TrustNet

Introduction

TrustNet is an alternative to the SL ratings system. Unlike the SL system, there are no global ratings in TrustNet. Instead, scores are calculated for people based on your ratings, and the ratings of the people you trust.

Everybody gets different scores for the same person, and in fact, it’s perfectly possible for two people to have completely different scores for the same person.

The system is much more accurate and resistant to attempts to disrupt it than the SL one, as you are the one who chooses whose opinion you want to trust. If you find their opinion is too unreliable you just have to remove their positive rating, and their opinion will stop counting for you.

How It Works

How TrustNet Works

Products

These are the products I offer that use the TrustNet system:
TrustNet Scanner

Coming Soon

TrustNet Security Orb

Where To Get It

You can get the scanner for free at:

  • SL Exchange
  • SL Boutique
  • In-world
  • From existing users: People who have a scanner already can give free copies to other people by clicking on a name in the avatar list, then clicking “Give copy”.

26 Responses to TrustNet

  1. Hey,

    Have you seen a similar system I did for skype? It is using a more formal trust metric that is similar to Page Rank, and can be used as a reputation based currency (whuffie).
    It is open source, more about it here http://yapsociety.com/YapRank?v=5ak or contact me on Skype – krotta.

    Joe

  2. Dale Glass says:

    I don’t use Skype, and my English pronunciation is too bad to be understood, but thanks, I will take a look at that 🙂

  3. Maklin Deckard says:

    Can we opt out of this system? As in be unrateable and not allowed to rate? I do not approve of or use 3rd party systems of this nature due to the high-schoolesque ‘cool people / not cool people’ phenomenom on SL.

  4. Cinthya says:

    This is crap Don’t trust trustnet don’t want it won’t use it don’t need it.

  5. Wihlem Neumann says:

    It doesn’t appear to work unless you get the scanner that goes with it. I agree though I’m not interested in cliques etc they turn into things that I hated when I was in grade school and had left behind. I just come to play make friends and have fun so any of these systems I dont want to be part of. This one does’nt work unless you get the little scanner thing and activate it though so its fine with me you can call each other names and point fingers just leave others out of it okay?

  6. Dale Glass says:

    You can be rated without having the scanner. The scanner is only needed to rate people, or to check other people’s ratings.

    On optout: Can’t be done in any way that’d be satisfying to the people who want it. I can give you “optout” allright, the problem is that this would mark you with an “I opted out” flag.

    However, this optout status would be visible to everybody using the system, whether I want it or not. People with the scanner would probably come to the conclusion that optout == I’m a griefer. And such a flag would be visible to everybody with a scanner or API access. So instead of having a score that might be good or bad in some area, you’d have a global bad one.

    Consider how optout could be done:
    1. Scanner shows “optout”.
    2. Server refuses rating with an error.
    3. Server swallows rating.

    In any of those cases, anybody who wants it, can find out whether you opted out. It’s either shown automatically, or they can try rating you and see if it works. The API allows doing this test automatically with no user involvement.

    So, again: Optout in any form would amount to placing a global black mark over yourself as soon as griefers start opting out, and people start making the “optout == griefer” connection.

    If despite this explanation anybody still wants it, I can easily implement it. But I don’t think you’ll be happy with the results.

  7. Maklin Deckard says:

    Yet another techie that creates an abuseable system, uncontrolled by SL and unaccountable to anyone….where reputations can be destroyed behind people’s backs and without them even knowing unless they get a scanner. Do you coders EVER think of the ramifications of your actions? Or do you just grab an idea and go ‘Its feasable, ok!” and do.

    The way your system should work is this. OPT-IN….ever heard of it? When someone goes to rate a player that hasn’t opted in, they get a message ‘X is has not opted-in’. That way there is NO ASSUMPTION of griefer status that you imply with an ‘X has opted out’ message.

    The problem you describe is due to your intrusive ‘everyone must participate rather than opt in’ design approach. Scrap and start over as an opt-in service is my advice.

