Silk Road forums
Discussion => Silk Road discussion => Topic started by: Dread Pirate Roberts on February 17, 2012, 03:22 pm
-
I've been amazed by all of the products and services that have found their way to our marketplace. All kinds of products I've never heard of, and even non-physical goods have found their way here. The feedback system was designed with product shipment and receipt in mind (full explanation: http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/wiki/index.php/Feedback_Score). However, innovative buyers and sellers have found ways to gain what appears to be unwarranted advantages within the current system. For example, buyers are loading up on low cost digital goods to boost their buyer stats. One clever seller has been selling low cost lottery tickets to win product samples drawing in hundreds of transactions in a fraction of the time that it takes most sellers, leading others to do the same to keep up. When the system is compelling vendors to compete in strange ways like this, it is probably time to take a second look at it. I don't want the market to turn into a bunch of lottery listings. It's a cool idea for here and there, but seller's shouldn't have to do it to keep up.
I think I have devised a way to adjust the feedback and ranking system to be more representative of the vendor's experience and the scale of their operation while still giving high volume, low cost seller's their due. However, instead of just making the changes unilaterally, I want to open up discussion and get everyone's input, especially the vendors who's rank will decrease as a result (low cost item vendors and bitcoin exchangers).
The component of the feedback system that I want to change is the price weight (how much a rating counts toward a vendors feedback score and rank based on the price of the item). As seen in the wiki link above, the weight can be found by the following formula: 0.2*log(0.02*(price)+1)+1. This puts free and low cost items, such as listings for bitcoin exchanges, many digital goods, and lottery tickets, at a weight of 1. The weight then rises as the price rises, reaching a 50% increase at around $500. In my opinion, this is much too small an increase. Completing a $500 transaction, most likely requiring shipment of a physical good or some professional service, should carry much more weight than a simple digital lottery ticket, or downloadable e-book. My proposal is to put the weight of free items at zero, and increase the weight much more rapidly, up to 0.25 at around $10, 0.5 at around $25, 1 at $90, 1.5 at $280, 2 at $750, and so on. A visual representation can be seen here: http://www.onlinefunctiongrapher.com/?f=0.5*log(0.07*(x)%2B1)|0.2*log(0.02*(x)%2B1)%2B1&xMin=-40.642404416353166&xMax=593.9416316216038&yMin=-0.15783383043417978&yMax=2.098768235888415. The green line is the current way and the purple line is the proposed new way.
So, for example, all else equal, a rating from a $90 transaction will count for twice as much toward a vendor's feedback score and rank compared to a $25 purchase. and 4 times as much as a $10 purchase. The net effect of this change is to put more emphasis on the total dollar volume a vendor does, and less on the quantity of transactions performed. To think of it another way, at one extreme, only quantity would matter and all transactions would be rated equally, whether for a lottery ticket on a gram of weed, or 3 kilos of fine Colombian flake. At the other extreme, there would be a linear relationship between price and weight, where a $100 item would count 100 times more than a $1 item. I think the change I am proposing is fair and will lead to more rational competition amongst the vendors, but as I said before I would like to hear from you all first. Let's try to keep discussion about tweaking the numbers to a minimum and focus more on the overall effect we want to produce in the market.
clarification: this change would reduce the rank of low cost item vendors, but not affect feedback scores very much. Cases where it would affect feedback scores is if a vendor sells both low and high cost goods and has very different ratings from the two categories. For example, if a vendor sells some low cost ebooks and also high quality ecstasy, and has terrible reviews from their ecstasy deals but great reviews from their ebook sales, this vendor can expect their rating to drop as the bad reviews are weighted more and their good reviews rated less.
-
Great stuff !! 8)
-
Sounds good to me. Its about time we made some changes to that system.
-
I definitely agree with you that something needed to be done and was concerned about if these lottery listings were going to completely undermine the feedback system. The change you have proposed certainly seems like the best way to address the situation that I can think of. Great job DPR for the speed at which this has been undertaken and especially for seeking the opinions of the community before implementing such significant changes. Thank you!
-
Crazy I was just thinking of the feedback system before I went to bed last night, I'm all for it bro. The only thing that worries me is all those ratings are proof of sales...
-
Hey,
I like this new proposal, this i going to help me big time as a seller. Because
I do send out a lot of bulk orders, which are definitely harder to ship
and should be therefore rated higher on ranking than lower volume orders. So i agree totally on this
new way of ranking.
I like to add in another perspective:
I think overseas orders should count heavier on ranking when a successful delivery. This because if a seller from Europe only sends
within Europe to not have to bare the extra risk of failure in contrary to a seller who does ship internationally. What about this perspective?
When will a new form of ranking be become active?
Greets
DutchQualityBeans
-
YES!!! Thank Christ :D i did not want to have to become one of "those guys" with the stupid lottery bullshit. I think that in general, you can only "trick" people for a short period of time before they see it is all padded feedback. In response to the new system... AWESOME!!!!
-
This as come up recently and i have to agree but what happens at $2000, then $5000.... Do they weight in at 3 and say 5 just for ease of explaining what i mean, not precise calculations :) Or does it stop at $700 at a weight of 2? If its the later i must protest... as that would be unfair. Other than that, Seems like a winner, or at least a step in the right direction.
That lottery stuff is just lame imo. It goes with that saying, You can make something idiot proof but a bigger idiot always comes along :P
-
This sounds like an excellent plan. The only thing that would worry me most is that some buyer who wants to scam someone now has more leverage for his threat of negative feedback, because if his order is large enough, his negative feedback will be weighted more heavily than the hundreds of good feedback that same vendor has. But this can be easily avoided by vendors being smart enough to only accept smaller orders first from new vendors. Overall, this sounds like a very good plan DPR. Thanks for continuing to improve paradise.
-
Yeah sounds much better than the old feedback system! My vote got it
Doc.
-
I love the idea. Now we get to see it in practical use. Great. I have long hated the scammer who sells e-goods to boost t here ratings and gets over on the community. It has been a problem for a long time and and am so happy to see it addressed.
My raking has been all over the map. 8th-40th all over. I just do what I do and continue down the Road of prosperity. Hahaha. I love this place and it just keeps getting better. No matter where I rank. I'm here to stay. Thanks Dread Pirate Roberts :)
PUT AUDIO ON THE SITE ;D PLEASE
maybe give me the ability to add audio....
-
sounds great, I'd much rather the new system than every vendor starting a lottery so they can try and be number 1. Why do we need seller ranks as such? why does there need to be a No. 1? why don't we just have our overall rating and feedback? No seller rank = no competition to be number 1 & vendors still have overall feedback rating and then pages of feedback(hopefully).
-
8) Cool idea DPR!
-
Any honest vendor would welcome the new system.
Nobody wants to see this place overrun with Lottery Trolls and gimmickery.
Well done, DPR.
-
I'm not a vendor but, I agree that something had to be done. It just wasn't right to those vendors who had worked hard over many months with many clients to earn a good reputation. I think your solution should work much better.
-
just perfect! something like this come in my mind weeks ago :)
-
I am *COMPLETELY* for a complete revamp of the feedback system to a formula that would be more representative of actually money traded between sellers.
I say this, while, I myself, have about 150 transactions. It did annoy me how people could get good feedback previously (thankfully they changed at least that so far, simple by choosing an alternative shipping option.
As I say, I am completely for this change and you have my vote for it going ahead :-)
I'm in the top 100 or so sellers, probably 50 in terms of products sold, and the feedback is not representative. Also, quite a large amount of product I sell are in large amounts, yet I get no extra feedback because of it.
Anyway, just giving you my vote, and opinion.
Best regards
-
I approve both of the proposed solution and the fact that DPR raised the issue for discussion before implementing the change. Good to see on both fronts.
-
How will this affect my listings that are very cheap per quantity, but are supposed to be bought in bulks of 15+?
http://silkroadvb5piz3r.onion/index.php/silkroad/item/19261
Will a feedback for this weight according to $0.77 or the total order cost?
-
Sounds good to me. I also don't like customers seeing when i've read a message. Its only dollar volume that makes a seller trusted not number of transactions, so thats what should be reflected. There was also some word about seeing customer total purchase dollars? This would be nice. What about sellers leaving feedback for buyers lol. Im tired of people trying to rush this delicate process, and I've only been here 2 weeks
-
Weighted system seems to be the best course of action. Kudos on keeping up with the innovation needed for keeping this site on the forefront.
-
Sounds good to me.
-
Wouldn't effect me as I only have a few sales all with 5 out of 5 ratings, I'm still going to get buried under thousands of the big time sellers and have my (physical, high value) goods take an eon to sell since no-one bothers going to page 10 or whatever. But who cares about anyone but the big time sellers when they're raking the commission in...
While I appreciate you are addressing people manipulating the system like this, I think the time would be better spend making SR's interface more intuitive (why can't I sort listings by country, by countries the vendor will ship to, display the Bitcoin value of items along with the USD value, why have you removed the Bitcoin/USD rate at the bottom of the page). Of course people are going to manipulate the system like this when all anyone sees is listings sorted by the best selling and seller rank.
