Silk Road forums

Discussion => Silk Road discussion => Topic started by: SelfSovereignty on July 13, 2013, 09:49 am

Title: Never mind.
Post by: SelfSovereignty on July 13, 2013, 09:49 am
So I just noticed that purchase stats now include a time frame.  Great, that'll be useful for vendors I'm sure.  So here's my question: how exactly was it determined what I have purchased within the last month, 3 months, 1 year, and longer than 1 year... if records of purchases are only kept for 3 months?  Am I mistaken in that they're supposed to be purged at most every 3 months...?

This detailed information shouldn't be possible unless the records are kept for at least one year and include, at minimum, the BTC value at the time of purchase.  Am I missing something?

Admin comment plz?  :)
Title: Re: New purchase stat format suggests... bad things.
Post by: psychedelicmind on July 13, 2013, 09:55 am
That's a valid point you make, so i'm interested to see what admins have to say.

My gripe with the new system is that my refund rate has gone up x100 times since they took away the decimal place.
Before the change, it was 0.01%. Now it is 1%. Not a huge deal, but it doesn't reflect the correct amount I have been refunded, which was very little.

Sorry for being so pedantic! :)
Title: Re: New purchase stat format suggests... bad things.
Post by: Tellemetree on July 13, 2013, 10:12 am
So I just noticed that purchase stats now include a time frame.  Great, that'll be useful for vendors I'm sure.  So here's my question: how exactly was it determined what I have purchased within the last month, 3 months, 1 year, and longer than 1 year... if records of purchases are only kept for 3 months?  Am I mistaken in that they're supposed to be purged at most every 3 months...?

This detailed information shouldn't be possible unless the records are kept for at least one year and include, at minimum, the BTC value at the time of purchase.  Am I missing something?

Admin comment plz?  :)

makes me realise I've slowed down in the last month SS, I need to step up my game. May have been better not to see it time based, actually 8)

lol.
Title: Re: New purchase stat format suggests... bad things.
Post by: CaliforniaCannibas on July 13, 2013, 02:22 pm
From a vendor's standpoint.....I love the change. :)

Just a FYI.....when a vendor see's an auto-finalize......we gotta ask questions.....

Good Luck
Title: Re: New purchase stat format suggests... bad things.
Post by: kneotac on July 13, 2013, 02:58 pm
From a vendor's standpoint.....I love the change. :)

Just a FYI.....when a vendor see's an auto-finalize......we gotta ask questions.....

Good Luck

Fair enough that more info for vendors is probably the reason for this change......still, i'd like to see an update to the way I see Vendors stats too...perhaps the same time frames with orders, but sellers deets should include how many orders were processed and delivered without a hitch, and how many required refunds / resolutions.

Kneo
Title: Re: New purchase stat format suggests... bad things.
Post by: HEATFan on July 13, 2013, 04:55 pm
I'm uncomfortable with this as well and if this is the unofficial petition to get it changed back, consider this my signature.
Title: Re: New purchase stat format suggests... bad things.
Post by: jackofspades on July 13, 2013, 05:24 pm
i like the old system better as well, but i always take a while to get used to things.
 Im sure in a few weeks or so i will be fine with it...just takes some time getting used to.
Title: Re: New purchase stat format suggests... bad things.
Post by: boosties on July 13, 2013, 07:14 pm
agreed i dont like the new stats system either. i think it has too much info. why do we need time frames?
liked the old format better.
Title: Re: New purchase stat format suggests... bad things.
Post by: cirrus on July 13, 2013, 07:34 pm
I think I remember seeing Dread Pirate Roberts mention the new buyer stats in a post, but let me try to find it and if I can, I'll post a link here.

[[edit]]

okay, found a brief mention:  http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=178647.msg1299173#msg1299173

Quote from: Dread Pirate Roberts
the site is open again.  are everyone's buyer stats looking as they should?  how do you like the new format for the stats?  I forgot to mention that update in the announcement.  As luck would have it, that's where a bug shows up!
Title: Re: New purchase stat format suggests... bad things.
Post by: missbliss on July 13, 2013, 08:27 pm
I think I remember seeing Dread Pirate Roberts mention the new buyer stats in a post, but let me try to find it and if I can, I'll post a link here.

