|
 |
| | | Author: | ToriHada  | | Posted: | Mar 14, 2011 23:30 | | Subject: | Do Not Add FB from Merged Accounts | | Viewed: | 288 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| In the past, I have seen instances where a new seller used a duplicate account
to order from himself to pad his feedback. So, for example, he places two orders
with himself from a duplicate account and gives himself two positive feedbacks
as a buyer and two positive feedbacks as a seller. My understanding is that when
these two accounts are merged, the feedback is simply added. Thus, even though
the seller in this example had only two transactions (none of which were real),
he has 4 positive feedbacks after his accounts are merged. 4 positives without
even having a single genuine transaction!
Clearly, this is not only wrong, but very misleading and even fraudulant to future
buyers who may rely on such feedback score. IMO, BL should not be a party to
this fraud by adding the feedback scores of merged accounts. In fact, adding
the positive feedback is actually a reward for breaking the rules. Thus, I suggest
that POSITIVE feedback from merged accounts NOT be added, and that only NON-POSITIVE
feedback should be added to the feedback score.
I realize that most merged accounts do not involve bogus transactions between
the same member to pad their feedback. Nonetheless, these duplicate accounts
should not exist at all and feedback earned from an invalid improper account
should not be counted at all. At the very least, a duplicate account that has
been used to pad or inflate one's feedback should not give any benefit or unintended
bonus to such member upon being merged.
Thor
P.S. Here is one example of a merged account where feedback given to oneself
via a duplicate account has been added to the overall feedback score:
http://www.bricklink.com/feedback.asp?u=pilotmathew1431
Note the 4 positive feedbacks this member gave to himself. If we exclude these
4 positives, this member's real feedback score should be a -6, not a -2. Although
it doesn't matter so much with this particular member, it could very well matter
with other members who do this.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Rolf | | Posted: | Mar 15, 2011 00:53 | | Subject: | Re: Do Not Add FB from Merged Accounts | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In the past, I have seen instances where a new seller used a duplicate account
to order from himself to pad his feedback. So, for example, he places two orders
with himself from a duplicate account and gives himself two positive feedbacks
as a buyer and two positive feedbacks as a seller. My understanding is that when
these two accounts are merged, the feedback is simply added. Thus, even though
the seller in this example had only two transactions (none of which were real),
he has 4 positive feedbacks after his accounts are merged. 4 positives without
even having a single genuine transaction!
Clearly, this is not only wrong, but very misleading and even fraudulant to future
buyers who may rely on such feedback score. IMO, BL should not be a party to
this fraud by adding the feedback scores of merged accounts. In fact, adding
the positive feedback is actually a reward for breaking the rules. Thus, I suggest
that POSITIVE feedback from merged accounts NOT be added, and that only NON-POSITIVE
feedback should be added to the feedback score.
I realize that most merged accounts do not involve bogus transactions between
the same member to pad their feedback. Nonetheless, these duplicate accounts
should not exist at all and feedback earned from an invalid improper account
should not be counted at all. At the very least, a duplicate account that has
been used to pad or inflate one's feedback should not give any benefit or unintended
bonus to such member upon being merged.
Thor
P.S. Here is one example of a merged account where feedback given to oneself
via a duplicate account has been added to the overall feedback score:
http://www.bricklink.com/feedback.asp?u=pilotmathew1431
Note the 4 positive feedbacks this member gave to himself. If we exclude these
4 positives, this member's real feedback score should be a -6, not a -2. Although
it doesn't matter so much with this particular member, it could very well matter
with other members who do this.
|
I'd change messages to "Merged account feedback" and turn em to negative feedbacks.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | bb186511 | | Posted: | Mar 15, 2011 01:08 | | Subject: | Re: Do Not Add FB from Merged Accounts | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In the past, I have seen instances where a new seller used a duplicate account
to order from himself to pad his feedback. So, for example, he places two orders
with himself from a duplicate account and gives himself two positive feedbacks
as a buyer and two positive feedbacks as a seller. My understanding is that when
these two accounts are merged, the feedback is simply added. Thus, even though
the seller in this example had only two transactions (none of which were real),
he has 4 positive feedbacks after his accounts are merged. 4 positives without
even having a single genuine transaction!