    And if you refuse to do the right thing and go opt-in, I’ll take an opt-out. I’ve been in SL for two years, belong to several communities, as well as operate two small stores….I think I will take my changes with someone considering my opt-out as being a griefer.

  8. Kiwi Alfa says:

    Whoa, dude. What the heck?

    Yet another techie that creates an abuseable system, uncontrolled by SL and unaccountable to anyone….where reputations can be destroyed behind people’s backs and without them even knowing unless they get a scanner. Do you coders EVER think of the ramifications of your actions? Or do you just grab an idea and go ‘Its feasable, ok!” and do.

    Abuseable? Hardly. Even if there was a whole group dedicated to abusing this system, they’d have to do a LOT of work in order for it to show up as ‘very bad’ for most people. The whole point of TrustNet is that it’s defined by the friends you keep. It’s likely that you trust the friends you keep in SL, right? By that definition, what’s right/wrong for your friends is likely to have an influence on what’s right/wrong for you. If you don’t trust someone, then don’t mark them positive, and TrustNet won’t follow that link. That’s *all* you have to do. It doesn’t even use people’s friends lists.

    Makes sense?

  9. Maklin Deckard says:

    No, it does not Kiwi. He opted me INTO this without asking. I do not wish to take part in this, for good or ill. It should NEVER have been created if it was not opt-in. YOU may not like unaccountable, big-brotherish behavior by unprincipled techies, but I value my privacy and want NO PART of ths system, for good or ill.

    I merely wish to be left alone by these 3rd part data miners and their ‘gee whiz’ techie developments. Opt-in is the proper way to set up this sort of thing, then the players that want to play schoolyard kewlios with ratings can…those that don’t will be left unbothered and uninvolved in ingame popularity contests.

  10. Beatrix MacKay says:

    Woooooot !

    Exactly what we need to reduce lag. OMG – everyone running around scanning everyone all the time – nice goal. Lindens try to reduce lag, and you invent a system that uses permenent scanning (which in fact produces lag) and database requests on every scan to get avatar data – WOW – COOL IDEA !!! Imagine a crowded sim and all avatars run around with a active scanner – I NOT even want to IMAGINE it.
    I really suggest you call your system LAG-NET instead of TRUST-NET.

  11. Dale Glass says:

    Lag won’t be a problem for very long, I’m working on integrating it right into the viewer. No scripts will have to run on the sim, and no scanning is required either because the viewer already needs to know where everybody is anyway.

    The scanner was started before the source was opened, so that was the only option available to me at the time. But I will be releasing a client-side version as soon as I can.

  12. Maklin Deckard says:

    Do we get our horrible, evil, mark-you-as-a-griefer opt-out?

    And here is an idea to help mitigate that. Sure, your API can check after giving a rating to make sure it was taken….take it, apply it to the opt-ed out character, then auto-expire the rating within 2-12 hours.

    Only the most anally-retentive user would bother to keep a list and check it repeatedly. Most people are far too busy…they’ll make their blessing / take their shot and move on. Non-Stick ratings would be acceptable.

  13. Dale Glass says:

    Yet another techie that creates an abuseable system, uncontrolled by SL and unaccountable to anyone….where reputations can be destroyed behind people’s backs and without them even knowing unless they get a scanner.

    It’s not easily abusable as far as I can tell. If you can figure out a way of abusing it, then I’d really like to know about it.

    Also, getting a scanner won’t help. You don’t have a global score. Everybody with a scanner who meets you gets your score calculated for them, and two different people looking at you can see completely different results.

    The effects of people rating you are contained: You don’t have a grid-wide score. And the scanner is an advisory thing anyway.

    The way your system should work is this. OPT-IN….ever heard of it? When someone goes to rate a player that hasn’t opted in, they get a message ‘X is has not opted-in’. That way there is NO ASSUMPTION of griefer status that you imply with an ‘X has opted out’ message.

