I think your intention is some kind of reputation mark that can be attached to the user. Reputation points for users are used by various forums including CC. But the execution varies.Good morning,
Thanks for the clarity.
I certainly take the point about ...have better things.. my thinking was that for some people they may take the view that a reply takes say 10 minutes to create so an extra 30 seconds would be acceptable.
Thinking even further into the future this could be automated for certain sites that wanted to do such a thing. XenForo for example allows for add-ons but the idea is at too early a stage for such a step but it is an option for the future.
I think that I am not explaining the idea clearly enough. The idea is to make the first post attractive to people to respond to where they might otherwise ignore it for reasons of tone, brevity, style or similar characteristics. It is not intended to address posts that break the moderation policy of a site, that is none of my business.
Bye
Ian
Confidence that new posters are interested in their thread - an idea.
- Thread starter IanSmithCSE
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
My brain is so full that when i learn new stuff it pushes old stuff out. Like the time I learned about winemaking and subsequently forgot how to drive.
winjim
Smash the cistern
Sometimes supposed trolls post legitimate questions which others may want the answer to, or which prompt interesting discussion. So answer the question or don't. There's no need to make a ton of tedious posts calling the poster's motivation into question.
What I don't like is when a specific question is asked, and you get a flurry of posts that don't answer it, answer a different question, ask for unnecessary details, tell the questioner to do something else, demand sometimes quite aggressively evidence such as photos etc. Sometimes questions, especially from inexperienced cyclists, can be misguided or naive but I think it's best to provide an answer as well as explaining why you think the question may not be a relevant one or whatever.
What I don't like is when a specific question is asked, and you get a flurry of posts that don't answer it, answer a different question, ask for unnecessary details, tell the questioner to do something else, demand sometimes quite aggressively evidence such as photos etc. Sometimes questions, especially from inexperienced cyclists, can be misguided or naive but I think it's best to provide an answer as well as explaining why you think the question may not be a relevant one or whatever.
OP
OP
IanSmithCSE
Guru
- Location
- Worcester, Worcestershire
Good morning,
The idea is a global anonymous id that is not a reputation score as implemented by one site or an aggregation of those sites but a much simpler indicator that says <i>I have been posting on 20 different sites for 20 years so I am likely to be serious in my post as new member to your site.</i>
The implicit score that I am aiming for is Good or New Account.
There will be few a "bad" accounts with lots of upheld reports but I would expect that "bad" accounts will either be deleted or not used by their owners.
I see adding any score beyond these two/three as being outside of the remit of the idea and none of my business.
It is then up to the reader to decide what value they attach to these 2/3 scores, today every account is new so this is a long term idea.
As a side thought, I am not averse to account holders having the option to hide the forum/site name and user name in the lookup screen but I currently feel that doing this may reduce the value of the id.
I have just a thread on this deleted as being spam elsewhere.
I wonder if the two images below add anything, the first is an invented advert for a power meter on an invented cycling forum and the second a fake review on am invented food forum.
The second image is the same reviews except that they start with an code.
The cycle forum post is both a reasonable question and a good advert. Clearly if it is an advert then there will not be a code, if it a real question then there might be.
If you stumble across the food forum entry because you were planning on going there does the review with the code give you any extra confidence, possibly after checking the code.
Bye
Ian
Yes, almost, but slightly less than that and more global.
The idea is a global anonymous id that is not a reputation score as implemented by one site or an aggregation of those sites but a much simpler indicator that says <i>I have been posting on 20 different sites for 20 years so I am likely to be serious in my post as new member to your site.</i>
The implicit score that I am aiming for is Good or New Account.
There will be few a "bad" accounts with lots of upheld reports but I would expect that "bad" accounts will either be deleted or not used by their owners.
I see adding any score beyond these two/three as being outside of the remit of the idea and none of my business.
It is then up to the reader to decide what value they attach to these 2/3 scores, today every account is new so this is a long term idea.
