About the Trader's Ratings

[Utta]

I still think moderator votes should count x5 in things like this...which would make the count 7 in favor of change, and 39 opposed.

I think we should change it to in favor of everyone being able to give feedback, and force Harald to babysit every single person across the whole site

 

[hhmoore]

I'd just disable the positive option...people would end up entering negative feedback, just to see if it worked. My mailbox would be full, so it wouldn't matter to me.

 

[hhmoore]

If I thought that this change would affect your workload, I would have put this poll to you all first, and you would have all had to be unanimously for it.

Understood.
But, I think that most members don't venture outside of the classifieds these days... I wonder how many of the ones that have registered in the past year even know this forum is here? If that crowd finds out about this poll, and manages to get here, I'd expect the numbers swing hard.

 

[WebSlave]

Understood.
But, I think that most members don't venture outside of the classifieds these days... I wonder how many of the ones that have registered in the past year even know this forum is here? If that crowd finds out about this poll, and manages to get here, I'd expect the numbers swing hard.

I put an announcement in the classifieds sections to try to get more peoples' attention to this. Not to say that anyone there will actually READ it, though.

 

[Snake-Queen]

I put an announcement in the classifieds sections to try to get more peoples' attention to this. Not to say that anyone there will actually READ it, though.

 

[Cal State Reptiles]

Voted. Please do not change it.

 

[Snake-Queen]

Here is a point for keeping it the way it is ...

If you allow non-paying members the ability to leave feedback, that takes another perk away from the paying members. Commenting on ads was a perk, now it is not. What are you going to give away free next? The ability to leave negative Karma? I willingly donate/pay to have these perks, if I had more money I would donate/pay more, if I can come up with $25 a year to be able to leave trader ratings & negative Karma, I think everyone who wants to be able to do those things can donate/pay also.

My point is, it would be unfair to the ones who pay and have been paying to just give it away for free. If stingy broke members want to leave feedback, they can do so on the BOI.

 

[jcfourme]

I am in favor of keeping it the way it is in light of the possibility of abuse.

 

[Snake-Queen]

Another thought ... I think if more perks are taken away from the paying members, it would significantly decrease the amount of paying members. Why pay, when we can get all the perks for free? Unless, you are going to come up with new stuff we can get as a bonus for our membership fee.

There is always going to be the few who want something for nothing. The last time I checked, that is not how the world works. I work hard for what I have and I am willing to pay for things I want. I think it is unfair for the few to demand something be given to them.

The has to be an end to this gimme generation, you are not entitled to everything.

 

[WebSlave]

Another thought ... I think if more perks are taken away from the paying members, it would significantly decrease the amount of paying members. Why pay, when we can get all the perks for free? Unless, you are going to come up with new stuff we can get as a bonus for our membership fee.

There is always going to be the few who want something for nothing. The last time I checked, that is not how the world works. I work hard for what I have and I am willing to pay for things I want. I think it is unfair for the few to demand something be given to them.

The has to be an end to this gimme generation, you are not entitled to everything.

I understand the concern, but this is a multi-faceted issue. For instance it was brought up that only paying members had the perk of replying to classified ads up to the recent past. Well, when reviewing the results of implementing this classifieds ad restriction a few years back, it appeared to me that traffic was on a downward spiral and I thought possibly that restricting replies was at least a partial cause. Surprising as it may seem, not all of my ideas prove to be GOOD ideas... In a case like this, what would be more important of a consideration? (1) The overall health of the site by allowing DISCUSSIONS to take place on a DISCUSSION FORUM based site, or (2) retaining a relatively minor perk to try to entice members into becoming paying members? Would it make much sense to prioritize (2) over (1) if the site might not be around much longer in order for such perks to matter?

Honestly, the way it worked out was that I pretty much gave all the perks here away for free before paid memberships ever existed. The paid memberships started out as being strictly contributions that members will willing to donate in order to help keep this site alive. Which is why the original membership (and ONLY membership level at the time) was called a "Contributor" level membership. Then as newer features were added in, some of the options were offered to paying members, and even some higher level parts of the new features offering higher benefit levels were offered to members willing to donate more in order to receive those additional perks.

Now this stuff with the Traders Ratings was a custom coded function that was put in by my programmer, and as best I can recall, I decided from the very beginning that it needed a safety valve to keep the ratings from being abused by malicious individuals. The only available option available to me, realistically, to try to accomplish that goal was to restrict the Traders Ratings to paying members only. It had nothing to do with a "perk" at all. It never was intended to be that way, but I guess some will obviously look on it in that light. It's sole purpose was to try to limit the number of bogus ratings that would likely result without that restriction in place. Otherwise, if there was no likelihood of that abuse taking place there, then everyone would have had the capability of leaving traders ratings for everyone from the very beginning. I only did it that way because I thought it was necessary. The "perk" aspect never entered my mind as a consideration.