-
I agree changes are needed too! Sounds good to me DPR. I do have a suggestion about the Feedback system. I know this has been covered before many times but alot of people are boosting ratings by requiring early finalization on all purchases. It would be nice if there were a way to exclude the early finalization feedback from the regular feedback and only post REAL feedback once the buyer receives their goods. Perhaps an "Early Finalize. In Transit" state of the shipment could be added, where feedback isnt requested until after the user confirms their shipment arrived.
And if you were to hold another sale similar to Valentine's day sale once a month I think it would do wonders to boost the SR economy, and the bitcoin too!
Take care and thanks for offering this amazing service to us all! It keeps us like minded people safe and off the streets. This site makes buying and selling drugs and other goods legit and how it should be done in the real world! Keep up the good work!
Take care & be safe. Nurse Jackie.
-
Wouldn't it be simpler to just not count any order that is less than 10 dollars? then keep the system that you have? that would get rid of the lottery/e-book issue...
-
Great idea, I was actually going to mention this to you eventually... much better if you do it this way.
how about for all the previous transactions prior to this new feedback system? is it possible it takes effect for previous transactions?
-
Yeah sounds much better than the old feedback system! My vote got it
Doc.
I agree! :)
-
Im for this, thankes
-
this is a great idea, I don't like how vendors giving away free lottery tickets/kindle's manage to get into the top 10 without having made 1 single transaction worth more than 10 cents.
well done for addressing this issue, also create a section for lottery, draws and free shit.
Well done
-
I agree with reducing the impact of lottery feedback.
I also think there should be a category for Lottery/Give-away so we can get these items out of the regular categories... the only thing in the Cannabis/Weed category should be sellers selling weed... etc.
I am not against sellers using a lottery to promote their business. I think buyers should be able to spend their bitcoins however they like.
Thanks!!
TJ
-
As long as it doesn't hurt feedback scores too much, and you stated that it won't, I'm all for it. The more potential scam protection we have the better.
-
I actually thought the dollar weighting was a lot heavier than it currently is.
I am ALL FOR a higher weighting based on sale value, because about 2/3 of the orders I send out the door are $150+ orders, and I've been wondering why my rank has been low compared to sellers that only carry 1gram and 1/8 listings.
And yes, this stops gaming the system. It also mimics reality a lot more, in that the most successful and respected businesses are the ones that make the most profits. Accounting for sales is a big step in the right direction on this site. I say implement it immediately!
-
Captain,
I hear what you are saying, and I appreciate you bringing this up in a civilized manner. I feel like you are saying that you are not upset with what I believe is my marketing/business tactics fair and innovative in this free market you have created, you are annoyed that the feedback system can be "exploited" by high volume sales done in a short period of time. It opens the site up to attacks from LEO and scammers who can come in and in a few months gain the trust of people merely from their rank/number of sales. I agree the system needs work.
However, I do feel like I have been innovative with my lottery, and my motives are entirely altruistic. One night I was sitting around and I thought, "There are 150,000+ accounts for Silk Road... so many people, we could play games together!" and I started playing games with btc prizes in SILC chat, hoping to stimulate growth of business for SR vendors by giving btc out to buyers, especially new ones without experience/access to btc. That led into a realization that as a vendor I could create a site-wide game like the lottery, where for a small investment, if the pool grew large enough, a person could win 50+btc to spend at their desire.
Yes, I take a commission for it. Yes, it has significantly boosted my business and ranking. However, I am offended by the number of you who are flaming me because I have taken the initiative to try to give back to this community that has literally changed my life for the better exponentially over the last few months.
My gf and I run our business with our best friend and yesterday, my gf and I got engaged after 3 years of dating. I am on cloud 9 IRL and I am going to continue to try to provide a fun/innovative experience for my customers regardless, but this hatred from you guys I feel is misdirected and unfair... possibly rooted in jealousy.
DPR, I am not offended and I would like to continue this conversation... thanks again for the way you broached the subject.
Edit: the lottery does generate .05btc income for SR in commission with each ticket sale. I feel like it contributes to SR as a community as well as SR as a business.
-
Completely rational and fair, I fully support this move :D
-
I didn't know how the system worked. I hadn't got into that yet but this makes a lot of sense. Sounds fair. Smart thinking and quick acting. Thank you Mr. Roberts.
-
A weighted rating system sounds great, and what I am more interested in, is how many packages did a user not receive. I used to just reship packages when they didn't reach their destination. Then I realized that scammers could request a reshipment, and have no negative feedback. I would like to see a users number of transactions, and total bitcoin volume, and percentage of packages received.
-
DPR, I also forgot to ask - is this retroactive in application or is this a "here on out" sort of thing?
-
All has been said. Thumbs up for this update!
-
All sounds great
-
This is needed more than we all can imagine. If possible I believe it needs to be applied retroactively. But if not I think it needs to be put in immediately.
Great idea to fix a growing problem DPR!
-
Wouldn't it be simpler to just not count any order that is less than 10 dollars? then keep the system that you have? that would get rid of the lottery/e-book issue...
I second this as most of the lottery's are not free they all have a small cost of a couple hundredths of a bit. Since there really is not much that can be bought and shipped for less then $10 excluding anything under that sounds like a great idea especially since it will help head off the next scheme they think up to try and inflate their ratings.
-
Wouldn't it be simpler to just not count any order that is less than 10 dollars? then keep the system that you have? that would get rid of the lottery/e-book issue...
I second this as most of the lottery's are not free they all have a small cost of a couple hundredths of a bit. Since there really is not much that can be bought and shipped for less then $10 excluding anything under that sounds like a great idea especially since it will help head off the next scheme they think up to try and inflate their ratings.
I partially agree with this, however there has to be some way to accommodate legitimate currency changers. While they are few and far between they do provide an important service to the community by providing buying currency to people who otherwise can't get it for a variety of reasons, and provide a larger customer base for us sellers.
-
I actually kinda agree that free or extremely cheap listings maybe should even carry no weight at all, especially if possibly to change the qualities of certain categories. Like digital goods or currency exchanges are cheap or free but still receiving a product or service, so they deserve a little weight for the feedback at least.
However, if possible I think a new category should be created for lottery or giveaways. These orders shouldnt even have the option of feedback, and should have absolutely no weight into a vendor score. I wont buy from a vendor with a lottery now, because there are tons of pages of worthless feedbacks, and is difficult to even find the feedbacks for actual orders. It would be best just to remove all of these pointless ratings so you can find the actual reviews.
-
Wouldn't it be simpler to just not count any order that is less than 10 dollars? then keep the system that you have? that would get rid of the lottery/e-book issue...
I second this as most of the lottery's are not free they all have a small cost of a couple hundredths of a bit. Since there really is not much that can be bought and shipped for less then $10 excluding anything under that sounds like a great idea especially since it will help head off the next scheme they think up to try and inflate their ratings.
I partially agree with this, however there has to be some way to accommodate legitimate currency changers. While they are few and far between they do provide an important service to the community by providing buying currency to people who otherwise can't get it for a variety of reasons, and provide a larger customer base for us sellers.
Yea the currency exchange thing will need to be worked out some how, those who actually write the feedback system might be able to adjust that somehow as I do not know what options they have but hopefully they might be able to exclude certain accounts for those who deal strictly in the financial products.
-
Cool Beans SR!!!!
Great idea ;D
Maybe we could get something on the customer end also.
I would feel much safer about taking on new customers if i could
see their averaged overall purchases "average dollar amount spent on all their purchases".
That way I would have an excellent way to weed out scammers and LE.
In any event - keep up the good work
Peace out SR;
Christy
-
I am for the idea that sales less that $10 should not be weighted either.
The idea you should get a satisfied customer for $0.01, when you get the same street cred when you sell a $2000 item is completely ludicrous..
-
I think the time would be better spend making SR's interface more intuitive (why can't I sort listings by country, by countries the vendor will ship to, display the Bitcoin value of items along with the USD value, why have you removed the Bitcoin/USD rate at the bottom of the page).
I'd just like to give a +1 to these issues. If it was easier to sort the inventory, there would be much less of impact on people at the bottom of the "popularity" chain.
-
I'm against the sub-$10 suggestion. It would hurt sellers that sells mostly cheap items.
Also, can I get an answer on this:
How will this affect my listings that are very cheap per quantity, but are supposed to be bought in bulks of 15+?
http://silkroadvb5piz3r.onion/index.php/silkroad/item/19261
Will a feedback for this weight according to $0.77 or the total order cost?
-
Thank you for listening. This is definitely needed.
-
Yeah... so now that I just got robbed on a bulk order my feedbacks ruined. Thanks.
-
Does it make any sense to combine these (basically) two or three great ideas? Any sales for under $10 won't be included, the weighting system starts at more than $10 sales and a separate system for the digi-goods vendors and the BC exchangers? Also, I'm not a vendor but more detailed buyer stats, as Christy and others have suggested, would be helpful in weeding out (pun intended?) scammer buyers.