As a side thought, I am not averse to account holders having the option to hide the forum/site name and user name in the lookup screen but I currently feel that doing this may reduce the value of the id.
... and there was me thinking that you were going to say how to drink.
I have just a thread on this deleted as being spam elsewhere.
I wonder if the two images below add anything, the first is an invented advert for a power meter on an invented cycling forum and the second a fake review on am invented food forum.
The second image is the same reviews except that they start with an code.
The cycle forum post is both a reasonable question and a good advert. Clearly if it is an advert then there will not be a code, if it a real question then there might be.
If you stumble across the food forum entry because you were planning on going there does the review with the code give you any extra confidence, possibly after checking the code.
Bye
Ian
Last edited:
newfhouse
Resolutely on topic
Easy enough if your site has low traffic. How would you pay for staff if your idea took off? Adverts, subscriptions, something else?
OP
OP
IanSmithCSE
Guru
- Location
- Worcester, Worcestershire
Good morning,
Donations are being requested because the service has costs but I can understand anybody being resistant to a pay an annual fee at this stage.
"Yes, I would prefer a subscription model but it is too early."
People who run forums or manage a business's social media accounts know how much work is involved and many of them do the work for the love of their site or the business.
Many ideas start off on a volunteer basis or we can get by on advertising and when the reality of the operating costs hit home they become desperate to raise money and attempt to do so in ways that alienate their users.
It used to be free, but now we helped you get it going you want to charge us, <Expletive deleted> off.
I am hoping to avoid this by making it clear that funding is needed and also play fair and say look, you can use the service without paying as proof that this is not a scam.
"Staffing"
The key point of the Anti-Troll service is that codes are issued fully automatically by a computer but a real live person checks any reports of misuse of the code.
Without manually reviewing reports of misuse the service has no credibility and it falls foul of the problem that it is trying to solve.
Real live people like to be paid, in the very early days this issue can be fudged but if the service catches on these costs have to be covered from somewhere.
"I thought that hosting a web-site was almost free?"
If you have a simple site then it is possible to get hosting that is almost free.
For the hosting company to be able to offer such a low price they tend to allocate a lot of web sites to a smallish pool of resources and if your site takes up too many of those resources you are asked to move on to a more expensive plan.
Once you need to move on the price start to increase rapidly and it is very easy to be paying £600-£2,500 per year to host what seems like a simple site. If this site takes off the way that I hope, hosting could easily be £10,000 per year.
It is a combination of how complex the site is, what it does times the number of users and how much back up and resilience you want.
"Can't you just stick some adverts up?"
There are two main problems with advertising.
The first is that it gets in the way of the page layout, if you don't stick your adverts in the most annoying places on the page they won't be clicked on.
Added to which adverts can easily create the impression that the site was created to sell advertising rather than do whatever the site was set-up to do. After all many sites do exist solely to sell advertising.
The second problem is that they don't seem to make much money, a lot could be forgiven if they did. It appears to me that sites designed to sell advertising can do very well indeed, they capture visitors who want what they are advertising.
If you look at sites specialising in on-line gambling, they only have adverts for on-line gambling, travel sites only have flight and accommodation adverts.
If you just plonk Google Ads onto your page you are offering ads to an audience who aren't interested in most of the ads and have probably already seen the ones that are of interest to them, if they are shown them at all.
As far as I understand it the current click rate is 0.35% for Google ads, that's 1 in 300 people and that is the average, possibly distorted upwards by the sites that are good at getting clicks.
If you are just looking to cover a basic site's hosting costs ads can be an easy way to do this, but covering the operational costs associated with a business with staff to be paid is another matter.
The main action screens, lookup a code and get a code have a big mauve button that says Donate to the running costs which takes you to screen linked to at the top of the page. So anybody who does sign up knows from day 1 that this not free forever and ideally I would like help soon, but I am also aware that it could look like a scam so you can use it until you are clear that it is not.
Bye
Ian
Here is an answer I prepared earlier, it's copied from the web page.
