[denied] Negative feedback and vouches rework

It bothers me that negative feedback is much harder to give than positive feedback. Right now, the rule is that negative feedback cannot be posted on people's vouch threads, so it is quickly lost in the pages of bumps on people's service threads. It is therefore almost impossible to see how much negative feedback a user actually has. Also, unlike positive feedback, negative feedback that accuses someone of scamming needs to be justified with picture proof, and almost all negative feedback gets removed for failing to meet this requirement.

Here is my idea to improve this system:

---

Just kidding, these other ideas are better!

 

I definitely support this suggestion. I always thought a negative feedback area was warranted, it just didn't feel right to be in someones vouches. I do feel like you said, that there must be valid proof of their reason for their negative feedback. If there are stickies that explain this and staff monitor reported posts like they do everywhere else, I think this would be a great thing.

Again, support.

 

I support this suggestion as well. It seems like a nice rework. It would have to be monitored though as stated.

 

Being required to provide picture proof of negative feedback seems to be new then, previously you were free to leave negative feedback on people’s market threads, so long it isn’t spam, doesn’t accuse them of scamming and doesn’t tell people not to deal business with them.

As for the suggestion proposed here I believe it will be too much of a change, aswell as being too much of a rework being done to the website. Previous suggestions which also needed a rework of the system were denied as we’re waiting on the new Xenforo update first.

I don’t believe people will be able to restrain themselves and therefore I don’t support this.

 

This is correct, thanks. I clarified as such in the OP.

Still, the number of posts that aren't spam, don't accuse someone of scamming, and don't tell people not to interact with them is tiny relative to the attempted number of negative feedback posts written.

 

This has probably been mentioned before but I'd think something that was streamlined and readily available would make most sense.
Like most of the botting forums do it makes it very easy to see how much feedback a user has instead of having to click on multiple threads to read through them.
This is what I would personally suggest however I think it would be tricky to implement here.

 

However, I support your idea too

 

I think a trader feedback link on personal profiles would be better than having separate sections tbh. Like what malcolm showed above, people can leave feedback in the trader feedback section. Sort of like our current profile posting section, but have it be "feedback" or "trader feedback". And leave a rating on positive, neutral or negative. Also have a positive/negative feedback counter in the user information as you showed above. I think it may be a little controversial though as people could just rate you even if they didn't have a good/bad experience, causing an unwanted bias perhaps. @Superfluous I think that there definitely needs to be some proof of negative feedback, like Sythe currently requires proof of trades for positive feedback now. On the other hand, I don't know how you actually verify every single feedback, good or bad for quality. Perhaps just have the good ol report button and if a user believes feedback was wrongfully given after talking to the person who gave it to them then staff could step in and be the final say. I think that's the most fair way. Personally I don't care so much for the 2 threads idea though.

 

@Bryan
One issue with getting rid of vouches entirely is that it unfairly impacts people who have collected vouches in the past. The other big one, as you said, is that people can rate other users without proof of a trade. At least with vouches there is something that can be tied back to a trade if necessary ("vouch he sold me an account" vs. "+1").

I imagine such a system is also way more complicated to switch to; at least adding a new forum is something we do all the time, and adding new threads for users isn't super complicated. I would ask Matthew for his thoughts but want to gather feedback before bugging him about this.

 

If this were to occur it would be as easy as reporting false feedback for moderators to remove.
That is how the botting forums do this as well.

Yes I agree, it would be quite complicated for Sythe to switch to something like this now and something I don't actually ever see happening.

However I think you've given a decent alternative to this.
Perhaps even having two threads linked to each users profile - One for positive, one for negative feedbacks, that way it's somewhat easily accessible just by checking out their profile.

 

Yeah, I agree with this standpoint. I think overall a negative feedback thread would be okay, but if you are to implement it you somehow need to integrate a positive feedback, like you showed a negative feedback in user info. I feel as though you need both to exist otherwise it just makes someone look bad if they have anything besides 0 negative feedback. I don't think that is really arguable, correct? I wouldn't want to take away from those who have vouches but i'm not sure a +550 rating for someone w 550 vouches now would be the greatest crossover either. But I guess people find trust in vouches and sadly in donated amounts, so it would be fair that the number be expressed in current vouches. I'm going to see what else I can think of and update later.