-
Buyers can already see how many total BTC they have spent. We already have autofinalize rate, total transactions and refund rate. That's the only other piece of information we as sellers would find practical to make a more informed decision to do some business.
Plus, it would be worth it for buyers to disclose this. If someone new comes to me who has spent 500 BTC on here, I'm throwing in some free fucking samples with their orders because I want that person as a regular lol.
-
I think it's a great idea, it sounds fair to me. We've been needing a more accurate system for feedback and this seems like a step in the right direction.
-
Cannabis venders are the backbone of SR as far as I can see! The margins of change should reflect and favor the salt of the Road!
My 2 cents!
~Doc
-
I like this idea and am for its implementation, but I LOVE the fact that it was brought to the community round table instead of being unilaterally put into place and then dealing with the fallout and damage control. Great job DPR!
-
I like the proposal. I think it's a great idea.
-
I am all for the changes, this is a great idea. Actual product shipped should count for more than an e-book or lottery. And higher weight should count more than smaller weight. This will help customers know who's actually sending stuff out and having it received vs feedback for something that is never shipped.
-
I'm pretty newb around here but it does sound good. This can help separate the big vendors from the small timers such as myself from a buyers perspective. In a sense...gives the little guys something to aspire to.
The only thing I would like to see a little more detail on is buyer statistics. Such as how much they spend on average and stuff like that. If a buyer comes in with a 10/0 buyer rating and it's off of .5 ebooks I have no idea...and then risk sending out something worth a lot more to someone who's going to let it hang for 3 weeks, ugh.
Evolution at work, always a good thing!
-
I support whatever is best for the community by popular demand.
Both Buyers and Vendors equally.
:)
nomad bloodbath
-
I support this change.
Rocker
-
Digital goods should not affect seller ranking, and/or feedback from digital goods should say 'digital' next to it. Problem solved.
I'd also suggest the following curve (Mine is the yellow)
http://www.onlinefunctiongrapher.com/?f=0.5*log%280.07*%28x%29%2B1%29|0.2*log%280.02*%28x%29%2B1%29%2B1&xMin=-40.642404416353166&xMax=593.9416316216038&yMin=-0.15783383043417978&yMax=2.098768235888415
-
Keep up the good work DPR! Can't wait to see this implemented effective immediately!
-
I haven't read the whole thread so sorry if I am saying things already said.
First off, the limit for not counting towards feedback should be higher, maybe 10 dollars. After shipping and everything that means the product only cost a few bucks and doesn't hold much weight with me. Do I trust someone I know in real life because we exchanged 10 dollars? No. If we exchange thousands that is a different story.
Secondly, some more buyer stats would be appreciated. Average time to finalize, average txn size, etc. Buyers should have a few stats like average order size, percentage undelivered, etc for a vendor too.
Since you are messing with the feedback system anyway, maybe implementing a multiple category score would help. Product quality, shipping, ect.
Also, this is probably more difficult to implement but...
It would be nice if there were a way to stop all of the early finalize feedback, it is totally unhelpful to buyers reading them. I know people can edit their feedback, but many do not.
If there were an early finalization button this would really help.
Sellers shouldn't have to click ship to early finalize and lose their access to the address of the person. It would also show to the buyer as early finalize, not in transit and would make it so buyers were more informed as to what is going on with their package.
Feedback would pop up on the orders page after 7 days so they can enter their actual feedback.
--I hope that implementing something like this wouldn't make more sellers require early finalization though. Maybe there could be some fee or some other reason to dis-incentivize (is that a word?) the use of early finalization as escrow is one of the best things about SR.
Since we are requesting things, let me continue :)
Can there be a notes box next to the order so we can encrypt DCN and store them on the site. I know this is a security breach possibly, but the box could make sure that it is a pgp encrypted message to ensure sellers encrypt the DCN. This isn't a big deal, but I sometimes have difficulty managing that many DCN numbers.
Either way, SR is awesome. I love selling small amounts at higher margin without having a ton of traffic to my house.
-
It´s good that Sr do something again this fucking lottery!
Ok it is a good idea but in some time every will do this.
I only don´t understand what happen with our last feedback??
Sr know how much is the worth from our feedback ??
-
The new system works for me.
-
I would like to know how many times a buyer can change feedback.
I have had a buyer change 5 times in 4 days.
This has to be addressed.
regards/
Fred
-
What is actually the problem with a linear calculation?
For me it sounds fair, that if someone sells something for 100$ he gets 100 times the rating value, then somebody who only sold something for 1$, since he has a 100 times higher risk
-
Full speed ahead on that one, bro. Feedback manipulation is childs play the way things are, I could easily be one of the top 3 sellers if I wanted to with no real customers except the ones I could make up myself. Its been a problem for some time and Ive been addressing it with my Very Good Buyer system to some degree myself however a overhaul of the existing system is the only true way to make progress in this matter.
NOW, lets talk about another facet of the problem: WRITTEN buyer feedback from vendors. Where is it? Not here... but it is on Ebay. Why? Cause its fucking important. I can tell if someone is a fake ass bitch not only by what they write about other vendors but what vendors have to say about them as well.
-
Full speed ahead on that one, bro. Feedback manipulation is childs play the way things are, I could easily be one of the top 3 sellers if I wanted to with no real customers except the ones I could make up myself. Its been a problem for some time and Ive been addressing it with my Very Good Buyer system to some degree myself however a overhaul of the existing system is the only true way to make progress in this matter.
NOW, lets talk about another facet of the problem: WRITTEN buyer feedback from vendors. Where is it? Not here... but it is on Ebay. Why? Cause its fucking important. I can tell if someone is a fake ass bitch not only by what they write about other vendors but what vendors have to say about them as well.
I would love that feature.. Would make some buyers think twice before trying to scam
-
As it stands now, we have a scale of 5-1. Fair enough, this gives us a bigger scale to weigh in the differences in service, product, shipping, etc. My problem is it seems most users only use a 5 or a 1. So what is the point of having the other 3 numbers? Just for simplicity sake, and to line up feedback with how it is REALLY used, I feel we should do like ebay and have positive, neutral, and negative feedback. I feel this more accurately reflects how we use feedback. I'm tired of seeing 5/5's left for no shows, reshipments, or refunds. In these cases, if the vendor handles the situation, they should be left neutral feedback. Plain and simple.
Just my .02btc.
-
As stated by Tryptamine above
'Digital goods should not affect seller ranking, and/or feedback from digital goods should say 'digital' next to it. Problem solved.'
100% agree. Most digital vendors are highly professional, check their orders several times a day & get them sent out on time. Seems like the new system would hurt the vendors who earn the least only. The new system needs to be fair for everyone & not just the big sellers.
-
Cannabis venders are the backbone of SR as far as I can see! The margins of change should reflect and favor the salt of the of the Road!
My 2 cents!
~Doc
8) Agreed
-
I would like to know how many times a buyer can change feedback.
I have had a buyer change 5 times in 4 days.
This has to be addressed as he has told me if i give a full refund he ill change it once again to a 5/5 but yet he refuses to do a dispute.
How can he hold me to ransom when he clearly has mental problems ???
regards/
Fred
Yeah, I've also had problems with buyers basically holding me ransom. I'm tired of idiots doing this.
If they change their ratings, it should be weighted less and less each time they change it.
-
Yes, This is a excellent idea as a new vendor I feel I won't be able to get my foot in the door without running some sort of lottery myself.
I also want the ability for vendors to write "follow-up feedback" or feedback on buyers to PREVENT FEEDBACK EXTORTION which to me is the only real problem on SR.
-
Fantastic idea! We need to keep the ranking fair and not let this place get flooded with low value lottery type items.
Matrix 8)
-
Very clever idea pirate, I support it 100%
-
How will this affect my listings that are very cheap per quantity, but are supposed to be bought in bulks of 15+?
http://silkroadvb5piz3r.onion/index.php/silkroad/item/19261
Will a feedback for this weight according to $0.77 or the total order cost?
an order of 15 $1 items is treated the same way as an order for 1 $15 item.
-
how about for all the previous transactions prior to this new feedback system? is it possible it takes effect for previous transactions?
the way I am thinking, rank and feedback will be recalculated, so all of one's past orders will be re-weighted. So not a "from now on" kind of thing.
-
Wouldn't it be simpler to just not count any order that is less than 10 dollars? then keep the system that you have? that would get rid of the lottery/e-book issue...
depends on your perspective I guess. Fewer lines of code my way, and you don't have a hard break causing people to do things like price a $9.50 product for $10 just to get the feedback on it.
-
Captain,
I hear what you are saying, and I appreciate you bringing this up in a civilized manner. I feel like you are saying that you are not upset with what I believe is my marketing/business tactics fair and innovative in this free market you have created, you are annoyed that the feedback system can be "exploited" by high volume sales done in a short period of time. It opens the site up to attacks from LEO and scammers who can come in and in a few months gain the trust of people merely from their rank/number of sales. I agree the system needs work.