Donations are being requested because the service has costs but I can understand anybody being resistant to a pay an annual fee at this stage.
"Yes, I would prefer a subscription model but it is too early."
People who run forums or manage a business's social media accounts know how much work is involved and many of them do the work for the love of their site or the business.
Many ideas start off on a volunteer basis or we can get by on advertising and when the reality of the operating costs hit home they become desperate to raise money and attempt to do so in ways that alienate their users.
It used to be free, but now we helped you get it going you want to charge us, <Expletive deleted> off.
I am hoping to avoid this by making it clear that funding is needed and also play fair and say look, you can use the service without paying as proof that this is not a scam.
"Staffing"
The key point of the Anti-Troll service is that codes are issued fully automatically by a computer but a real live person checks any reports of misuse of the code.
Without manually reviewing reports of misuse the service has no credibility and it falls foul of the problem that it is trying to solve.
Real live people like to be paid, in the very early days this issue can be fudged but if the service catches on these costs have to be covered from somewhere.
"I thought that hosting a web-site was almost free?"
If you have a simple site then it is possible to get hosting that is almost free.
For the hosting company to be able to offer such a low price they tend to allocate a lot of web sites to a smallish pool of resources and if your site takes up too many of those resources you are asked to move on to a more expensive plan.
Once you need to move on the price start to increase rapidly and it is very easy to be paying £600-£2,500 per year to host what seems like a simple site. If this site takes off the way that I hope, hosting could easily be £10,000 per year.
It is a combination of how complex the site is, what it does times the number of users and how much back up and resilience you want.
"Can't you just stick some adverts up?"
There are two main problems with advertising.
The first is that it gets in the way of the page layout, if you don't stick your adverts in the most annoying places on the page they won't be clicked on.
Added to which adverts can easily create the impression that the site was created to sell advertising rather than do whatever the site was set-up to do. After all many sites do exist solely to sell advertising.
The second problem is that they don't seem to make much money, a lot could be forgiven if they did. It appears to me that sites designed to sell advertising can do very well indeed, they capture visitors who want what they are advertising.
If you look at sites specialising in on-line gambling, they only have adverts for on-line gambling, travel sites only have flight and accommodation adverts.
If you just plonk Google Ads onto your page you are offering ads to an audience who aren't interested in most of the ads and have probably already seen the ones that are of interest to them, if they are shown them at all.
As far as I understand it the current click rate is 0.35% for Google ads, that's 1 in 300 people and that is the average, possibly distorted upwards by the sites that are good at getting clicks.
If you are just looking to cover a basic site's hosting costs ads can be an easy way to do this, but covering the operational costs associated with a business with staff to be paid is another matter.
The main action screens, lookup a code and get a code have a big mauve button that says Donate to the running costs which takes you to screen linked to at the top of the page. So anybody who does sign up knows from day 1 that this not free forever and ideally I would like help soon, but I am also aware that it could look like a scam so you can use it until you are clear that it is not.
Bye
Ian
Last edited:
twentysix by twentyfive
Clinging on tightly
- Location
- Over the Hill
I thought you were going to say you learned wine making but forgot how to drink. Now that would've been a tragedy (whereas forgetting how to drive is the way most people in cars do it anyway).
twentysix by twentyfive
Clinging on tightly
- Location
- Over the Hill
Thanks for the explanation Ian. I'm afraid I'm still not a lot wiser. Just seems complicated to me.Good morning
You may very well be right.
It is version 3 of an idea that has been floating around in my head for quite a while now so it is simple to me.
But I am not sure if this complexity is because it is a new idea that doesn't seem to offer any benefits or it is a new idea that doesn't offer any benefits and I wasted my time.
https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/a-theory-that-ive-just-made-up.511/#post-9932
Interesting in that the thread starter was also a first poster, but he wasn't asking a question but posting something quite fun.
To get your first code you need to create an account, that account is anonymous beyond an email address that is not disclosed to anyone, over time you could ask for codes as you use forums or review sites and in a few years time you have an "anonymous identity" (!) that you can attach to anonymous posts anywhere on the internet.