[[edit]]

okay, found a brief mention:  http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=178647.msg1299173#msg1299173

Quote from: Dread Pirate Roberts
the site is open again.  are everyone's buyer stats looking as they should?  how do you like the new format for the stats?  I forgot to mention that update in the announcement.  As luck would have it, that's where a bug shows up!

hi hi

as a vendor i am very happy with this addition to the buyer information shown to me. it allows me to get a better idea of how active the buyer is, and whether i wish to do business with them in the first place.

i would even go so far as to say SR should make this information available to me at will for buyers that are contacting us via msg system too. this way, we can remove the "show me your stats" listings. many times a buyer i have not done business with, or dont remember their specific stats, will say something like "will you do business with me? as you can see from my stats, they're perfect" --- no, actually we cannot see that; currently, vendors only see buyer stats once an order has been placed.

the stats do not identify any personal information, and i see no conceivable security concerns here. the ONLY thing we have going for us on the road is transaction history. actions speak WAY louder than words. i personally do not conduct business with unestablished buyers, and never will in the future either. allowing me to see a more detailed temporal breakdown of purchases is definitely a big plus in my mind.

just my 2 satoshi...
xoxo
-mb
Title: Re: New purchase stat format suggests... bad things.
Post by: SelfSovereignty on July 13, 2013, 09:02 pm
Okay, people don't seem to be following me here.  Someone is lying.  Period.  The reason follows.

There's multiple categories.  There's always been a running total of autofinalizes, refunds, amount spent, and number of transactions.  That's fine, we all knew that information was kept.  I swear I also read somewhere that the actual records of the purchases were purged after 3 months.  They certainly drop off the account history after that amount of time.

So here's the problem: in order to calculate what purchases took place between 3 months and 1 year, and which ones took place longer than 1 year ago... you cannot just keep a running total.  The fact that this information was able to be calculated at all means that it is a LIE that purchase records are purged after 3 months.  It is a logical contradiction.

I want an admin comment on this, or someone to point out how I'm being retarded and am wrong.
Title: Re: New purchase stat format suggests... bad things.
Post by: astor on July 13, 2013, 09:46 pm
makes me realise I've slowed down in the last month SS, I need to step up my game. May have been better not to see it time based, actually 8)

lol.

The first time I saw the new format, I predicted it would have a subtle psychological effect on people to keep buying.

Title: Re: New purchase stat format suggests... bad things.
Post by: astor on July 13, 2013, 09:53 pm
agreed i dont like the new stats system either. i think it has too much info. why do we need time frames?
liked the old format better.

It offers more info to vendors, so they can make better judgments about who to work with, while providing no more info to, for example, LE who might compromise the site.

The old buyer stats showed a total number, but anyone who accessed your account could see your reviews going back 4 months, so they could still calculate your 1 month and 3 month purchasing stats.


SS, I think that's how they were able to calculate the stats. Purchasing info goes back 4 months. You can see the info in your reviews, by clicking on the individual items. So they calculated the 1 month and 3 month stats, then subtracted the 3 month stats from the total to get the 1 year and all time stats.

Numerous people have pointed out that the 1 year and all time stats (for accounts that have been around for 2 years, eg) are identical, and that is why. They don't have the old data.
Title: Re: New purchase stats mean either DPR lied about record keeping or I fail at logic.
Post by: cirrus on July 13, 2013, 09:54 pm
SS, I think that's how they were able to calculate the stats. Purchasing info goes back 4 months. You can see the info in your reviews, by clicking on the individual items. So they calculated the 1 month and 3 month stats, then subtracted the 3 month stats from the total to get the 1 year and all time stats.

Numerous people have pointed out that the 1 year and all time stats (for accounts that have been around for 2 years, eg) are identical, and that is why. They don't have the old data.


This seems like a very reasonable explanation.
Title: Re: New purchase stat format suggests... bad things.
Post by: SelfSovereignty on July 13, 2013, 09:55 pm
agreed i dont like the new stats system either. i think it has too much info. why do we need time frames?
liked the old format better.

It offers more info to vendors, so they can make better judgments about who to work with, while providing no more info to, for example, LE who might compromise the site.