However, I do feel like I have been innovative with my lottery, and my motives are entirely altruistic. One night I was sitting around and I thought, "There are 150,000+ accounts for Silk Road... so many people, we could play games together!" and I started playing games with btc prizes in SILC chat, hoping to stimulate growth of business for SR vendors by giving btc out to buyers, especially new ones without experience/access to btc. That led into a realization that as a vendor I could create a site-wide game like the lottery, where for a small investment, if the pool grew large enough, a person could win 50+btc to spend at their desire.
Yes, I take a commission for it. Yes, it has significantly boosted my business and ranking. However, I am offended by the number of you who are flaming me because I have taken the initiative to try to give back to this community that has literally changed my life for the better exponentially over the last few months.
My gf and I run our business with our best friend and yesterday, my gf and I got engaged after 3 years of dating. I am on cloud 9 IRL and I am going to continue to try to provide a fun/innovative experience for my customers regardless, but this hatred from you guys I feel is misdirected and unfair... possibly rooted in jealousy.
DPR, I am not offended and I would like to continue this conversation... thanks again for the way you broached the subject.
Edit: the lottery does generate .05btc income for SR in commission with each ticket sale. I feel like it contributes to SR as a community as well as SR as a business.
I'm right there with you. Don't worry about people getting upset by it. From their perspective, they saw the system rewarding you more than them for much less work, and it is natural to blame what you can see (you ranking up) rather than the system itself. Technically a lottery ticket is a product with a value and you should be rewarded for creating and selling this product. You are filling a niche. But yea, I think with this little tweak, you can do your lottery games and be rewarded for your sales at a level that is more fair.
-
Any idea when these changes will kick in, DPR?
-
As a seller who also wants the best user experience possible, I have read the entire thread thus far and want to point out what I thought were the highlights related to many issues within SR that were on the first 6 pages.
I also want to point that one of the lottery sellers, "feverrey" wrote something very interesting which everyone should probably read if they want to comment on the lottery stuff.
I want to say that even though I am re-posting what I felt were some "highlights" below, I'm not saying I agree with everything. I just think that they're things to be thought about / discussed.
My personal HIGHLIGHTS:
"I like this new proposal, this i going to help me big time as a seller. Because
I do send out a lot of bulk orders, which are definitely harder to ship
and should be therefore rated higher on ranking than lower volume orders. So i agree totally on this
new way of ranking.
I think overseas orders should count heavier on ranking when a successful delivery. This because if a seller from Europe only sends
within Europe to not have to bare the extra risk of failure in contrary to a seller who does ship internationally. What about this perspective?"
-DutchQualityBeans
"This as come up recently and i have to agree but what happens at $2000, then $5000.... Do they weight in at 3 and say 5 just for ease of explaining what i mean, not precise calculations  Or does it stop at $700 at a weight of 2? If its the later i must protest... as that would be unfair. Other than that, Seems like a winner, or at least a step in the right direction."
-generalm3sS
"Why do we need seller ranks as such? why does there need to be a No. 1? why don't we just have our overall rating and feedback? No seller rank = no competition to be number 1 & vendors still have overall feedback rating and then pages of feedback(hopefully)."
-GreenGiant
"(why can't I sort listings by country, by countries the vendor will ship to, display the Bitcoin value of items along with the USD value, why have you removed the Bitcoin/USD rate at the bottom of the page). Of course people are going to manipulate the system like this when all anyone sees is listings sorted by the best selling and seller rank."
-lex
"I do have a suggestion about the Feedback system. I know this has been covered before many times but alot of people are boosting ratings by requiring early finalization on all purchases. It would be nice if there were a way to exclude the early finalization feedback from the regular feedback and only post REAL feedback once the buyer receives their goods. Perhaps an "Early Finalize. In Transit" state of the shipment could be added, where feedback isnt requested until after the user confirms their shipment arrived. "
-NurseJackie
"I also think there should be a category for Lottery/Give-away so we can get these items out of the regular categories... the only thing in the Cannabis/Weed category should be sellers selling weed... etc."
-TrustusJones
"I hear what you are saying, and I appreciate you bringing this up in a civilized manner. I feel like you are saying that you are not upset with what I believe is my marketing/business tactics fair and innovative in this free market you have created, you are annoyed that the feedback system can be "exploited" by high volume sales done in a short period of time. It opens the site up to attacks from LEO and scammers who can come in and in a few months gain the trust of people merely from their rank/number of sales. I agree the system needs work.
However, I do feel like I have been innovative with my lottery, and my motives are entirely altruistic. One night I was sitting around and I thought, "There are 150,000+ accounts for Silk Road... so many people, we could play games together!" and I started playing games with btc prizes in SILC chat, hoping to stimulate growth of business for SR vendors by giving btc out to buyers, especially new ones without experience/access to btc. That led into a realization that as a vendor I could create a site-wide game like the lottery, where for a small investment, if the pool grew large enough, a person could win 50+btc to spend at their desire.
Yes, I take a commission for it. Yes, it has significantly boosted my business and ranking. However, I am offended by the number of you who are flaming me because I have taken the initiative to try to give back to this community that has literally changed my life for the better exponentially over the last few months.
DPR, I am not offended and I would like to continue this conversation... thanks again for the way you broached the subject.
Edit: the lottery does generate .05btc income for SR in commission with each ticket sale. I feel like it contributes to SR as a community as well as SR as a business."
-feverrey
"I partially agree with this, however there has to be some way to accommodate legitimate currency changers. While they are few and far between they do provide an important service to the community by providing buying currency to people who otherwise can't get it for a variety of reasons, and provide a larger customer base for us sellers."
-anarcho47
"I think a new category should be created for lottery or giveaways. These orders shouldnt even have the option of feedback, and should have absolutely no weight into a vendor score. I wont buy from a vendor with a lottery now, because there are tons of pages of worthless feedbacks, and is difficult to even find the feedbacks for actual orders. It would be best just to remove all of these pointless ratings so you can find the actual reviews."
-microRNA
"Does it make any sense to combine these (basically) two or three great ideas? Any sales for under $10 won't be included, the weighting system starts at more than $10 sales and a separate system for the digi-goods vendors and the BC exchangers? Also, I'm not a vendor but more detailed buyer stats, as Christy and others have suggested, would be helpful in weeding out (pun intended?) scammer buyers."
-TalkingHead
"The only thing I would like to see a little more detail on is buyer statistics. Such as how much they spend on average and stuff like that. If a buyer comes in with a 10/0 buyer rating and it's off of .5 ebooks I have no idea...and then risk sending out something worth a lot more to someone who's going to let it hang for 3 weeks, ugh."
-mushitup
"Digital goods should not affect seller ranking, and/or feedback from digital goods should say 'digital' next to it."
-Tryptamine
"Secondly, some more buyer stats would be appreciated. Average time to finalize, average txn size, etc. Buyers should have a few stats like average order size, percentage undelivered, etc for a vendor too.
Since you are messing with the feedback system anyway, maybe implementing a multiple category score would help. Product quality, shipping, ect."
-ThisOneGuy
"NOW, lets talk about another facet of the problem: WRITTEN buyer feedback from vendors. Where is it? Not here... but it is on Ebay. Why? Cause its fucking important. I can tell if someone is a fake ass bitch not only by what they write about other vendors but what vendors have to say about them as well."
-Paperchasing
"I also want the ability for vendors to write "follow-up feedback" or feedback on buyers to PREVENT FEEDBACK EXTORTION which to me is the only real problem on SR."
-onestopshop
-
thank you very much for your response DPR. we are on the same page.
-
Hi Everyone,
This sounds awesome and actually it's really common sense. After all, I would feel very comfortable sending my cash to a vendor whose large orders have gone out without a hitch. Even if they have only been here a few weeks, if they do large transactions with great reviews, it wouldn't matter how long they have been here, it shows they are trustworthy and keep their promises to customers.
Unfortunately, when a vendor has too many transactions, it might be too hard to read through them all, even if there is a consistent number of complaints, it could be lost if moving a significant quantity of orders, no matter how small or irrelevant they may be.
Besides, just how mad are people going to get over losing 5.00 on an order compared to a 500.00 one? I tend to lean toward giving the guy that lost 500.00 the floor if he sounds an alarm.
Peace 8)
Libby
-
I have no problem giving less weight to low cost electronic sales. It might lower my rating a bit, but whatever. Sneaking contraband through the mail system deserves the most weight.
If I may add, I would suggest that a little more weight be placed on the shipment of weapons, or bulky contraband items that can't be placed in a simple envelope like an 1/8 of pot. It's more difficult shipping weapons, so more weight should be added to successful shipments.
-
thank you very much for your response DPR. we are on the same page.
For the record, if you're referring to the post above yours, I have nothing to do with DPR. Those were my own personal reflections.
-
thank you very much for your response DPR. we are on the same page.
For the record, if you're referring to the post above yours, I have nothing to do with DPR. Those were my own personal reflections.
I think they taking about the post 2 above yours, DPR replied to several questions. It's great to see you put in the effort to combine many of the posts in to 1 informative collection.