This "anonymous identity" could give credibility to your posts and reviews where you are not already known.
So if your first post on a forum new to you is not getting any/many answers this "anonymous identity" may give confidence to other members that you are serious. Or you are an organised person and wish to preempt not getting any answers.
Language police - Is it possible to pre-empt something not happening, or can you only pre-empt something happening?
Alternatively you may wish to give weight to review on say a site like Amazon where many reviews are treated by many people with some suspicion.
A key point is that there is manual checking, when a code is issued its use is checked by a real person, if a report of misuse is made, it is checked by a real person.
I did consider all the accounts being completely anonymous from creation, but the problem with that is when the account holder forgets their password there is no way to request a reset. I have always intended to allow for the email to be removed once the account is created but haven't mentioned this as it might complicate things.
Bye
Ian
OP
OP
IanSmithCSE
Guru
- Location
- Worcester, Worcestershire
Good morning,
Do The four images posted above, the power meter question/advertising and the food review add any clarity?
I think that if the food review in particular doesn't give clarity as to why I think that this is a good, then probably you do understand the idea and just think that it is a terrible/pointless one.
Imagine that lots of people did think that this was a good idea, please humour me with this, and imagine in 2 years time where 50% of the new posters on forums and people leaving reviews on Trip Advisor started of their posts with a code. Would you give those posts/reviews greater credibility?
If your answer is no then the code is a waste of time, at least for you.
If your answer is yes then the question is how to get from now, where all new accounts on all on-line sites are completely anonymous to one where a new anonymous account can have immediately have reputation or credibility?
I am pretty convinced that the complexity isn't an issue if you believe that the objectives are worth while, once you've done it once and your browser autocompletes fields if you want to get a code. Or if on a forum you trust another member who may say, I checked the code and it's okay or it's not.
As suggested by @PaulSB I made some changes the pages for mobile phones, and they now seem fine to me if you rotate the phone to landscape but mobile usability isn't my thing, I hate them, so I may be making more changes.
Bye
Ian
Thanks for keeping me realising that this is not an easy thing to explain, or just a terrible idea.
Do The four images posted above, the power meter question/advertising and the food review add any clarity?
I think that if the food review in particular doesn't give clarity as to why I think that this is a good, then probably you do understand the idea and just think that it is a terrible/pointless one.
Imagine that lots of people did think that this was a good idea, please humour me with this, and imagine in 2 years time where 50% of the new posters on forums and people leaving reviews on Trip Advisor started of their posts with a code. Would you give those posts/reviews greater credibility?
If your answer is no then the code is a waste of time, at least for you.
If your answer is yes then the question is how to get from now, where all new accounts on all on-line sites are completely anonymous to one where a new anonymous account can have immediately have reputation or credibility?
I am pretty convinced that the complexity isn't an issue if you believe that the objectives are worth while, once you've done it once and your browser autocompletes fields if you want to get a code. Or if on a forum you trust another member who may say, I checked the code and it's okay or it's not.
As suggested by @PaulSB I made some changes the pages for mobile phones, and they now seem fine to me if you rotate the phone to landscape but mobile usability isn't my thing, I hate them, so I may be making more changes.
Bye
Ian
As someone who has been in the web development sector for a couple of decades and has seen a number of boom/bust cycles I'm interested whenever someone comes along with an idea like this.
First and foremost I'm naturally wary of trackers, and there are lots already out there that track everything you do online, building shadow profiles about a user without that user ever signing up for it or volunteering to use it, so privacy is certainly a concern. If you click the list of "legitimate interests" on a cookie popup it is terrifying just how many there are watching every mousemove event, every click event.
Back to your idea, I think I understand the principle, people attach proof of their post history to stop others from feeling that they'd be wasting their time answering questions by those who haven't looked it up. It's pretty much the same reputation system that drives Stackoverflow and the various other Stackexchange sites, but without the enforced rules on posting/replies/accepting correct answers.