The old buyer stats showed a total number, but anyone who accessed your account could see your reviews going back 4 months, so they could still calculate your 1 month and 3 month purchasing stats.


SS, I think that's how they were able to calculate the stats. Purchasing info goes back 4 months. You can see the info in your reviews, by clicking on the individual items. So they calculated the 1 month and 3 month stats, then subtracted the 3 month stats from the total to get the 1 year and all time stats.

Numerous people have pointed out that the 1 year and all time stats (for accounts that have been around for 2 years, eg) are identical, and that is why. They don't have the old data.

... okay.  I'll buy that.  Thank you, changing the title now :)  My account's only been around for 1 year.

Apologies for the strong accusations, powers-that-be.  Just kind of didn't sit right with me from my perspective.
Title: Re: Never mind.
Post by: astor on July 13, 2013, 10:00 pm
In the spirit of open debate, here's a way to falsify my theory:  the 1 year stats should start deviating from the all time stats in 9 months. :)
Title: Re: Never mind.
Post by: SelfSovereignty on July 13, 2013, 10:02 pm
In the spirit of open debate, here's a way to falsify my theory:  the 1 year stats should start deviating from the all time stats in 9 months. :)

No, it definitely makes perfect sense.  The piece of information I was missing is that the all time stats and the one year stats are identical for accounts that have been around longer than a year.  Mine is literally almost exactly a year old, so I assumed it was accurate.  If it's not... you're probably absolutely right :)
Title: Re: Never mind.
Post by: astor on July 13, 2013, 10:07 pm
Although, in order to calculate the 1 year stats, they will have to keep records of number of purchases, amount spent, auto-finalize rate, and refund rate on a monthly basis, which is presumably more info than they kept before.
Title: Re: Never mind.
Post by: astor on July 13, 2013, 10:10 pm
Actually, they didn't subtract the 3 month stats, they just used the old total purchasing stats as the 1 year stats, derp.
Title: Re: Never mind.
Post by: frank-butcher24 on July 13, 2013, 10:13 pm
In the spirit of open debate, here's a way to falsify my theory:  the 1 year stats should start deviating from the all time stats in 9 months. :)

No, it definitely makes perfect sense.  The piece of information I was missing is that the all time stats and the one year stats are identical for accounts that have been around longer than a year.  Mine is literally almost exactly a year old, so I assumed it was accurate.  If it's not... you're probably absolutely right :)


Sorry guys, but that is not true. My account has been open for over two years, and my 1 year and all time stats are definitely not the same.

Here are my stats:

My 1 year transaction count is 16, my all time transaction count is 34.
Title: Re: Never mind.
Post by: astor on July 13, 2013, 10:19 pm
Interesting Frank. Thanks for the info. Maybe they have been keeping monthly totals all along.
Title: Re: Never mind.
Post by: SelfSovereignty on July 13, 2013, 10:32 pm
In the spirit of open debate, here's a way to falsify my theory:  the 1 year stats should start deviating from the all time stats in 9 months. :)

No, it definitely makes perfect sense.  The piece of information I was missing is that the all time stats and the one year stats are identical for accounts that have been around longer than a year.  Mine is literally almost exactly a year old, so I assumed it was accurate.  If it's not... you're probably absolutely right :)


Sorry guys, but that is not true. My account has been open for over two years, and my 1 year and all time stats are definitely not the same.

Here are my stats:

My 1 year transaction count is 16, my all time transaction count is 34.

... Fuck.  Then it is a lie, and the records are kept.  Mother fucker... I mean... why do that, for Christ's sake?  The amount spent is also different, or only # of transactions?
Title: Re: Never mind.
Post by: frank-butcher24 on July 13, 2013, 10:34 pm
The amount spent and the # transactions is different.
Title: Re: Never mind.
Post by: SelfSovereignty on July 13, 2013, 10:44 pm
The amount spent and the # transactions is different.

If a mod wants to change the title of the thread, feel free.  Twice in one day is my limit though -- too much bouncing back and forth.  Regardless, I honestly didn't think the staff would be so indifferent as to keep these records for what seems to be almost no good reason whatsoever except "a rainy day."  Anybody got a good reason to keep this stuff other than statistical analysis, you know, just in case it's useful someday?