Also DPR keep up the good work & thank you for taking the time to reply to some of the questions asked :)
-
thank you very much for your response DPR. we are on the same page.
For the record, if you're referring to the post above yours, I have nothing to do with DPR. Those were my own personal reflections.
Probably referring to DPR's OP. A lot of people just read the OP and hit "reply".
-
Yes, we welcome the tweak and please back-date it.
Also, a buyer history of some sort, someone suggested a purchase total for return/regular buyers - this would be helpful as we would like to reward our returning/regular buyers after several purchases - we don't keep any records outside of Silk Road, it would be helpful to have some type of record on SR.
;) ABD
-
Im new, but I just made my first post about the feedback thingy and saw this one. OP that sounds very innovative and improvement minded.
Ive been studying Silkroad and reading forums studying this whole setup since signing up a couple weeks ago.....and man do I always feel geeked out grappling with all this before making a first purchase...... I guess what Im saying is its nice to know there are minds on improvement.....this isnt seeming exactly like a simple affair. LOL
-
This sounds like a great idea!!!
I have an add-on idea for SR... Maybe vendors should have the option to report buyers which you suspect of scamming, if they will get reported several times by several vendors maybe the SR admin could act on it (i.e. delete the buyer and/or make his feedback not count anymore). This is because I had a excellent rating untill I ran in to 1 single buyer who tried to scammed me and if I would not cooperate he would leave negative feedback (which he did).
Greetings,
Amsterdamgoods
-
Im all for improvement and I like the idea.
Maybe after SR puts the final touches on the 'Vendor' feedback system they might just maybe look at giving the buyer rating and feedback a major overhaul.
Buyers get scammed yes but imo vendors not only have buyers scamming them, they have all sorts of do gooders and dodgy gutless competitors fucking with their feedback.
I dont know about other vendors but I like nice honest feedback, even if it is on the negative side. If I dont get honest feedback and nothing gets done about the troll feedback. I am going to leave. Thats not a tantrum or nothing but honestly....why would I bother?? Why would anyone?
I dont think it is a job for SR to go thru and delete troll feedback. (Has this even ever been done??)
I possibly have not thought this through near enough but I feel the time has come for more transparency in what a buyer is buying and what their feedback is.
Maybe not even what they are buying... just the $ amount of a transaction and the feedback they left the vendor.
This will give the vendor just that little bit more of an idea about who they are selling to.
Vendors....have all their info out there for buyers to look at.. Vendors need the same..
For instance.. just say I am a wanker and my mission is a smear campaign. I have 20/0 buyer rating. Even though I got great service my mission is to give everyone shit feedback. Because I am a cunt... but look at my shiny looking 20/0 buyer rating ;D
that is all
-
I support whatever is best for the community by popular demand.
Both Buyers and Vendors equally.
:)
nomad bloodbath
+1
-
I support the changes.
-
I am a reputed dealer. I have not reviewed the mathematical formula, but I understand the gist of the numbers. I fully concur with Captain. I support this new weighting system. I want this system implemented immediately. I want this system to be retroactive. It is pure insanity that I should have to take time away from my clients in order to run a lottery, in a feeble effort to keep pace with those that have a lottery.
I have an additional recommendation.
Lotteries should be regulated, as well. The guidelines for lotteries should not be vague, but very clear. Those that gain reputation through lotteries should somehow prove that they actually awarded a winner. SR is about delivering products and services. Lotteries, if allowed to exist at all, should be verified as giving every participant a fair shake.
-
Yes, we welcome the tweak and please back-date it.
Also, a buyer history of some sort, someone suggested a purchase total for return/regular buyers - this would be helpful as we would like to reward our returning/regular buyers after several purchases - we don't keep any records outside of Silk Road, it would be helpful to have some type of record on SR.
;) ABD
Yes! There needs to be feedback for buyers. The buyer's stats history is very beneficial, and a written statement would add to it.
-
I am a vendor and I was inspired by all these "lotteries" to offer one for my products.
I agree that there should be a better method to weight the reputation of the seller.
My proposal is to mix meta-moderation with a behavioral-based ratings, along with a redemption.
How would that work? Well, basically it is taking normal human relationships as a model and build around that.
Also it would be interesting to weight depending on the risk and cost that the seller is taking.
Someone offering online "digital goods" the risk and cost is close to zero, therefore his sales should be taken with a grain of salt.
Lets say that the trust is increased by +0.001
Now someone offering drugs, has huge costs and risks involved in the transaction. If such transaction is completed satisfactorily, it should be weighted with a higher rating in the level of trust. +1
If this someone is offering from abroad, and it works, it should be rated with higher trust. +2
If costs and risks are very high, and yet he is consistently performing without hiccups, that should also be rewarded with higher trust. (ie. total number of transactions the previous month/numbers of bad ratings the previous month-5 = Rating Bonus for the month)
Note the -5, which would start penalizing anyone who fails more than 20% of their total transactions.
This in turn would incentivize sellers to perform better, pushing towards excellence.
About the redemption system: well I guess that not everyone can start with the right foot right away, especially if there are not used to the new technologies and need some learning curve. But everyone who acts in good faith should show efforts to change their performance and challenge themselves to improve. Such signs should be awarded.
The redemption system would reward the trends of the sellers.
If the positive rating trend is positive, it is rated with an extra + modifier.
If the trend is irregular, it will punish it -1.
If the trend is negative, user gets suspended.
Ratings that are older than 6 months should be deleted and not taken into consideration for the current status of his level of trust.
Well, my two cents.
-Peach
-
Thanks for doing this, Silk
-
I support the changes. A few other things that I think should be implemented: (most have been mentioned already by other members)
1. Buyer ratings/feedback
2. Out of stock listings being viewable
3. Product quality ratings (separate from vendor rating)
4. Domestic only filter
-
I fully support this! I'm sure some more tweaking/fine tuning will be necessary along the way, but this is an excellent entry point.
For my two cents, and this is really just my very own personal opinion, as a buyer, for all I care, digital goods could as well be rated at 0. I mean seriously, what's out there that isn't on some bittorrent tracker or file locker for everyone to grab who knows how? Does anyone even buy "Norton Ghost 15 with key" on here?
If it doesn't involve physical shipping I'd prolly weigh it extremely low. So from my perspective, before I'd move to weighing the amount/worth of a transaction, I'd likely start with creating a weighing matrix for individual categories, as in, sowwy, your emailed porn ebook can't weigh even half as much as a packed gram of Pablo's finest that needs to be carefully prepared for shipping, required tedious work to not leave traces, and leaves two parties wondering if SWAT will show up for a certain amount of days.
But that's really just my 2 cents. I presume sellers of software, porn site access and ebooks will start really hating me just about rite now :)
No offense bruthas, <3 ya all, it's just so much more tedious and risky to ship out some tangible illicit goods as opposed to emailing a DL link via TORmail.
-
That's alot of positive responses! Also, lots of great additional suggestions. We could do alot to improve the feedback system, but for now it looks like this small change has lots of support, so we'll go ahead with it. Thanks everyone for your feedback, and I apologize in advance for everyone who is negatively affected by this change.
-
I am in 100% full agreement with Dread Pirate Roberts method of putting a "weight" on each feedback and buyer's stats system
-
I've been amazed by all of the products and services that have found their way to our marketplace. All kinds of products I've never heard of, and even non-physical goods have found their way here. The feedback system was designed with product shipment and receipt in mind (full explanation: http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/wiki/index.php/Feedback_Score). However, innovative buyers and sellers have found ways to gain what appears to be unwarranted advantages within the current system. For example, buyers are loading up on low cost digital goods to boost their buyer stats. One clever seller has been selling low cost lottery tickets to win product samples drawing in hundreds of transactions in a fraction of the time that it takes most sellers, leading others to do the same to keep up. When the system is compelling vendors to compete in strange ways like this, it is probably time to take a second look at it. I don't want the market to turn into a bunch of lottery listings. It's a cool idea for here and there, but seller's shouldn't have to do it to keep up.
I think I have devised a way to adjust the feedback and ranking system to be more representative of the vendor's experience and the scale of their operation while still giving high volume, low cost seller's their due. However, instead of just making the changes unilaterally, I want to open up discussion and get everyone's input, especially the vendors who's rank will decrease as a result (low cost item vendors and bitcoin exchangers).
The component of the feedback system that I want to change is the price weight (how much a rating counts toward a vendors feedback score and rank based on the price of the item). As seen in the wiki link above, the weight can be found by the following formula: 0.2*log(0.02*(price)+1)+1. This puts free and low cost items, such as listings for bitcoin exchanges, many digital goods, and lottery tickets, at a weight of 1. The weight then rises as the price rises, reaching a 50% increase at around $500. In my opinion, this is much too small an increase. Completing a $500 transaction, most likely requiring shipment of a physical good or some professional service, should carry much more weight than a simple digital lottery ticket, or downloadable e-book. My proposal is to put the weight of free items at zero, and increase the weight much more rapidly, up to 0.25 at around $10, 0.5 at around $25, 1 at $90, 1.5 at $280, 2 at $750, and so on. A visual representation can be seen here: http://www.onlinefunctiongrapher.com/?f=0.5*log(0.07*(x)%2B1)|0.2*log(0.02*(x)%2B1)%2B1&xMin=-40.642404416353166&xMax=593.9416316216038&yMin=-0.15783383043417978&yMax=2.098768235888415. The green line is the current way and the purple line is the proposed new way.