It all seems very user-driven, in an era where bad actors are almost entirely automated, what countermeasures do you propose to stop someone building a fake profile? Amazon is riddled with fake 5 star reviews for third rate products (I bought a soldering iron off there the other day and the tip oxidised almost immediately and it came with a scratchcard voucher that links to a phishing site).
If the biggest e-commerce company on the planet is failing to meaningfully deal with these issues, something user-driven and which requires manual user lookup and is limited both by those who sign up and remember to post their code first is of limited utility. As a bare minimum there'd either need to be a widget embedded into every site that uses it, or a browser plugin that automates the code-addition and lookup. And since the code contains a URL, it will trip a lot of comment spam monitoring systems.
Finally, assuming your service becomes successful, what happens when your site is breached? (and from bitter experience, when you are involved in running a successful site it is when, not if) that's a lot of user data to mine and/or generate.
I'm not trying to make you disheartened, the more weapons we have to combat bad faith actors, the better.
Ed
First and foremost I'm naturally wary of trackers, and there are lots already out there that track everything you do online, building shadow profiles about a user without that user ever signing up for it or volunteering to use it, so privacy is certainly a concern. If you click the list of "legitimate interests" on a cookie popup it is terrifying just how many there are watching every mousemove event, every click event.
Back to your idea, I think I understand the principle, people attach proof of their post history to stop others from feeling that they'd be wasting their time answering questions by those who haven't looked it up. It's pretty much the same reputation system that drives Stackoverflow and the various other Stackexchange sites, but without the enforced rules on posting/replies/accepting correct answers.
It all seems very user-driven, in an era where bad actors are almost entirely automated, what countermeasures do you propose to stop someone building a fake profile? Amazon is riddled with fake 5 star reviews for third rate products (I bought a soldering iron off there the other day and the tip oxidised almost immediately and it came with a scratchcard voucher that links to a phishing site).
If the biggest e-commerce company on the planet is failing to meaningfully deal with these issues, something user-driven and which requires manual user lookup and is limited both by those who sign up and remember to post their code first is of limited utility. As a bare minimum there'd either need to be a widget embedded into every site that uses it, or a browser plugin that automates the code-addition and lookup. And since the code contains a URL, it will trip a lot of comment spam monitoring systems.
Finally, assuming your service becomes successful, what happens when your site is breached? (and from bitter experience, when you are involved in running a successful site it is when, not if) that's a lot of user data to mine and/or generate.
I'm not trying to make you disheartened, the more weapons we have to combat bad faith actors, the better.
Ed
Last edited:
OP
OP
IanSmithCSE
Guru
- Location
- Worcester, Worcestershire
Good morning,
Thanks for your thoughts.
In one sense I agree with them all to a degree but I think that if the idea is liked then they are not breaking reasons and some would naturally disappear over time.
Back to your idea, I think I understand the principle, people attach proof of their post history to stop others from feeling that they'd be wasting their time answering questions by those who haven't looked it up. It's pretty much the same reputation system that drives Stackoverflow and the various other Stackexchange sites, but without the enforced rules on posting/replies/accepting correct answers.
You are sort of correct and this is possibly one area where I am struggling either with the idea or the explaining of the idea. The answer is both yes and no.
The key point of reputation systems on stack exchange and similar ideas on various forums is that reputation is a sliding scale, whereas I am aiming at just two/three levels, new, good along with a few that are new and bad. But I expect new and bad to be deleted by their owners or possibly by automatic housecleaning.
It all seems very user-driven, in an era where bad actors are almost entirely automated, what countermeasures do you propose to stop someone building a fake profile? Amazon is riddled with fake 5 star reviews for third rate products (I bought a soldering iron off there the other day and the tip oxidised almost immediately and it came with a scratchcard voucher that links to a phishing site).
The key point of the idea is that absence of a code is a status in itself. Yes I know that that is a pretty big statement and ambition.
The idea does rely on users deciding that they dislike the use of a code to the degree that they would report it. These reports are then looked at by a real person and for me funding these people is a big issue.
