Beer Trader Feedback: Sneak Peek (Part 1)

Looking forward to these updates! I have yet to get into trading, but I'll have more confidence in it once I can see how others' experiences have been with certain traders.

My two cents: It should be easier to lose points than to earn them. To me, the points are like how trustworthy a person is. Once you lose trust, it takes a while to earn it back. Like one good trade gives you +1, but an incomplete trade costs you maybe -3.

I honestly like both ideas (point system and averaged ratings) for how to rate traders. I'd be happy with either system.

 

Think this was answered already but the scores wouldn't be published until both sides post. My question about that would be why would someone submit feedback knowing they took 2 months to ship, were hard to track down, ect. Wouldn't that be a way to avoid bad feedback?

 

I've done 3 trades but they were all initiated from a different forum e.g. regional, would I be able to "backfit" these into the trader forum to get some history built?
Thanks

 

Would BIFs be included in this? Maybe the rating is done by the person running the BIF? Also giving a box away in a LIF should give you a + or two once the recipient confirms delivery.

 

Just one comment (don't know if people disagree): you mentioned once mods were installed in Beer Trading, that thread default display order would revert to how it is everywhere else (last post). I, for one, really like the default view being most recent POST - makes it feel much more like a marketplace (which it is), rather than an open forum (which I suppose it sort of is - but I don't know if having it treated that way is a good thing).

Just my two cents - I don't think this needs to be reverted. Perhaps others disagree!

 

The problem with a cumulative total as opposed to a ratio is that it only takes a certain number of trades before you can just screw someone. For example: I do 20 trades, get 20 points. Then after that, I can screw someone every 3 trades or so and my score will either maintain or get better. Now, it would behoove people to check the actual feedback and not just the score, but still.

 

exactly..which is why I think hammering them with a major point deduction should be on the table

 

I agree with this model, although its should require a comment for negative and incomplete.

 

I don't think there are enough negative/bad trades to make the negative points have any impact. Total score is going to be a function of how much you trade, not how good you are. All it really takes is one bad experience to get on the bad trader list, so I can't fathom a world where somebody with more than 2-3 negatives would continue trading under that handle. Point being - I don't think it matters if you do 0, -1, -2, or even -5 for bad trades.

As for trade timing... This should definitely be user set. I've had a few trades that purposefully spanned 2-3 months, so I'd have to go around the system for these if it automatically negged me after a couple of weeks or whatever.

Likewise, average time is dangerous. I almost always ship within a week, but mutually agreed upon long shipping dates should not negatively impact ones profile by skewing average shipping time.

 

I like this system the best. I keeps it completely objective, which will virtually eliminate hurt feelings and disagreements over what is an "awesome trade" and what not. Also, I think it takes a lot of the pressure off of going above and beyond. Extras, while a HUGE part of trading, are in fact - extra. They're supposed to be a pleasant surprise, in an otherwise agreed upon box (of beer that you really wanted in the first place). Besides, say I send extras that are good locals (but that my partner has no interest in), and my trade partner sends two beers off my wants list - do they "win" for being a better trader? Furthermore, if a trade partner and I agree "no extras this time" and then I go ahead and do it anyway and they don't - that's my problem, not theirs. Maybe funds are super tight for them or there are other circumstances coming into play, but they shouldn't be punished for doing something that we agreed upon in the first place.

As far as the "incomplete" trade goes, instead of factoring it into the point scale - why not something separate like a "three strikes you're out" rule? This would resolve the issues of making several great trades and racking up points, only to screw someone over and then not have it effect your overall rating very much. Also, each "strike" would show as a big blemish on someones trading record so that it's obvious to proceed with caution when trading with them.

 

This.

It's easier to switch usernames than to redeem bad feedback if you know you screwed someone. As a result, seeing genuine poor feedback (as opposed to "No extras") on any potential trader will be a huge red flag. As a result, the community will pressure members to minimize bad feedback given out, and we're left essentially with a sanctioned Bad Trader list. At least that's how I see the cumulative point system playing out. It'll still accomplish something, since traders with say less than 5 points will be required to ship first (and I assume this practice will be more widely adapted since the points will be a visible newbie "flag"), and so any bad trader who switches names will be forced to do the same.