Clearly, this is not only wrong, but very misleading and even fraudulant to future
buyers who may rely on such feedback score. IMO, BL should not be a party to
this fraud by adding the feedback scores of merged accounts. In fact, adding
the positive feedback is actually a reward for breaking the rules. Thus, I suggest
that POSITIVE feedback from merged accounts NOT be added, and that only NON-POSITIVE
feedback should be added to the feedback score.
I realize that most merged accounts do not involve bogus transactions between
the same member to pad their feedback. Nonetheless, these duplicate accounts
should not exist at all and feedback earned from an invalid improper account
should not be counted at all. At the very least, a duplicate account that has
been used to pad or inflate one's feedback should not give any benefit or unintended
bonus to such member upon being merged.
Thor
P.S. Here is one example of a merged account where feedback given to oneself
via a duplicate account has been added to the overall feedback score:
http://www.bricklink.com/feedback.asp?u=pilotmathew1431
Note the 4 positive feedbacks this member gave to himself. If we exclude these
4 positives, this member's real feedback score should be a -6, not a -2. Although
it doesn't matter so much with this particular member, it could very well matter
with other members who do this.
|
I have the same buyer right now. I had his 4 not 2 accounts merged already but
am waiting on the NPB to complete.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Rob_and_Shelagh | | Posted: | Mar 15, 2011 05:04 | | Subject: | Re: Do Not Add FB from Merged Accounts | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In the past, I have seen instances where a new seller used a duplicate account
to order from himself to pad his feedback. So, for example, he places two orders
with himself from a duplicate account and gives himself two positive feedbacks
as a buyer and two positive feedbacks as a seller. My understanding is that when
these two accounts are merged, the feedback is simply added. Thus, even though
the seller in this example had only two transactions (none of which were real),
he has 4 positive feedbacks after his accounts are merged. 4 positives without
even having a single genuine transaction!
Clearly, this is not only wrong, but very misleading and even fraudulant to future
buyers who may rely on such feedback score. IMO, BL should not be a party to
this fraud by adding the feedback scores of merged accounts. In fact, adding
the positive feedback is actually a reward for breaking the rules. Thus, I suggest
that POSITIVE feedback from merged accounts NOT be added, and that only NON-POSITIVE
feedback should be added to the feedback score.
I realize that most merged accounts do not involve bogus transactions between
the same member to pad their feedback. Nonetheless, these duplicate accounts
should not exist at all and feedback earned from an invalid improper account
should not be counted at all. At the very least, a duplicate account that has
been used to pad or inflate one's feedback should not give any benefit or unintended
bonus to such member upon being merged.
Thor
P.S. Here is one example of a merged account where feedback given to oneself
via a duplicate account has been added to the overall feedback score:
http://www.bricklink.com/feedback.asp?u=pilotmathew1431
Note the 4 positive feedbacks this member gave to himself. If we exclude these
4 positives, this member's real feedback score should be a -6, not a -2. Although
it doesn't matter so much with this particular member, it could very well matter
with other members who do this.
|
I agree that it seems wrong to allow these FB's to build a positive FB score
but I like them to remain after the merge so you can see that the member gave
himself FB. Maybe the text should remain but not have them contribute to the
positive score?
Robert
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | bagelboybugle | | Posted: | Mar 15, 2011 05:22 | | Subject: | Re: Do Not Add FB from Merged Accounts | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In the past, I have seen instances where a new seller used a duplicate account
to order from himself to pad his feedback. So, for example, he places two orders
with himself from a duplicate account and gives himself two positive feedbacks
as a buyer and two positive feedbacks as a seller. My understanding is that when
these two accounts are merged, the feedback is simply added. Thus, even though
the seller in this example had only two transactions (none of which were real),
he has 4 positive feedbacks after his accounts are merged. 4 positives without
even having a single genuine transaction!
Clearly, this is not only wrong, but very misleading and even fraudulant to future
buyers who may rely on such feedback score. IMO, BL should not be a party to
this fraud by adding the feedback scores of merged accounts. In fact, adding
the positive feedback is actually a reward for breaking the rules. Thus, I suggest
that POSITIVE feedback from merged accounts NOT be added, and that only NON-POSITIVE
feedback should be added to the feedback score.