    Things don’t work this way, however. Hardware and software manufacturers don’t get to opt-in to being reviewed, and don’t get to opt-out either. People’s opinion about you exists independently of whether you like it or not. I simply provide a way of presenting it. A switch to opt-in won’t be happening.

    Do we get our horrible, evil, mark-you-as-a-griefer opt-out?

    Not yet. I could technically do it, but so far only you complain so much, so it’d amount to basically screwing you specifically over, and I’m not that evil. This would be a net loss for you. Right now you have a neutral rating as far as everybody is concerned. This would give you an universal negative one (something that doesn’t even exist in the system at the time). Then you’d come back to complain about that. I think I’ll wait with it.

    And here is an idea to help mitigate that. Sure, your API can check after giving a rating to make sure it was taken….take it, apply it to the opt-ed out character, then auto-expire the rating within 2-12 hours.

    Sure, and I could also shut the system down, but I’m not going to do that 😛

  14. Maklin Deckard says:

    “I simply provide a way of presenting it”

    Typical techie ‘I am not responsible for what I do’ cop-out.

    And as far as screwing me individually, do it.

    “If despite this explanation if anybody still wants it, I can easily implement it.”

    I want it, said so several times. Now you are going back on your earlier statement. You sir, are a liar, like all techies at these third party sites. The end justifies the means to you.

    I WILL take a net loss as you call it. Anywhere/anyone simpleminded enough to take opt-out as indication of a griefer without considering privacy implications, and then ban/mute is someplace/someone I have no desire to visit or interact with. Either they are insecure and frightened, or arrogant in their demands to rate others….again, not people I want anything to do with.

  15. Maklin Deckard says:

    Sorry for being rude, BAD BAD day, all the badness brought on by programmers. Not particularly in the mood for the techie / programmer political line today. I just wish to be left alone ingame, not rated or rating others.

  16. Dale Glass says:

    I want it, said so several times. Now you are going back on your earlier statement.

    I said I can implement it, I didn’t say I will.

    It’s technically possible, and easy, but it goes against my idea of being a neutral service provider.

    You sir, are a liar, like all techies at these third party sites. The end justifies the means to you.

    Well, you’re certainly free to have any opinion you want about me. Feel free to rate me negatively too, I won’t mind.

    However, since you don’t seem to respect me, I don’t see why I should respect your wishes.

  17. Dale Glass says:

    Sorry for being rude, BAD BAD day, all the badness brought on by programmers.

    You have a very funny way of apologizing, heh. And even in your apology you still manage to insult me. Apology not accepted.

    No hard feelings, mind. But you’re definitely not doing a good job of convincing me of anything. I recommend you relax a bit.

  18. Maklin Deckard says:

    Not trying to convince you of anything, I don’t care how you run this or how many drones on SL sign up. I merely want out of it as a matter of principles.

    “However, since you don’t seem to respect me, I don’t see why I shoud respect your wishes”

    It looks as if you didn’t intend to let anyone out anyway, you are clearly playing sematics games with words (i said I can, I didn’t say I would). Respect? This is just looking for a reason to back off of what you said earlier. No, I do not hold you in much respect for creating a system that does not allow opt-outs….you confirmed my opinion by playing word games and looking for excuses to back out of what you said. You have shown me and the other posters that have not liked this clique system disrespect as well. its a two-way street…what you are doing now is merely being childish instead of professional.

    Was I rude? Sure! Why? I made a simple request not to participate in your data mining scheme…..you tried to tell me that wasn’t what I REALLY wanted, but said you could do it if anyone wanted out. I repeate again a simple request, you say no one has asked to be removed and that I really don’t want to be removed. I repeat again, you cry that you won’t do what I ask because I don’t respect you. Want respect? Do what you said in the first post, no word games. Let people opt-out if they wish. That is an honorable action worthy of respect and the professional course of action for a service provider. It costs you NOTHING to do the right thing and allow opt-outs.