 

Was wondering this myself.

 

exactly what i was thinking

 

I'm just wondering if one side just doesn't ship, why would they fill out feedback at all? And if they don't fill out feedback, if I am interpreting this right, there is no feedback posted. What happens if someone accepts a trade, doesn't ship, and then does nothing? Would bad feedback be posted then?

Also, some useful stats would be date of last (successful?) trade and the user it was done with, number of unique users traded with, frequency of trades. Also being able to designate a trade as In Person vs Shipped would be useful.

 

This is going to be a great new feature on BA. Awesome. I also like the dialog going on here.

I think a simple positive/negative system would keep it simple. I think bad traders will continue to be weeded out and exposed via the boards.

I like this question. Could it be added as a follow up question to any trade rated as positive? I've done a lot of trades that I'd rate as positive under this system, but I may not trade again with them. A follow up like that would allow some sort of quantifiable data for "great traders." You could even make that part anonymous. I guess itd be somewhat easy to know if a trader didnt check that box after a trade so you could roll into some sort of Karma bonus. Another option could be to have a set of follow ups after a positive trade that accumulate towards some sort of good trader bonus. Questions like were extras included, fast shipper, great communication, excellent packing, etc could all be used to reward going above and beyond.

This is also a pretty good idea.

 

This gets at something I've been thinking about the last couple of days . . . what, really, is the incentive for anyone to participate in the trader feedback system at all? Both parties could initiate trades the way they do now, and never touch the feedback system. I personally would participate just so that my good trading partners get a good trade history established, but I could imagine some people thinking it's just another hoop to jump through. Plus, like all feedback loops, it's going to tend to attract the more negative feedback; i.e., people wanting to punish/retaliate/etc. Just playing devil's advocate here; I still think it's a great idea, but wonder how you make it worth people's while.

 

How about a rating system like the system used to rate a beer? This is just a rough idea...

Received negotiated bottles: Yes = +1; No = -3
Extras: no extras/bad extras (like old IPA's) =0; Extras = +1; awesome extras= +2, N/A=agreed to not trade extras
Trader shipped in a timely manner: Yes = +1; No = -1
Bottles arrived undamaged: Yes = +1; No = -1

Then a comment section can be used to explain the high/low points of the trade.. Like "Bottles were broken, but trader reshipped with extras" or "Awesome extras, but took a while to ship".

The points can be averaged with a +5 being the highest and a -5 being the lowest.

 

I agree. On eBay, I sell occasionally, and while I leave feedback for everyone, I only receive about 60% feedback in return. I've been an eBay member since the late 90's, so receiving feedback or not does not really matter, but here on BA I'm still new, so every trade I complete without receiving feedback would be a considerable ding.

I would favor a straightforward and objective, yet mandatory system. What if the positive, negative, incomplete choices are check marks, so all that is required is for both parties to click on one of three choices. Simple. If they can't at least do that, they shouldn't be trading. Then, make the comments section optional. While, ideally, I would like comments to be included with every trade feedback, I feel this additional step will prevent some from taking the time to participate in the feedback system.

Also, by making it mandatory, it would prevent potential abuse of the system, by "delinquent" traders not completing feedback knowing that will avoid receiving negative/incomplete feedbacks on their profiles.

 

I was wondering about this, too. I was thinking that maybe there should be a cutoff point, say 60 days after the first partner posts feedback. If the second trader doesn't post feedback within that time frame, there could be a system generated message to that effect that gets published instead. The feedback the first trader posted would be published at that point, and since the cutoff is passed, the second trader can't flame him/her with a bad rating.

This.

 

But how can you make it mandatory? People can BM each other all they want, heck, even use regular e-mail or pick up the phone to make trades. There's just no realistic way to make people use feedback, and I'm not sure the Bros. would even want to. My impression is that setting up the feedback system is as close to "regulating" trading as they want to get, and I don't even think you can call it that.