I realize that most merged accounts do not involve bogus transactions between
the same member to pad their feedback. Nonetheless, these duplicate accounts
should not exist at all and feedback earned from an invalid improper account
should not be counted at all. At the very least, a duplicate account that has
been used to pad or inflate one's feedback should not give any benefit or unintended
bonus to such member upon being merged.
Thor
P.S. Here is one example of a merged account where feedback given to oneself
via a duplicate account has been added to the overall feedback score:
http://www.bricklink.com/feedback.asp?u=pilotmathew1431
Note the 4 positive feedbacks this member gave to himself. If we exclude these
4 positives, this member's real feedback score should be a -6, not a -2. Although
it doesn't matter so much with this particular member, it could very well matter
with other members who do this.
|
I agree that it seems wrong to allow these FB's to build a positive FB score
but I like them to remain after the merge so you can see that the member gave
himself FB. Maybe the text should remain but not have them contribute to the
positive score?
Robert
|
I would opt to make them more obvious by adding an extra non-scoring line to
the feedback in orange.
However, all been said, how many merge with self fbs actually keep their buyer
or seller priveledges?
G
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | TorontoLego | | Posted: | Mar 15, 2011 09:01 | | Subject: | Re: Do Not Add FB from Merged Accounts | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I spoke to myself about this and we agree -- so you can add two more yes's to
this suggestion.
In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In the past, I have seen instances where a new seller used a duplicate account
to order from himself to pad his feedback. So, for example, he places two orders
with himself from a duplicate account and gives himself two positive feedbacks
as a buyer and two positive feedbacks as a seller. My understanding is that when
these two accounts are merged, the feedback is simply added. Thus, even though
the seller in this example had only two transactions (none of which were real),
he has 4 positive feedbacks after his accounts are merged. 4 positives without
even having a single genuine transaction!
Clearly, this is not only wrong, but very misleading and even fraudulant to future
buyers who may rely on such feedback score. IMO, BL should not be a party to
this fraud by adding the feedback scores of merged accounts. In fact, adding
the positive feedback is actually a reward for breaking the rules. Thus, I suggest
that POSITIVE feedback from merged accounts NOT be added, and that only NON-POSITIVE
feedback should be added to the feedback score.
I realize that most merged accounts do not involve bogus transactions between
the same member to pad their feedback. Nonetheless, these duplicate accounts
should not exist at all and feedback earned from an invalid improper account
should not be counted at all. At the very least, a duplicate account that has
been used to pad or inflate one's feedback should not give any benefit or unintended
bonus to such member upon being merged.
Thor
P.S. Here is one example of a merged account where feedback given to oneself
via a duplicate account has been added to the overall feedback score:
http://www.bricklink.com/feedback.asp?u=pilotmathew1431
Note the 4 positive feedbacks this member gave to himself. If we exclude these
4 positives, this member's real feedback score should be a -6, not a -2. Although
it doesn't matter so much with this particular member, it could very well matter
with other members who do this.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | aftepes | | Posted: | Mar 15, 2011 09:38 | | Subject: | Re: Do Not Add FB from Merged Accounts | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In the past, I have seen instances where a new seller used a duplicate account
to order from himself to pad his feedback. So, for example, he places two orders
with himself from a duplicate account and gives himself two positive feedbacks
as a buyer and two positive feedbacks as a seller. My understanding is that when
these two accounts are merged, the feedback is simply added. Thus, even though
the seller in this example had only two transactions (none of which were real),
he has 4 positive feedbacks after his accounts are merged. 4 positives without
even having a single genuine transaction!
Clearly, this is not only wrong, but very misleading and even fraudulant to future
buyers who may rely on such feedback score. IMO, BL should not be a party to
this fraud by adding the feedback scores of merged accounts. In fact, adding
the positive feedback is actually a reward for breaking the rules. Thus, I suggest
that POSITIVE feedback from merged accounts NOT be added, and that only NON-POSITIVE
feedback should be added to the feedback score.
I realize that most merged accounts do not involve bogus transactions between
the same member to pad their feedback. Nonetheless, these duplicate accounts
should not exist at all and feedback earned from an invalid improper account
should not be counted at all. At the very least, a duplicate account that has
been used to pad or inflate one's feedback should not give any benefit or unintended
bonus to such member upon being merged.