Thanks for caring more about balancing your checkbook than making sure every purchase I ever made can't be tied to me *that* easily, guys.  Kudos and all...  :(
Title: Re: Never mind.
Post by: frank-butcher24 on July 13, 2013, 11:18 pm
Well, I feel somewhat reluctant to criticise too strongly as DPR is already clearly pissed off tonight over the fees flak he's been getting.

Before the change we had a running total, now we have the same running total broken down chronologically. So they are keeping the data which show that I did certain-sized transactions at certain points in time. I did not think they did that. I thought they just added it all up and presented it as a total.

That said, I don't remember ever reading anywhere that the date information was not kept, I just assumed it wasn't. Is there really a lie here SS, or did you (like me) make an assumption?

Title: Re: Never mind.
Post by: astor on July 14, 2013, 12:42 am
The All Time column is gone now, when did you last see it, SS?
Title: Re: Never mind.
Post by: SelfSovereignty on July 14, 2013, 01:23 am
Well, I feel somewhat reluctant to criticise too strongly as DPR is already clearly pissed off tonight over the fees flak he's been getting.

Before the change we had a running total, now we have the same running total broken down chronologically. So they are keeping the data which show that I did certain-sized transactions at certain points in time. I did not think they did that. I thought they just added it all up and presented it as a total.

That said, I don't remember ever reading anywhere that the date information was not kept, I just assumed it wasn't. Is there really a lie here SS, or did you (like me) make an assumption?

Well let me break it down logically.

1. It's been stated that purchase records are not kept for more than 3-4 months (I remember 3, Astor says 4).
2. In order to be able to distinguish which specific orders were made more than 3-4 months ago, but less than a year ago, you HAVE to know which orders were made more than a year ago.
3. If you know which orders were made more than a year ago, you're keeping the records.

   .:.  Either the data was 100% made up and complete bullshit (I doubt it), or one of these assumptions is false.  Presumably it's 1.  That's basically a lie.  It's kind of a big one, too, since it's a lie about what details are kept regarding orders.

HOWEVER, if it's never said anywhere that records aren't kept for more than 3-4 months... well then there's no lie, and apparently we all got the wrong idea via some sort of dark net osmosis (or something...).

When did I last see it?  I dunno.  It was there this evening.  I can't give you an exact time.  Awfully curious that it's gone now, though... mm?  Thanks DPR.  At least the illusion that you guys give a fuck is now no longer a direct contradiction... :D
Title: Re: Never mind.
Post by: samesamebutdifferent on July 14, 2013, 01:32 am
I have sent a link to this thread to the admins, hopefully one of them will post here in response to the points being raised.
Title: Re: Never mind.
Post by: astor on July 14, 2013, 01:40 am
If you are worried about your old info being saved, I strongly suggest you create a new account every once in a while. It's the only way to be sure.

Yeah, it sucks having to start over with fewer than 10 purchases and many vendors requiring FE, but if you have purchased multiple times from some trusted vendors, you can send them an encrypted messaging, telling them you are going to start buying from a new account, and let them know which one. If they're cool, they will waive the FE requirement.
Title: Re: Never mind.
Post by: SelfSovereignty on July 14, 2013, 02:04 am
It's been brought to my attention that just because purchase information that would be helpful for balancing books and keeping track of profit margins and tracking scammers all that is kept, does not mean that anything we should really, really care about is kept.  I feel that my initial reaction was too aggressive: I think that's perfectly reasonable for DPR or whomever else to keep.

My objection, should I even have any, is solely to being told the records aren't kept when they are.  Now to be fair I don't even remember where I read that and don't want to go digging through everything ever released by the Silk Road folks to find it, but I thought it was the buyer's guide... if that makes no mention of it, then I have no complaints whatsoever.