 

Sythe is in its essence a free market. In such a body a feedback system has a vital role. Sythe currently houses different mechanisms to handle this. One of them is vouches, but there's also like dispute resolutions in which members can voice their opinion on each other's trading practices. With this in consideration, I do believe that Sythe does lack an essential element to critically look at a service provider/salesman. Let me explain this. A Member may have vouches, donator status and whatnot, but these elements just correlate to his trading practices. This means that someone who is new on the forums may only 'guess' who he is dealing with. With that context in mind, I want to make the following remarks on your proposition.

1. What would your goal with this specific system be? Is it specifically meant for naming and shaming? Because if that's the case I think there are plenty of ways to go about this (start a dispute claim, (indirect) naming and shaming, etc.)
2. How do you imagine this to work in practice? Is it meant as a bashing forum, constructive feedback, or something in between?
3. How do you make sure there is no abuse of this system? I.e. targeted negative feedback?

I think the idea is still developing and perhaps it could work, but I have yet to see if it is better than the Status Quo. Does it bring more than that it harms? But also what @Wortel said. In practicality, is the change really worth the work put into it?

 

Personally I get a fair few 'feedbacks' from those who are mad that I have cancelled a trade with them (scummers) and choose to post bad remarks about me. These is not helpful feedback for genuine people who are going to approach me for business.

I don't understand what we are suppose to learn from negative feedback?

I agree, it would be a playground for emotionally charged bs

 

I could agree to this if you're referring to the staff section as shown in the pic (sorry I didn't read it properly too tired)

I do believe it could open some people's eyes a bit, maybe help them understand where people feel they are going wrong and could be worked on.

 

1. Show how the community rates you according to feedback. And starting a dispute claim has absolutely nothing to do with this. If someone violates the rules sure, but if you just genuinely have a bad experience when doing business there isn't a dispute to be made for that.
2. It isn't meant to be either, it is to show whether or not you have good/bad feedback based on the orders you have completed.
3. They said they is uncertain, likely require proof same as normal vouches. That is probably the only logical approach to it too.

 

Negative feedback is honestly terrible.

It's almost always people exaggerating the situation and overall trying to damage the other person's business because they are upset. It doesn't really indicate much usually. I think it's possible already for people to leave some constructive feedback in vouches. The entire system we have right now is based on the trade going somewhat successfully, in that the other person can ensure others that they basically were not scammed. It's possible to not be scammed and have a bad experience, so maybe if the rules are currently restricting, just allow people to use the same system but be a little bit more critical.

Otherwise there would need to be an overhaul of the system that actually in some way weighs all this into something useful, if that's even plausible, and that would most likely include having to phase out the old system otherwise it's not fair to new people.

 

I agree with graves, negative feedback is almost always someone extremely emotional about something and needs to vent or at least try to harm their business say for a simple miscommunication.

However should something like this be added id like to see it be added as a tab beside users profile posts on their profile (the place where you can leave comments on users profiles if they have it enabled simply titled “feedback”) This would allow people to leave positive and negative feedback and not just shining the light on all the negative experiences people had but also shedding light on the good they do in their trades outside of simple trust (ex. Walked them through a semi difficult process you don't understand)

So support but more along the lines of what I posted that allows users to gauge how it will be dealing with the person allowing for positive feedback to be mixed in the with negative feedback giving a more accurate understanding of how they operate.

 

Fair enough, but trading within the rules isn't everything.

Real world reputation is a consequence of both good and bad feedback. For example, before buying something like a car, a customer would likely read reviews, both good and bad, of Car1, Car2, Car3, etc. None of these is an outright scam - else, as you said, they would already have been removed from the market - but there is still value in knowing about the experiences other people have had with these goods. Maybe Car1's dealer calls you an asshole, which doesn't break any rules but is obnoxious. Maybe Car2's dealer is slow to respond to inquiries, which again does not violate any rules but is the type of behavior customers would prefer to avoid.

These negative, but not rule-breaking, offenses are the ones currently being lost, and they are what this proposal seeks to address.

 

Support, but there should be some kind of quality standard, as we all know there a lot of shitters that will flame you for everything.