So, for example, all else equal, a rating from a $90 transaction will count for twice as much toward a vendor's feedback score and rank compared to a $25 purchase. and 4 times as much as a $10 purchase. The net effect of this change is to put more emphasis on the total dollar volume a vendor does, and less on the quantity of transactions performed. To think of it another way, at one extreme, only quantity would matter and all transactions would be rated equally, whether for a lottery ticket on a gram of weed, or 3 kilos of fine Colombian flake. At the other extreme, there would be a linear relationship between price and weight, where a $100 item would count 100 times more than a $1 item. I think the change I am proposing is fair and will lead to more rational competition amongst the vendors, but as I said before I would like to hear from you all first. Let's try to keep discussion about tweaking the numbers to a minimum and focus more on the overall effect we want to produce in the market.
clarification: this change would reduce the rank of low cost item vendors, but not affect feedback scores very much. Cases where it would affect feedback scores is if a vendor sells both low and high cost goods and has very different ratings from the two categories. For example, if a vendor sells some low cost ebooks and also high quality ecstasy, and has terrible reviews from their ecstasy deals but great reviews from their ebook sales, this vendor can expect their rating to drop as the bad reviews are weighted more and their good reviews rated less.
Myself and others have been screaming this at SR for months now. Finally you've decided to take action.
-
I just wanted to thank DPR for having this discussion in this fashion on the forums. I think this really is a big step in the right direction and something that had concerned me specifically about how some previous changes have happened on the site.
This aside, I think that there can be a balance as I think that vendors that come up with new or otherwise unique ways to market their goods should be rewarded for this work. This may seem like an annoyance to vendors who deal in large $ value items but low volume as opposed to digital goods, or a lottery but that shouldn't negate the vendor who does a larger volume in smaller value goods's feedback or otherwise make it less valuable. I think ultimately there just needs to be a way to identify what %'s of the sales are higher dollar items, perhaps an average percentage of price of sale so would be buyers can identify what the majority of business the vendor is doing.
-
Myself and others have been screaming this at SR for months now. Finally you've decided to take action.
but you only joined 14 days ago? really 126 posts 8)
Whats next a lottery??
Dont mind me...havent had my caffeine hit for the day
-
DPR, we need to talk. Like I said I support these new measures as a physical deliver deserves more credit than an
electronic delivery, but I don't think the solution is to make e deliveries completely worthless. My top seller is my casino ebook, which isn't some torrent I picked up but a piece that I researched and wrote myself, and you've made it completely worthless. My rating has went from a 99 to a 79 from the review changes alone. Is that sensible? Well here's every negative review I've been given.
1) Beat the Online Casinos (FREE! See details) ******* 1 of 5 Never get gun (Malicious review to make it look like a firearm got caught. Buyer hasn't responded)
2) vustom listing for *** ****** 1 of 5 never arrived (legit, I gave him a 100% discount, which deserves a 1 I suppose)
3) Beat the Online Casinos [FREE FEB 4th-5th!] ****** Never got product [was supposed to be pm'd], just pm'd me an ad for himself (I don't know what the hell he's
talking about but I sent him another download link)
4) http://silkroadvb5piz3r.onion/index.php/silkroad/item/#### #### 4 of 5 Product did not come through, 75% refund offered. (legit)
5) PHX-800 Taser (6.8 million volts) #### 1 of 5 never recieved taser. Poor communication. (Buyer never tried to contact me but still legit)
6) How to beat the online casinos at their own game **** 3 of 5 not bad (same guy who ordered taser, he gives a positive review but leaves a 3)
7) How to beat the online casinos at their own game #### 4 of 5 (didn't even leave a review to say why he left a 4)
8) How to beat the online casinos at their own game #### 3 of 5 Good. Thanks (again leaves positive review and then leaves a 3)
9) http://silkroadvb5piz3r.onion/index.php/silkroad/item/### ### 2 of 5 Package caught in customs, 50% refund. (legit)
So 4 legit negative reviews out of 9. I pmed support about the malicious review and was told to contact the buyer (who hasn't responded). And the other e reviews don't make sense either. That's fine if they didn't like the book, but does it deserve a low review? If a buyer orders a gram of bud and finds out he doesn't like doing marijuana, does the seller deserve a low rating?
Please correct me if any of these rules are in place, but the order's weight is determined by it's difficulty in shipping, correct? If that's the case, then international shipments need more weight, and weapons need more weight. Also electronic items that were made by the seller or are not readily available need more weight (if somebody sells an ebook that's not theirs and then sells one they wrote, should both sales be judged the same?), but not more weight than a physical shipment of course.
I've sold risky items completely through escrow and always offered big refunds. I've done my time and I'm not perfect so I don't deserve a perfect rating, but I don't believe I deserve such a low rating that it makes me look like an incompetent jackass.
-
1. why can't anyone tell the item being "sold" by the category its listed in -a 100mg of 2C-E versus a lottery ticket or service?!
2. how about items =< $10 EXCLUDING real drugs/substances ?! :( >:(
why not keep feedback rating for samples or initial small item orders...?! -as its also legitimate effort on the part of the vendor to generate more legit business.....
otherwise its a good idea to relate real sale quantity to feedback.
Thanks for improving SR.
;)
-
I have seen a lot of discussion about the scamming with the digital goods and such, and think this sounds like a great change to make.
Thanks!
-
talked to dpr he said bring it up here anyways my idea is to create a catagory based feedback system so that a vendor gets rated in the catagory they list there items in in addition to the the weighted average so
people who do small sale transactions such as dg or pushing dime bags and such don't get raped by this new proposed feedback system sucks i went form #2 on SR up to 260 somthing me thinks
kick in the dick if you ask me
-
I still think digital sales should be considered nothing close to the same as illicits in the mail. The amount of work that goes into correspondence, packaging, product investment, etc. is light years ahead of emailing a download link. I would be happy enough if a digital sale got 1/10 of a rank weight compared to a $20.00 sale, but you can't pretend they are anything remotely the same.
Anarcho47
-
anarcho are you fucking kidding me ! lol man i run both I do illict goods and I do DG both under different names
yeah i bet most people didn't know that and i will tell you this !
prior to the warbot shipping my items DG is a FULL fucking time job ..
sure maybe not like paper or ivory and some of the real top side vendors packing goods and such
but you have no idea how much work is involved in finding material dealing with STUPID people who can't even figure out how to download from a link then complain and leave bad feedback over a .1 btc item let me tell you this i have done over 2200 sales if i had to guess i reply to about 80 - 100 messages a day about this or that or another and then i have to make sure that everything is so fucking perfect because if it isn't then i get bad feedback over a fucking .1 btc item .. people are ignorant
i do illicit items to .. the only difference is printing shipping labels and packing and dropping off in the mail in the morning your actual time on SR is much less and you get WAY more btc for your time ..
-
That, and I have to invest tens of thousands of cash dollars into my product, which is not instantly replicable at no cost.
-
Completely agree with you anarcho.
I'm very glad that this has happened.
-
we all have invested money and we have all lost money myself included look at my post a few before this that might be beneficial
-
Even tho my ranking has gone from 50 to 78, I still support these changes!
-
Hi Silk Road,
We fully support the changes you suggest!
There are a few more issues with the feedback system though.
A.
We suggest that changes to feedback should not be allowed.
B.
No feedback for early finalization. (How can you give feedback before the deal is concluded?)
C.
When a dispute is settled in the resolution center the result should be reported.
Something like this:
A refund of 25% was offered and accepted.
or
The Silk Road mediator decided to give the buyer a 50% refund.
That's our two cents on the matter...
OrganicBuds
-
anarcho are you fucking kidding me ! lol man i run both I do illict goods and I do DG both under different names
yeah i bet most people didn't know that and i will tell you this !
prior to the warbot shipping my items DG is a FULL fucking time job ..
sure maybe not like paper or ivory and some of the real top side vendors packing goods and such
but you have no idea how much work is involved in finding material dealing with STUPID people who can't even figure out how to download from a link then complain and leave bad feedback over a .1 btc item let me tell you this i have done over 2200 sales if i had to guess i reply to about 80 - 100 messages a day about this or that or another and then i have to make sure that everything is so fucking perfect because if it isn't then i get bad feedback over a fucking .1 btc item .. people are ignorant
i do illicit items to .. the only difference is printing shipping labels and packing and dropping off in the mail in the morning your actual time on SR is much less and you get WAY more btc for your time ..
Are you fucking kidding me?
The risk vs reward is extremely skewed with selling REAL ILLEGAL products compared to digital products.
This feedback change NEEDED to happen.. I even dropped ranking but I don't give a fuck because I have respect for the REAL dealers on here.
