| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
To erusbandi's response, which I take is a kind of keyboarded chortle, I add: "Absolutely YES." Some newbies have been shillbies and some have been the real deal -- and some of those have in little time become very active, making some great contributions.
What would be the point of delaying the trust ratings for either? I can't think of any compelling reason.
|
09-22-07 04:01am
Reply To Message
|
2
|
jd1961 (0)
|
Yes, but giving a reason for a "no" rating should be mandatory in order to help the honest reviewers.
|
09-22-07 02:08pm
Reply To Message
|
3
|
Denner (0)
|
Second jd1961..... and I think "no" in trust rating a reason should be mandatory for all users.
|
09-22-07 02:17pm
Reply To Message
|
4
|
Rick (Suspended)
|
REPLY TO #2 - jd1961 :
Sorry for the delay on this. Required reasons for "no" trust will definitely be implemented based on user feedback. This and a few other tweaks/upgrades will be completed in about 3 weeks. :)
|
09-22-07 02:33pm
Reply To Message
|
5
|
apoctom (0)
|
I particularly agree with Drooler. There are some good newbies along with the bad, so we should be able to recognize both groups.
|
09-22-07 04:42pm
Reply To Message
|
6
|
cblodg (0)
|
Of course Newbies should be subject to Trust Ratings.
However, I also feel that people should sign their SN to their ratings. Those who do not have the courage of their convictions should not have a right to rate anyone.
|
09-22-07 05:37pm
Reply To Message
|
7
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #4 - Rick :
If there are changes in the requirements for "no" trust ratings, what of the existing "no" ratings that right now don't have reasons? Will they be erased? Will the "no" sayers be given a deadline for putting in reasons?
Just trying to think this one through, considering all of the reviewers and some of the "newbies" I've seen who got several "no" ratings.
|
09-22-07 06:30pm
Reply To Message
|
8
|
Rick (Suspended)
|
REPLY TO #7 - Drooler :
Once implemented, the rule will start that day. So all previous "no" ratings won't require reasons and will stay as is unless the user ammends it. That was the only way we could justify adding this rule.
|
09-23-07 07:53am
Reply To Message
|
9
|
jd1961 (0)
|
REPLY TO #7 - Drooler :
You should be happy with your 1 "no" rating Drooler...it's the exception that proves the rule!
|
09-23-07 03:54pm
Reply To Message
|
10
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #9 - jd1961 :
Thanks for the support. PU is growing community. Can't expect things to work out with everyone.
|
09-23-07 04:20pm
Reply To Message
|
11
|
pat362 (0)
|
I'm in agreement with pretty much everyone. Newbies should be subject to trust rating, and I'll second "cblodq" in saying that a rating should never be annonymous. If you don't agree with someone's review then put your name to it, and say why. I'll be honest and say that I got a couple of negative ratings but all where from annonymous.
|
09-23-07 07:15pm
Reply To Message
|
12
|
kkman112 (0)
|
REPLY TO #4 - Rick :
Rick, I told you when you implemented new rules early on that there should be required reasons for voting someone "no" on trust ratings and you gave me a list of reasons why it should not be implemented... naughty Rick... :)
Glad it will be though!
|
09-23-07 08:36pm
Reply To Message
|
13
|
Pinche Kankun (Disabled)
|
Yes because in my opinion, Nobody in PornUsers trust me!! So everyone should get their fair share.
Without trust, the world... well... you know the rest!!! HA HA HA :)
|
10-10-07 09:21am
Reply To Message
|