    And why would I bother rating you negatively? First, that would not be honorable (even if I do not care for you) as this did not happen ingame and has no bearing on ingame ratings. I do not take out of game items ingame. Second, as I told you I do not want to use the system, I want out of it.

  19. Dale Glass says:

    It looks as if you didn’t intend to let anyone out anyway

    Quite correct. I tried to show you how the only way of “opt-out” that would somewhat maintain the integrity of the system wouldn’t be a nice thing. Well, guess that didn’t work.

    Just to make things clear, here’s the short answer:

    Can we opt out of this system? As in be unrateable and not allowed to rate?

    No.

  20. Ash-Fox says:

    No, I do not hold you in much respect for creating a system that does not allow opt-outs

    You have to opt-in to actually use the system.

    However, this issue is not that you don’t want to use the system, you want to block other people from their own preferences and content they’ve decided upon.

    To me, what you’re suggesting is very much like saying I shouldn’t be allowed to put you on a list of people I dislike or love on my own Blog because you didn’t opt-in to the list.

    To me, that’s like saying I shouldn’t be allowed to express opinions. Wait, let me guess, I hate freedom right?

  21. Cobalt says:

    Heh, nuts these days. You don’t want in, don’t use the scanner. Simple. Opting in or out won’t change what people think of you, period.

    Dale, should’ve just said “I’ll look into it.” and been done with it.

  22. Prokofy Neva says:

    I agree with everything Maklin said. I share all the same concerns. Dale’s answers are not persuasive.

    And what really freaks me out about this is the idea that subjective reality can prevail by simply unwishing/unclicking/erasing what someone else said, that their opinion “just won’t count” now because you don’t “trust them” for subjective reasons.

    That’s really wild, and really undermines the social contract and the consensus needed for a share reality in a civil society.

    It implies everybody can be on their little fuck-you hedonistic track and just mute and screen out people they hate for all kinds of wierd subjective reasons — without recourse. Oh, wait…that IS what we have in Second Life! Worse than high school.

    At least with a high school yearbook, when somebody has “boy most likely to succeed,” you can come back and check it against reality. You can write something to rebut it. Or support it.

    This idea that stuff disappears…and no two people have the same rating under some objective set of criteria…I find that profoundly disturbing. Any two people can have different opinions. That’s not what it’s about. But they can concede what it means to be “a fair businessman” in Second Life for example without hopelessly dissolving into subjective deconstructivism. That truly sucks.

  23. Dale Glass says:

    This idea that stuff disappears…and no two people have the same rating under some objective set of criteria…I find that profoundly disturbing. Any two people can have different opinions. That’s not what it’s about. But they can concede what it means to be “a fair businessman” in Second Life for example without hopelessly dissolving into subjective deconstructivism. That truly sucks.

    Ah, but what is a “fair businessman” is subjective. There will be people who when faced with the slightest problem will be utterly enraged and demand their money back. And there will be those who will consider that everybody has problems once in a while and actually value the businessman more for showing that they are actively trying to fix the problem as fast as they can.

    Then part of the problem is that there will be always stupid customers. If you sell something that requires knowing scripting, sooner or later somebody without that knowledge will buy it anyway, then complain about it. I know that people offering custom avatars ocassionally get requests to use colors that don’t look good, then complaints about the result looking bad even when done exactly to spec.

  24. Kiwi Alfa says:

    Okay, let me explain carefully.

    To be abusable, you would need to have a continuous line of positive ratings (that’s right, only POSITIVE ratings, no neutral and no negative ratings allowed) between you and a person who rated the person being targeted by the abuse – otherwise, their opinion won’t be counted. Negative ratings along the line won’t be followed, and thus the ONLY ratings you get to see are those which you should be able to trust.

  25. Kiwi Alfa says:

    Whoops, clicked the button accidentally. Anyway, the point is that that’s why it makes it so hard to abuse successfully.

  26. minky moog says:

    Well if i see my details being left here i will be seeking removal via the data protection act.
    unlawful use of my data.

%d bloggers like this: