote at least 3 times. Who ever heard of such a thing - I should be able to vote more; for the reasons already stated, and because I'm both smart and special (my mom said so - if necessary, I can get a note to that effect to show you). My opinion matters, after all; and I should be able to make it known.
 
Oh, wait. You mean I can post in a special section of the site that you put here for this purpose?
Hmmm... let me think about that.
No! That doesn't matter, and it isn't good enough. I just want to vote more times; because voting is easy, and I don't have to worry about extra rules, spelling, or grammar.
 
Hahaha, that gave me a good laugh Harald!!!

As funny as Harald's posts were, they have truth to them in that no matter what you do someone will be unhappy with it and find a reason to complain. It's impossible to make everyone happy. I'm sure Rich, Harald, April and the rest of the moderators here know this very well.

Having features like the BOI and the Trader Rating available, there will always be people that abuse the privilege. The trick is finding a way to cut down the ability for the features to be abused. You won't be able to stop everyone, as some people are so determined to be dishonest.

Personally I would leave it how it is. But if a change were made to the Trader Rating so it allows non-paying members the ability to use it, I would make it similar to how the Karma system is setup. So non-paying members can only leave positive feedback for trader ratings. I know this doesn't help with people creating bogus accounts to give themselves positive ratings. But it will curb the false negative feedback created by bogus accounts which is far more damaging IMO, by competitors or due to personal issues that have nothing to do with transactions.
 
Also I recently saw someone was given a negative trader rating bc the seller was quote "rude" when the seller responded to them. I dont think that its fair they can leave a negative trader rating for that. You should only be able to if you actually made a transaction. Any way to fix that?
 
Not a good one; as ratings aren't restricted to transactions resulting from ads placed on this site.
 
But how can it be determined if the seller was really rude, and they get dinged for a bad rating bc of what someone else perceived as them being rude. I just don't understand why others should get dinged for being "rude" when they poss werent.. I figure its something that no one will change, it just doesn't seem fair if no transaction took place to get negative points for that. I know the "fair" only comes once a year and stuff.
 
allesuberschildkroten said:
Also I recently saw someone was given a negative trader rating bc the seller was quote "rude" when the seller responded to them. I dont think that its fair they can leave a negative trader rating for that. You should only be able to if you actually made a transaction. Any way to fix that?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but no. We are not going to get into the middle of every spat that takes place between people here. Just because I own and run this site, and the moderators volunteer to help out, doesn't mean that we want to play "daddy" to everyone.
 
WebSlave said:
Sorry, but no. We are not going to get into the middle of every spat that takes place between people here. Just because I own and run this site, and the moderators volunteer to help out, doesn't mean that we want to play "daddy" to everyone.
Click to expand...

Did I say play daddy?? Don't think I did, I said make it to where you cant leave negative feedback cause someone was rude thats all..
 
Why should get a bad rating if a transaction didn't take place? So its just ok, if you didn't like how someone responded to you to leave them negative feedback? That seems to defeat the purpose of TRADER RATING. Considering the only options are seller, buyer or trade. Not "They hurt my feelings"
 
Justin,

Most buyers aren't stupid. If they look into a seller's feedback and trader ratings and see that someone has left a negative for rude or inappropriate behavior, they can ascertain themselves if the seller is truly that just by conversing and make an informed decision.

I appreciate it when someone lets me know if a seller (or buyer!) is immature or rude. You'll find many sellers won't sell to someone that's rude or impolite- it only creates a headache down the road. There are many buyers also who just don't deal with rude seller. I don't.

Bottom line for me? If you know that you'll be judged (via BOI or trader ratings) on ALL DEALINGS that alone will keep many honest. Don't curse and use racial slurs or act a fool in any communications, and you'll not have many issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top