Imagine that you are hired to post 100 fake reviews. If you get genuine codes then anyone looking up one code would also see the 100 other codes you also had issued at roughly the same time. Getting 100 codes would also reduce your productivity.
You might decide to take the chance on using the same code on all 100 posts on different sites where they would then not match the declared use of the code when checked.
An automated posting bot that needs to get codes to include in its automated posts could easily get into a long term battle of code, but in the early days automated posting systems probably won't be bothered with getting codes.
If the biggest e-commerce company on the planet is failing to meaningfully deal with these issues,
Big e-commerce companies have little motivation, they are happy to leave it to the reader and possibly add a "Verified purchase" type sticker to the comment.
something user-driven and which requires manual user lookup and is limited both by those who sign up and remember to post their code first is of limited utility.
I think that this will not be an issue if people like the idea and only time will tell.
As a bare minimum there'd either need to be a widget embedded into every site that uses it, or a browser plugin that automates the code-addition and lookup.
But when?
If the idea has merit and catches on then in the early days I don't agree.
If 18 months down the line there was significant use of the code then such facilities would start to appear on sites.
Although I hadn't considered it Chrome, Firefox and Edge adds-in would be easy to create, that only leaves Safari on iThings.
Given that most forums are based on standard platforms then integration could be seen as useful and would appear. It's the same for most ecommerce, a lot is based on Shopify etc and if they are not adding in an API call is something that the developers can sneak in.
And since the code contains a URL, it will trip a lot of comment spam monitoring systems.
Again if the idea catches on then users of the spam filter would add the site to the exemptions list for that filter and question any filter doesn't have such a list.
Finally, assuming your service becomes successful, what happens when your site is breached? (and from bitter experience, when you are involved in running a successful site it is when, not if) that's a lot of user data to mine and/or generate.
I don't think that there is any useful information to steal as it is all already public and if anyone wants it they can already scrape it from forums and review sites.
Account Record - ID, Contact Email, username, password, Some status flags
I'm not trying to make you disheartened, the more weapons we have to combat bad faith actors, the better.
I'm not, I agree that your arguments could be true but I don't think that they have to be true. I would ask you to think about Twitter, something that sounded absurd when introduced with no users.
For me the biggest issue is would users be willing to donate or subscribe to the service or only use it if were free and the best way to find out is to try it.
Bye
Ian
Thanks for your thoughts.
In one sense I agree with them all to a degree but I think that if the idea is liked then they are not breaking reasons and some would naturally disappear over time.
Back to your idea, I think I understand the principle, people attach proof of their post history to stop others from feeling that they'd be wasting their time answering questions by those who haven't looked it up. It's pretty much the same reputation system that drives Stackoverflow and the various other Stackexchange sites, but without the enforced rules on posting/replies/accepting correct answers.
You are sort of correct and this is possibly one area where I am struggling either with the idea or the explaining of the idea. The answer is both yes and no.
The key point of reputation systems on stack exchange and similar ideas on various forums is that reputation is a sliding scale, whereas I am aiming at just two/three levels, new, good along with a few that are new and bad. But I expect new and bad to be deleted by their owners or possibly by automatic housecleaning.
It all seems very user-driven, in an era where bad actors are almost entirely automated, what countermeasures do you propose to stop someone building a fake profile? Amazon is riddled with fake 5 star reviews for third rate products (I bought a soldering iron off there the other day and the tip oxidised almost immediately and it came with a scratchcard voucher that links to a phishing site).
The key point of the idea is that absence of a code is a status in itself. Yes I know that that is a pretty big statement and ambition.
The idea does rely on users deciding that they dislike the use of a code to the degree that they would report it. These reports are then looked at by a real person and for me funding these people is a big issue.
Imagine that you are hired to post 100 fake reviews. If you get genuine codes then anyone looking up one code would also see the 100 other codes you also had issued at roughly the same time. Getting 100 codes would also reduce your productivity.