Just in the interest of being fair and rational and reasonable and all that boring, level headed stuff... :)
Title: Re: Never mind.
Post by: Dread Pirate Roberts on July 14, 2013, 02:26 am
I posted once about it a while ago, but there in no official policy.  right now what we do is archive the data after 4 months.  archiving basically strips out all info except what is needed for the stats and keeps the database lean.  I removed the "all-time" column after reading this thread to avoid further issues.  It's kind of unimportant for judging a buyer and I think it is nicer on the eyes/mind to have 3 instead of 4 data points to look at anyway.
Title: Re: Never mind.
Post by: astor on July 14, 2013, 02:44 am
Thanks DPR for clarifying things.
Title: Re: Never mind.
Post by: genghar on July 14, 2013, 03:06 am
Removing all time stats is very unfriendly to the buyer.  Some vendors have weird ranges they want to see you in before they'll let you buy without finalizing early.  I just don't buy here enough to keep up with that if stats are going to be constantly falling away.
Title: Re: Never mind.
Post by: Trappy on July 14, 2013, 03:52 am
Removing all time stats is very unfriendly to the buyer.  Some vendors have weird ranges they want to see you in before they'll let you buy without finalizing early.  I just don't buy here enough to keep up with that if stats are going to be constantly falling away.

If you go through with the effort to talk to a vendor about their product and your intents, 9/10 you'll still get your transaction.
Title: Re: Never mind.
Post by: frank-butcher24 on July 14, 2013, 07:21 am
Removing all time stats is very unfriendly to the buyer.  Some vendors have weird ranges they want to see you in before they'll let you buy without finalizing early.  I just don't buy here enough to keep up with that if stats are going to be constantly falling away.

I did most of my buying in my first year here too, and so indeed it does now look like I have done fewer transactions here than I actually have. But in order to be in our position genghar (the position that your stats are dropping off because they're older than a year), you have to have been here for more than 1 year. And that tends to count for a lot when doing business.

Most vendors ask for 5 transactions and a history of more than 3 months on the road before they'll accept escrow, or something along those lines. I won't fall foul of that, and neither will you I highly doubt. And if you do, buy an e-book or something!
Title: Re: Never mind.
Post by: qrbr6 on July 18, 2013, 02:07 am
I posted once about it a while ago, but there in no official policy.  right now what we do is archive the data after 4 months.  archiving basically strips out all info except what is needed for the stats and keeps the database lean.  I removed the "all-time" column after reading this thread to avoid further issues.  It's kind of unimportant for judging a buyer and I think it is nicer on the eyes/mind to have 3 instead of 4 data points to look at anyway.

I think there are quite a few buyers in the same boat as me that have spent 1000s on here and it won't be shown in our stats now. This is a problem for a lot of us who haven't been as active over the past few months, or even year, since some vendors demand FE unless we have made a certain number of purchases. Please reconsider.
Title: Re: Never mind.
Post by: sharonneedles on July 18, 2013, 10:44 am
I made a complaint to SR support in the past about a scam that happened me 3 months prior. The reply I got from SR support was that it was impossible for them to investigate the incident because they didn't even have a record of it due to them deleting transaction history every 3 (not 4) months.

Now I'm receiving a conflicting piece of information.
Title: Re: Never mind.
Post by: SelfSovereignty on July 18, 2013, 10:50 am
I made a complaint to SR support in the past about a scam that happened me 3 months prior. The reply I got from SR support was that it was impossible for them to investigate the incident because they didn't even have a record of it due to them deleting transaction history every 3 (not 4) months.

Now I'm receiving a conflicting piece of information.

Interesting.  Well, in defense of Silk Road itself, not every employee is going to have accurate and current information at all times.  Which isn't to say it's alright to go around spreading falsehoods, but mistakes can be made -- it doesn't necessarily mean it was a deliberate deception, is all I'm saying.

If nothing else, I'm glad my memory of 3 months wasn't manufactured... thank you for the validation :P
Title: Re: Never mind.
Post by: jagfug on July 18, 2013, 12:06 pm
I was just getting used to the fact that the 4th estate has now become the 5th column. 

But that's a whole different subject. :-X

I think the thought process here is; What have you done for me lately?

Ooh Ooh Ooh Ooh Yeah! :P
Title: Re: Never mind.
Post by: SOUTHPAW on July 20, 2013, 04:39 am
I was just getting used to the fact that the 4th estate has now become the 5th column. 

But that's a whole different subject. :-X

I think the thought process here is; What have you done for me lately?