Matrix 8)
-
Thank you for addressing this DPR. You've got my vote.
-
I think, as often is the case, that a solution is often found between two opposite poles. Warweed and Anarcho, who are both legit vendors here (and this whole effort is about trying to stop scammer vendors and buyers, right?), are both right and I think a category based ranking system neatly solves that problem. Why should a DG vendor be ranked the same as a cannabis vendor who deals with bulkier and more, shall we say, aromatic packaging? But for that matter why do vendors who ship sheets of acid, or non-smelling pills get included with the cannabis guys?
I agree that a category based system is better for comparing apples to apples than apples to oranges.
-
...they are completely different vending models....one may be semi-automated but requires technology and the other is labour intensive also requiring technology...
-
Why do you use log instead of exponential?
-
This is very very sad. I went from being rated #11 out of 330 sellers to dog shit.
I think that with all the new users coming onto SR every month, they are going to have a very hard time getting coin if the coin sellers all quit. I think that most of them are like me, they don't want to continue if they don't have visible feedback. Feedback that they EARNED just like any other vendor.
That is all I'm going to say, since I had nothing at all to say that is good. it's ALL BAD.
The end.
BTCpal
-
Not that I have any juice here but you bc people need to have a proper feedback system, too. Warweed started a separate thread about that. You should check it out.
-
Indeed i did I fully understand the need for this system and although i support the change i don't think it is fully good enough
i have addressed the issues and a proposed change here to make it more benificial to buyers and vendors alike
-
I went from 31 to 265 in my seller ranking :'(
-
I would like to know how many times a buyer can change feedback.
I have had a buyer change 5 times in 4 days.
This has to be addressed as he has told me if i give a full refund he ill change it once again to a 5/5 but yet he refuses to do a dispute.
How can he hold me to ransom when he clearly has mental problems ??? You cannot do disputes after finalization. . I trusted you before testing. You chose to play me as a scammer and now turn me into a "psycho".
Fred....I have done nothing but work ny ass off seeking and deleting my posts which bear your name or reference to you. Just ignoring something is not " putting something behind you." Other people are involved. You have decided to do whatever you plan to do business wise for all other customers...but selectively leave me out.
regards/
Fred
-
Well done, good stuff.
-
I think you should change it. My seller rep was demolished in one feral sweep by "mop" in a bulk order. This sucks!
-
Not that anyone's reading any of these posts, but I think rating % should be weighted higher. That is, the multiplier should not just be the scalar product of rating and price weighting; the rating should be squared, or cubed (or even higher), so that 100 -> 1.00, 99 -> .97, .95 -> .85, 90 -> .73, etc.
I have 100% 5 out of 5 ratings from 130 purchases; my seller ranking should be better than 131.
-
@Tryptamine - it depends on how old the feedback is. More recent feedback also has a higher weight, as each month goes by feedback weight drops off from previous transactions (why you feedback % can get back to 100 even if you have some 4/5 or 1/5's back there). The most recent transactions are the highest weighted and have the largest effect on your feedback % and rank.
Anarcho47
-
Wait, did I hear something about disregarding ratings for items under $10?
I really don't want to have to raise my prices (namely of my single dose vials) to over $10 just because of all of this... I do the same amount of work for an order of 1 vial as an order for 20 vials. Its all packaged the same, and takes basically the same amount of time. Why should I lose my ratings for orders of 1 vial?
Also, is shipping included in total price? What about commission? I'm right on the line as some of my vials are $7.5-$8, so saying all items under $10 don't count will be utter shit for me :/
-
Wait, did I hear something about disregarding ratings for items under $10?
I really don't want to have to raise my prices (namely of my single dose vials) to over $10 just because of all of this... I do the same amount of work for an order of 1 vial as an order for 20 vials. Its all packaged the same, and takes basically the same amount of time. Why should I lose my ratings for orders of 1 vial?
Also, is shipping included in total price? What about commission? I'm right on the line as some of my vials are $7.5-$8, so saying all items under $10 don't count will be utter shit for me :/
there is no cut off at $10. You don't have to worry about this at all.
-
Wait, did I hear something about disregarding ratings for items under $10?
I really don't want to have to raise my prices (namely of my single dose vials) to over $10 just because of all of this... I do the same amount of work for an order of 1 vial as an order for 20 vials. Its all packaged the same, and takes basically the same amount of time. Why should I lose my ratings for orders of 1 vial?
Also, is shipping included in total price? What about commission? I'm right on the line as some of my vials are $7.5-$8, so saying all items under $10 don't count will be utter shit for me :/
there is no cut off at $10. You don't have to worry about this at all.
Great, thank you.
-
It's a good idea to make Sr fair for people with physical products.
But I see in cheap e-products a bigger problem with SCAMMERS.
You buy some eBooks and than you have relay good stats(15/0 for 10$) for some dollars and than you can buy
every expensive product.
The most seller will refund such people!
I think it would be better if seller see how much dollars buyer invested, to see how we can trust!
-
you can already see total BTC spent on a buyer's account - if a buyer purchases something from you and you click on their stats it comes up with a breakdown including how much they spent in total.
-
you can already see total BTC spent on a buyer's account - if a buyer purchases something from you and you click on their stats it comes up with a breakdown including how much they spent in total.
I´m an idiot...
Thx bro i never click on it and I´m wonder why no one thought on it!!
-
you can already see total BTC spent on a buyer's account - if a buyer purchases something from you and you click on their stats it comes up with a breakdown including how much they spent in total.
Yes, the 'overall' total is displayed... this info doesn't constitute a helpful account from a vendors perspective.(well not ours particularly.)
In order for us to offer a 'reward' to our returning customers, we need a way to know if said customer has purchased several times (and Not 7 purchases in total from 3 different vendors) We need a customer purchase history relating to our transactions only.
BTW, If you (DPR) have instituted the new system, thanks! we moved from 34th to 26th... A small improvement but it still doesn't stop young fools, vindictive vendors and the dishonest buyers from leaving unhelpful, poor ratings.
-
I haven't read all the way through the thread yet, but I think this is bang on.
If a seller is successful at selling larger orders of illegal items, their quality shipping and compared risk factor should count towards something.
Sellers who deal only in Digital goods and legal goods are not taking any risk, really, so their products will always arrive... whereas if someone is selling H, has a 100 rating and they regularly ship to places like Australia, they should get a higher rating. I know this isn't exactly what DPR is doing, but digital goods and services, and legal items also tend to be less expensive than ounces of blow or H... so this will work!
Thanks DPR for being on the ball!
-
- there's more risk in selling drugs but still requires technical skill and know how to sell eBooks or services -they are just very different models; can you measure how
much effort has gone into formulating an electronic or computer service? -yes on the surface its being sold for a fraction of the selling price of some drugs but all the preparation has gone on behind the scenes.
- furthermore its an investment in ideas and trust associated with that service -not much is being asked to benefit from someone else's
experience, don't forget how it needs to be rated..
-
I also have not read through all of this, but I think it's a start...
However it is extremely unfavorable for someone like myself. I make a lot of smaller pruchases for little money (like 5 hits of acid) so my stats look like shit even though I'm nothing but legit...If I bought all my herb on here, my stats would be through the roof! I'd be spending $100's/week! Yet, in my mind 5 hits of acid is a "bigger" transaction than say 1/4oz of herb
So basically if you're like me and still source shit on streets and only come here for the rare goodies then this sucks :P
-
I think that current feedback system is unjust.
One 4/5 rating from buyer with only 1 purchase and item cost $80 carry 0.7% in negative (from 100.0 to 99.3%) Imagine how much more would rate dropped for 3/5 or 2/5 or 1/5 or from buyer with higher purchase stats in same case?
Let me ask you how much 5/5 would need to get back to 100.0% ?
Too much. Why positive rate does not carry same impact on rating as negative? Its unjust.
-
...the ratings are supposed to reflect level of service and quality of product and less of the quest being No1aka 100% -this just brushes the REAL
problems under the carpet, a seller should concentrate on being consistent and if isn't prepared to improve on what the criticisms then the
rating should reflect that; scammers are also putting a spanner in the works yes we don't deny this.
i do see your point about the weighting, i don't have any better mathematical formulas to make if fairer than what DPR has already suggested.
- problem is differentiating between an outright scammer "feedback" versus valid "poor packaging" type feedback (= which reflects on rating)
-
I think that current feedback system is unjust.
One 4/5 rating from buyer with only 1 purchase and item cost $80 carry 0.7% in negative (from 100.0 to 99.3%) Imagine how much more would rate dropped for 3/5 or 2/5 or 1/5 or from buyer with higher purchase stats in same case?
Let me ask you how much 5/5 would need to get back to 100.0% ?
Too much. Why positive rate does not carry same impact on rating as negative? Its unjust.
I was just going to say something about this! One asshole just left a 1/5 on a $30 item brought my rating down .6% and I have over 500 purchases! How the fuck does that make sense? Dude even stated he won't work with me to make thing better.
-
I think that current feedback system is unjust.