Thor
P.S. Here is one example of a merged account where feedback given to oneself
via a duplicate account has been added to the overall feedback score:
http://www.bricklink.com/feedback.asp?u=pilotmathew1431
Note the 4 positive feedbacks this member gave to himself. If we exclude these
4 positives, this member's real feedback score should be a -6, not a -2. Although
it doesn't matter so much with this particular member, it could very well matter
with other members who do this.
|
You brought this up six months ago if I recall correctly, but now it seems that
your suggestion has softened. I would rather see feedback received from oneself
be converted to negatives. It should be kept so others can see that they provided
feedback to themselves and it should also not be counted towards their final
score. Performing an action like this is a result of malice and blatant disregard
of the rules.
As with all rules, there should be exceptions though. Say Mark and Melissa have
separate accounts as they are separate individuals. To play by the rules, Mark
wants some of Melissa's parts, they complete a sale on BL and feedback is left.
Now, they decide that since they operate a store together, that the need for
separate accounts is no longer necessary. They should not be held to the same
standards as someone who is purposefully circumventing the process of establishing
one's account. The duplicate feedback should be removed, leaving only one positive
per transaction.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | mhn1957 | | Posted: | Mar 15, 2011 09:59 | | Subject: | Re: Do Not Add FB from Merged Accounts | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, aftepes writes:
| | As with all rules, there should be exceptions though.
|
Calling exceptions should be the domain of Admin on a case by case basis.
Generally somebody reports a duplicate account and Admin or a delegate investigates
and does the merge. If someone, in your example, M&M, decides to merge accounts,
or people get married or whatever, they can always ask Admin, and ask for consideration.
But most of the cases are cases where rule avoidance if not fraud is involved
and they are not turning themselves in. In the current way of doing things, why
wouldn't I add an account occasionally and pad my feedback? Aside from the fact
that it is against the rules, and I'm not a cheater dog.
Mark gives Harry a +1.
Harry gives Mark a +1.
Accounts are merged for a net +2.
Crime pays!
Foster is right that something should change about how merges are done.
By the way, I could do this and not be detected as I have access to three different
IP ranges from my home without doing much of anything. DSL, Cable, and my work
VPN.
Mark (MHN1957)
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | aftepes | | Posted: | Mar 15, 2011 10:38 | | Subject: | Re: Do Not Add FB from Merged Accounts | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mhn1957 writes:
| | In Suggestions, aftepes writes:
| | As with all rules, there should be exceptions though.
|
Calling exceptions should be the domain of Admin on a case by case basis.
Generally somebody reports a duplicate account and Admin or a delegate investigates
and does the merge. If someone, in your example, M&M, decides to merge accounts,
or people get married or whatever, they can always ask Admin, and ask for consideration.
But most of the cases are cases where rule avoidance if not fraud is involved
and they are not turning themselves in. In the current way of doing things, why
wouldn't I add an account occasionally and pad my feedback? Aside from the fact
that it is against the rules, and I'm not a cheater dog.
Mark gives Harry a +1.
Harry gives Mark a +1.
Accounts are merged for a net +2.
Crime pays!
Foster is right that something should change about how merges are done.
By the way, I could do this and not be detected as I have access to three different
IP ranges from my home without doing much of anything. DSL, Cable, and my work
VPN.
Mark (MHN1957)
|
I understand what Foster is trying to say. But I'm a firm believer in the fact
that no law is absolute, that there are usually very acceptable exclusions to
which the law should not be held applicable, even murder. In the case I outlined,
two individuals, with two "law-abiding" accounts ask to be merged. If the rule
was enacted, as I proposed, any transaction that they had with each other would
swing their combined feedback profile back by two negatives for each legal transaction
they had. This is not the intent of the proposal.
The proposal is for the instances where the same individual operates the same
account and the transactions. Transactions that only result in fees being collected
for Admin.
Ultimately the question of how many of these upstanding individuals make it to
the long haul on BL should be asked. And if this isn't enacted, what type of
problem are we solving that isn't taken care of with banning accounts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, North Carolina
United Kingdom, England
Canada, Ontario