Ooh Ooh Ooh Ooh Yeah! :P

Very funny!  Well not really when you understand there is a central control to this that no doubt has kept all the info. :(

And yes that's what they really want to know, "What have you done for me lately?" And probably more important; What can you do for me? :o
Title: Re: Never mind.
Post by: captainjojo on July 28, 2013, 05:37 am
I have to agree, I don't see how it could be that much trouble to keep one last data set for total purchases and how long the buyer has been on SR. I deal with accounting systems all the time and if I was to tell a client they could no longer see total sales, only the last year, the best I could expect was to be shown the door.

Title: Re: Never mind.
Post by: RetinaBlast on July 28, 2013, 06:33 am
I posted once about it a while ago, but there in no official policy.  right now what we do is archive the data after 4 months.  archiving basically strips out all info except what is needed for the stats and keeps the database lean.  I removed the "all-time" column after reading this thread to avoid further issues.  It's kind of unimportant for judging a buyer and I think it is nicer on the eyes/mind to have 3 instead of 4 data points to look at anyway.

DP.. you. hava tepo.
Title: Re: Never mind.
Post by: whateverworks on July 28, 2013, 11:38 pm
unfortunately, this just makes it easier to show me what a loser I am and that I could have purchased that new fucking Cadillac CTS-V i've always wanted...  0_o
Title: Re: Never mind.
Post by: hojo on July 31, 2013, 09:44 pm
I posted once about it a while ago, but there in no official policy.  right now what we do is archive the data after 4 months.  archiving basically strips out all info except what is needed for the stats and keeps the database lean.  I removed the "all-time" column after reading this thread to avoid further issues.  It's kind of unimportant for judging a buyer and I think it is nicer on the eyes/mind to have 3 instead of 4 data points to look at anyway.

I think there are quite a few buyers in the same boat as me that have spent 1000s on here and it won't be shown in our stats now. This is a problem for a lot of us who haven't been as active over the past few months, or even year, since some vendors demand FE unless we have made a certain number of purchases. Please reconsider.
[/quote
I totally agree. I've spent close to 4,000 here over close to 2 years and this change is going to make me look like a newbie. It's unfair to people here that have perfect stats like myself to be put in this position. As a loyal member of this community I am offended by this. Yes I have vendors that trust me but they change all the time. If this is not reversed and starts to effect me having to FE I will go to the new site or just leave.
Title: Re: Never mind.
Post by: blackend646 on August 01, 2013, 07:26 am
Agreed, you're really shafting the buyer by not showing the total. On top of making us look like newbies you are forcing us to make more purchases for our stats sake.
Title: Re: Never mind.
Post by: astor on August 20, 2013, 03:09 am
So there's a new row in the buyer stats that lists "total vendors".

How does SR know how many unique vendors someone purchased from more than a year ago if they delete or anonymize the individual transaction data after several months?

In order to show this number, SR must save the buyers and vendors involved in each transaction, which along with the price (and thus probably product), means they have been saving all the info about every transaction, since the beginning of the market.

Unless DPR has been aggregating this info on a monthly basis because he predicted more than a year ago that he would add this feature?
Title: Re: Never mind.
Post by: astor on August 20, 2013, 07:04 pm
I posted once about it a while ago, but there in no official policy.  right now what we do is archive the data after 4 months.  archiving basically strips out all info except what is needed for the stats and keeps the database lean.  I removed the "all-time" column after reading this thread to avoid further issues.  It's kind of unimportant for judging a buyer and I think it is nicer on the eyes/mind to have 3 instead of 4 data points to look at anyway.

But the data is not stripped of identifying info as long as the account is active. That's pretty clear from the total vendors stats.

So I stand by my recommendation earlier in this thread. If you don't want to accumulate a long trail of evidence, create a new account.
Title: Re: Never mind.
Post by: SOUTHPAW on September 06, 2013, 08:46 am
I was just getting used to the fact that the 4th estate has now become the 5th column. 

But that's a whole different subject. :-X

I think the thought process here is; What have you done for me lately?

Ooh Ooh Ooh Ooh Yeah! :P

Very funny!  Well not really when you understand there is a central control to this that no doubt has kept all the info. :(


Yep!

Accounts, computers, networks and mind sets must be bounced around but not mixed with one another.

The same way names and drops are used with specific vendors...  :)