You might decide to take the chance on using the same code on all 100 posts on different sites where they would then not match the declared use of the code when checked.
An automated posting bot that needs to get codes to include in its automated posts could easily get into a long term battle of code, but in the early days automated posting systems probably won't be bothered with getting codes.
If the biggest e-commerce company on the planet is failing to meaningfully deal with these issues,
Big e-commerce companies have little motivation, they are happy to leave it to the reader and possibly add a "Verified purchase" type sticker to the comment.
something user-driven and which requires manual user lookup and is limited both by those who sign up and remember to post their code first is of limited utility.
I think that this will not be an issue if people like the idea and only time will tell.
As a bare minimum there'd either need to be a widget embedded into every site that uses it, or a browser plugin that automates the code-addition and lookup.
But when?
If the idea has merit and catches on then in the early days I don't agree.
If 18 months down the line there was significant use of the code then such facilities would start to appear on sites.
Although I hadn't considered it Chrome, Firefox and Edge adds-in would be easy to create, that only leaves Safari on iThings.
Given that most forums are based on standard platforms then integration could be seen as useful and would appear. It's the same for most ecommerce, a lot is based on Shopify etc and if they are not adding in an API call is something that the developers can sneak in.
And since the code contains a URL, it will trip a lot of comment spam monitoring systems.
Again if the idea catches on then users of the spam filter would add the site to the exemptions list for that filter and question any filter doesn't have such a list.
Finally, assuming your service becomes successful, what happens when your site is breached? (and from bitter experience, when you are involved in running a successful site it is when, not if) that's a lot of user data to mine and/or generate.
I don't think that there is any useful information to steal as it is all already public and if anyone wants it they can already scrape it from forums and review sites.
Account Record - ID, Contact Email, username, password, Some status flags
Code Record - Account Record ID, Site URL, Username on site, flags for issues
Code Record - Account Record ID, Site URL, Username on site, flags for issues
Code Record - Account Record ID, Site URL, Username on site, flags for issues
I'm not trying to make you disheartened, the more weapons we have to combat bad faith actors, the better.
I'm not, I agree that your arguments could be true but I don't think that they have to be true. I would ask you to think about Twitter, something that sounded absurd when introduced with no users.
For me the biggest issue is would users be willing to donate or subscribe to the service or only use it if were free and the best way to find out is to try it.
Bye
Ian
mistyoptic
Vintage
- Location
- A parallel reality
If I’m understanding this correctly, it’s a sort of trust pilot for individuals.
I like the idea of some indication of a level of integrity for reviewers on, e.g. Amazon, Tripadvisor etc.
I’m not sure that, personally, I’m that fussed about it for new posts on sites like cyclechat. If there’s a new post (one a little while ago about cost to fix a brake cable springs to mind) then I might follow or respond if I feel I have something relevant to contribute. If I don’t, then I’ll either watch or follow for the entertainment value or I’ll ignore it.
I wish you well with the concept. Not sure it’s something I’d bother to pay for though. Sorry
I like the idea of some indication of a level of integrity for reviewers on, e.g. Amazon, Tripadvisor etc.
I’m not sure that, personally, I’m that fussed about it for new posts on sites like cyclechat. If there’s a new post (one a little while ago about cost to fix a brake cable springs to mind) then I might follow or respond if I feel I have something relevant to contribute. If I don’t, then I’ll either watch or follow for the entertainment value or I’ll ignore it.
I wish you well with the concept. Not sure it’s something I’d bother to pay for though. Sorry
I may be missing something here, but if there truly was a market for this then one of the big players like Facebook would expand their Single Sign On technology and amazing analytics to rate users. They already offer single sign on over many platforms, jumping into bed with the likes of XenForo would be simple and gather even more data on their users.
Pale Rider
Legendary Member
I understand barely a word of this thread, which I suppose makes me ideal fodder for the data miners or whatever they're called.
Rocky
Hello decadence
Given most of them are under 14, wouldn't it be better to call them data minors?
