Beer Trader Feedback: Sneak Peek (Part 1)

What is to stop retaliation? Just playing devils (beer) advocate.
I rate someone as bad next thing you know I get a bad rating.

Many times honest feedback is viewed as abuse and the other way around.

 

I think the layout is great! I think the idea is great! Glad to see this coming.

Looks like the only sticking point is going to be how to assign feedback. Looks like there are going to be views on this all over the place. And here's mine.

I think feedback should be simple. When it gets too complicated and you have to spend more time explaining how it works it needs to change.

So, I think there should be no more than 2 or 3 areas to rate the trade. Personally, I'd like to just see:

Completed
Not Completed

When I make a trade I either do it or I don't. Simple enough and lets others know if I complete my trades or not.

Adding a third dimension to me would look like this:

Completed
Completed with complications
Not Completed

Again, pretty self explanatory.

Only issue I would have with Awesome and Good is the subjective nature of it. I send what I think is an awesome box to someone and they give me a Good rating. I don't think trading should be defined that way.

You either complete the agreed trade or you don't. I'd put a rating system in place that way.

 

I'm thinking of ways that might assist this situation: my trading partner wants something I have; on their side they're going to "pick up next time they're at the brewery/bottle shop." Which is totally fine, unless that time stretches out into weeks, then maybe months. So, maybe what could happen is if a trade is agreed upon, and one side is taking a long time to ship, they get an automatically generated reminder note based on the non-complete status of the trade? Just spitballing here . . .

 

Makes sense.

 

Per my other posts, it's not just completing or not, but how timely. If I see someone regularly takes more than a month to complete a trade, it's going to help me set expectations.

 

It would be very nice to have an average time to complete trade or just a stamp in the trading history to check for trends that might be concerning.

 

Awesome
Good
Bad

All work as long as they are clearly defined. Problems will come up when I send 2 different traders the same box (let's say 2 agreed upon beers and 2 extras off their want list or release only beer extras). One rates me awesome. The other rates me good. Both trades were completed in a reasonable amount of time.

Why was one awesome and the other good? What one person feels was above and beyond someone else felt it was just good. How are these going to be defined (ie. awesome trade means you got want list extras and good means you got average extras). Or awesome means you just gave extras and good means you didn't give extras but sent the agreed upon beers.

I could keep giving more scenarios. Leaving up to each trader without clearly defined expectations of what is awesome and what is average may create issues.

 

Much needed. I say stick with as simple as possible to start and adjust as needed.

Nice work

 

Any possibility that the view order can be an individually controlled option? Sometimes it's nice to see what new trades are being posted, rather than the trades that are being talked about the most. (I know moderation will help will help keep the discussions positive, but changing the sort order would still be nice).

 

I really think it should just be positive or negative.

Either give somebody props or explain the negatives.

Personally, think people are going to be rightfully pissed off when they are given a neutral for a mediocre packing job (but the bottles still made it) or somebody didn't include extras (even though they were not discussed and shouldn't be expected)

I believe adding the neutral is going to cause problems the the bros and coming mods will have to police... So why even other giving people the option.

"levels" of positive seems too subjective too.

My vote... + or -

 

I think this is awesome!!

 

I like the idea of having feedback, but I agree it should be more clear cut, either positive or negative. And also, how does it make sense for it to be cumulative and not an average? Someone could have 100 amazing trades after having 50 horrible trades, and a feedback of 100 would still look good on the surface? Whereas having a 1.33 Average brings more questions from a potential trader.

 

Sounds like a step in the right direction to me.

 

How about

• Positive: Completed; as expected = +1 point
• Negative: Completed; not as expected = 0 point
• Incomplete: Trader failed to deliver = -1 point