So from my perspective, if it comes to pass that the voting shows that I should open up the Traders Ratings to all members, I am not looking at it as taking away a perk from paid memberships at all. It is merely the removal of a restriction that the majority of the people voting feel is unwarranted, unneeded, unwanted, and in the best interests of this site as a whole to have removed.

 

[Snake-Queen]

I understand what you are saying that it was never intended on being a perk. How about a benefit?

I think allowing everyone to use the trader rating is asking for trouble. There are many unscrupulous people that will abuse this feature & leaving no recourse for the honest people who are ethical.

The only fair way to activate it for everyone is to have a abuse reporting function & the moderators having to sift through it all. That is not fair to the mods.

If left to fend for ourselves, and that is not a fun prospect for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

Rich, now that the idea has been broached as a perceived benefit/perk (what have you) by paying members, do you consider it now despite not having it a point of consideration before? If you now consider it, are you counting it as valid concern by some of the membership or dismissing it as irrelevant (or less relevant)? I am trying to more thoroughly understand the perspectives involved, so I thank you for weighing in.

 

[WebSlave]

Rich, now that the idea has been broached as a perceived benefit/perk (what have you) by paying members, do you consider it now despite not having it a point of consideration before? If you now consider it, are you counting it as valid concern by some of the membership or dismissing it as irrelevant (or less relevant)? I am trying to more thoroughly understand the perspectives involved, so I thank you for weighing in.

Actually my thoughts on it are irrelevant at this point. I am just tired of hearing complaints about non paying members being unable to use the Traders Ratings, so I have now placed the decision in YOUR hands. I will accept it no matter which way the coin lands. I don't think I can be any fairer about it. After the voting ends (April 30th), any further complaints about it, either way will simply get the URL to this thread and the end of the discussion as far as I am concerned.

 

[Pasodama]

Preventing, or limiting, bogus trader ratings is the #1 reason why it should be left as is. With only paid members having the ability to give ratings (trader ratings).
In fact, the possibility of bogus trader ratings (if opened to all) is enough of a reason, alone (without other reasons needed), to leave it as is.

Non-paying members have the ability to use the BOI in order to leave a positive, or negative, posting re. a person/company.
Of course, a bogus thread can be started on the BOI. However, there is that added benefit in that there are too many intelligent individuals that can figure out whether, or not, it is bogus.

 

[Pasodama]

However, there is that added benefit in that there are too many intelligent individuals that can figure out whether, or not, it is bogus.

... With the ability to leave commentary, evidence, etc.

 

[Fangthane]

I have a feeling that it's going to end up being the FB crowd that's most interested in voting to open up Fauna's Trader Rating system to a free-for-all setup. Either way, I think that would be moving this site a step in FB's direction, which I can't personally put any kind of positive spin on. I think that the current setup allows for at least some semblance of credibility being inherently built-in to the system. There are already noteworthy instances of the rating system not telling the whole story, so everyone should still be checking the *real* BOI before any transaction. As long as that free option is on the table, there's no real reason to complain about not having free access to the rating system.

Considering how many people I've managed to rub the wrong way, I can't even begin to imagine how far into the negative my Trader Rating would be if each of them could have freely given me an undeserved negative rating on a whim. There have been some real psychos over the years. (0) is at least somewhat better than (-11). I might have actually had to be nice.

 

[Robert Walker]

Another thought ... I think if more perks are taken away from the paying members, it would significantly decrease the amount of paying members. Why pay, when we can get all the perks for free? Unless, you are going to come up with new stuff we can get as a bonus for our membership fee.

As some of you know, we are working on adding a "perk" exclusive to paid members. We are trying to randomly select and feature classified ads by paid membership on Fauna Facebook.
https://www.facebook.com/FaunaClassifieds

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

I appreciate that effort, Robert.

 

[WebSlave]

As some of you know, we are working on adding a "perk" exclusive to paid members. We are trying to randomly select and feature classified ads by paid membership on Fauna Facebook.
https://www.facebook.com/FaunaClassifieds

Just to set the record straight, there is no "we" at all about that project. Robert has taken that under his wing completely and is the sole motivating force behind that particular perk. I just think that credit should be given where credit is actually due.

Thanks for all of your help here, Robert.

 

[WebSlave]

For the record, the poll now stands at 16 for, and 37 against, opening up the Traders Ratings to all registered members.

If YOU don't vote, YOUR opinion on this doesn't matter.