One 4/5 rating from buyer with only 1 purchase and item cost $80 carry 0.7% in negative (from 100.0 to 99.3%) Imagine how much more would rate dropped for 3/5 or 2/5 or 1/5 or from buyer with higher purchase stats in same case?
Let me ask you how much 5/5 would need to get back to 100.0% ?
Too much. Why positive rate does not carry same impact on rating as negative? Its unjust.
I was just going to say something about this! One asshole just left a 1/5 on a $30 item brought my rating down .6% and I have over 500 purchases! How the fuck does that make sense? Dude even stated he won't work with me to make thing better.
Do you know that if that buyer had high purchase stats (around 1000$ total spend) you rating would go by 5% or even more - over 30$ item.
I had a case what got sorted same like that, buyer with 1month old account and around 1k spend in total gave me 1/5 and I have dropped from 100% to 91% ????
-
I think that current feedback system is unjust.
One 4/5 rating from buyer with only 1 purchase and item cost $80 carry 0.7% in negative (from 100.0 to 99.3%) Imagine how much more would rate dropped for 3/5 or 2/5 or 1/5 or from buyer with higher purchase stats in same case?
Let me ask you how much 5/5 would need to get back to 100.0% ?
Too much. Why positive rate does not carry same impact on rating as negative? Its unjust.
I was just going to say something about this! One asshole just left a 1/5 on a $30 item brought my rating down .6% and I have over 500 purchases! How the fuck does that make sense? Dude even stated he won't work with me to make thing better.
Do you know that if that buyer had high purchase stats (around 1000$ total spend) you rating would go by 5% or even more - over 30$ item.
I had a case what got sorted same like that, buyer with 1month old account and around 1k spend in total gave me 1/5 and I have dropped from 100% to 91% ????
Wow.... Somethings sound good on paper, but in practice are- well, shit.
I am just always troubled by people who leave me a 1/5 and do not even contact me about a reship. Its extremely weird. Makes me think it is some of my competition trying to bomb my rating.
I'm also tried of buyers trying to extort me with their ratings... why is there no way to protect vendors from these things?
-
I think vendors put WAY too much emphasis on their seller rating. From a customers perspective I can tell you, as long it's above 90%, you're good, and even then you're not out. Even from my first transaction, I remember thinking "what is going to stop this seller from making a buyer acct and spending his own money on his own product just to leave feedback? - SR fees that add up to like one dollar, please!", or "what's going to some OTHER vendor from making an account spending a few bucks and trashing this persons feedback?" It dosen't take a genius to realize it's a flawed system. I think Traveling nailed it, we need to differenciate between trolls and customers. I don't even bother with seller's 'scores' anymore, I first look at their feedback briefly then move right on to the forums; I'll read a few pages about the guy and then make my decision.
mseller, I dont' mean to be a dick but it's pretty simple mathematics there's limits to your score, if you lose ANY points, the best you could get then is like a 99.999999%. Granted, these are logarithmic functions prbably designed to get you back to square EVENTUALLY, I'm just saying...
-
...and to dig up an old point / suggestions made by everyone regards 'Yubikey' , this is obviously one of the components that should end up with
the final 'solution' -it might not be 'Yubikey' could be the next best or better device ?! -but being able to "prove" the anonymous ID of the user / buyer / vendor, its a start to getting to build up a list of serious participants, who are here to provide an decent service and which we should be paying whats due.
{thks ShieLdz}
-
All buyers should have the public keys of the vendors they like to deal with saved in a text file on an ecrypted flash drive or partition, or at least on an email account on a .onion email. These can be used to verify vendor identity in the event of any site shutdown or a vendor popping up somewhere else, like BMR or OVDB (when it existed).
-
I think vendors put WAY too much emphasis on their seller rating. From a customers perspective I can tell you, as long it's above 90%, you're good, and even then you're not out. Even from my first transaction, I remember thinking "what is going to stop this seller from making a buyer acct and spending his own money on his own product just to leave feedback? - SR fees that add up to like one dollar, please!", or "what's going to some OTHER vendor from making an account spending a few bucks and trashing this persons feedback?" It dosen't take a genius to realize it's a flawed system. I think Traveling nailed it, we need to differenciate between trolls and customers. I don't even bother with seller's 'scores' anymore, I first look at their feedback briefly then move right on to the forums; I'll read a few pages about the guy and then make my decision.
mseller, I dont' mean to be a dick but it's pretty simple mathematics there's limits to your score, if you lose ANY points, the best you could get then is like a 99.999999%. Granted, these are logarithmic functions prbably designed to get you back to square EVENTUALLY, I'm just saying...
I agree with you. Its usual to think that 5/5 is "normal" and if you get 4/5 which is still good rating then you go down, but by 0,7% is to much drop.
I had on start one negative feedback and I got back to my full 100% , (not 99,99% its full 100,0%) and to acomplish that I needed 120+ 5/5 feedback what I did.
So you can go back to full 100% if you get any lower rate then 5/5.
But why 4/5 carry so much weight? It does not have any sense to me, like vendor is punished or something.
Overall, anything then 5/5, even 4/5 what is still good rate, you drop your ratings significatntly.
I think that is trend from the start with 5/5 and now its a standard and any other rate vendor go down a lot with the rating, when in reality standard should be 4/5.
There is to much 5/5 from begining and any other rate now diviate from overall score and because of that for only one 4/5 vendor goes down by 0,7% what is unfair.
I mean, if buyers get a goods now is a standard to give a 5/5, if you are legit; 5/5 esp when SR started.
There should be good, best and bad rates and something in between. Be legit does not carry automaticly 5/5 anymore,lol
If in one classroom you have all A rates student, any other rate then A will draw down total score and that particular student will differ from others.
-
'Yubikey'- HA! Laughable!
I was behind the idea 6 months ago. But after the PIN implementation/fiasco, I believe a 'Yubikey' style login is a good idea. But NOT practical. I know I "put away" my 'Yubikey' a long time ago. Where is another question? :D
Now you have to wait 14-21 days for your new 'Yubikey' after you lose it. ;D LMAO!!
-
@mseller
I couldn't agree more. We have created an atmosphere where people think shipping 0.15g short 3 weeks after the order was placed should still be a 5/5. The way it is rite now, people are like "as long as SOMETHING arrives in the mail SOMEWHEN.......give it a 5/5.
Which is kinda stupid. 3 in the center two left and right just offers itself so much. 3 is standard. You do something extra or are extra fast on the shipping, get a bit above, you are slower than usual or the weight is off, get a 2. With 1 being reserved for not getting your shit at all or getting bunk.
Ionno whats up with this 5/5 obsession and the feeling of being entitled to a 5/5 even if the handling was less than mediocre...
-
I could really see this idea working really well for both sides but then again i could also see the opposite. SR is always in a constant expansion and experimentation is always needed with the site as this has all been an experiment to us so therefore speaking i think it isn't half bad as DeadPirateRoberts can always make the modifications needed accordingly to the community of the road
-
I posted a suggestion on tweaking the rating system last night before having seen this thread. My suggestion involved breaking down the rating system into multiple categories.
Here's the link to my post: http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=13348.0
And here's the post:
Hey, I think it would be helpful and reassuring to SR buyers if the rating system was broken down into categories. Buyers would have the ability to rate sellers on specifics using a scale of 1-5. These ratings could be averaged separately by category as well as combined for a total average. Buyers would have access to categorical and combined averages, as well as access to non-averaged individual categorical ratings given by each individual buyer after completing a transaction.
Rating topics could include:
Quality of product
Shipping speed
Shipping stealth
Communication
Overall rating
With this method, users will have access to more in depth statistics in order to evaluate sellers. Additionally, sellers will have greater incentive to step up there game and climb the ratings. I'm not dissing SR sellers, but better service and quality is never a bad thing.
Just my two cents. Id love to hear yours :)
-
I posted a suggestion on tweaking the rating system last night before having seen this thread. My suggestion involved breaking down the rating system into multiple categories.
Here's the link to my post: http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=13348.0
And here's the post:
Hey, I think it would be helpful and reassuring to SR buyers if the rating system was broken down into categories. Buyers would have the ability to rate sellers on specifics using a scale of 1-5. These ratings could be averaged separately by category as well as combined for a total average. Buyers would have access to categorical and combined averages, as well as access to non-averaged individual categorical ratings given by each individual buyer after completing a transaction.
Rating topics could include:
Quality of product
Shipping speed
Shipping stealth
Communication
Overall rating
With this method, users will have access to more in depth statistics in order to evaluate sellers. Additionally, sellers will have greater incentive to step up there game and climb the ratings. I'm not dissing SR sellers, but better service and quality is never a bad thing.
Just my two cents. Id love to hear yours :)
this
also it should be a bit more anonymous too...that way nobody feels pressureed into leaving good feedback; like maybe everynight at midnight everyone page updates with all their feedback from the previous day, idkk though
OR YOU KNOW WHAT HOWSABOUT SR IS PRETTY DAMN GOOD I FOR ONE AM HAPPY THE WAY IT IS...not the rating just sr in general, i know that's a little off topic