During the last 4+ years we've had the opportunity to leave feedback on users after having bough/sold/traded stuff in this thread: http://assemblergames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5350 Personally, I haven't found the thread of much use since I've felt it's been too much of a hassle to search that thread to gather information about whom X user has done deals with in the past. And, judging by the number of transactions I do on this forum, it would look like a lot of users feel the feedback thread isn't all that important as I rarely get any feedback left in that thread. After going thru the 64 page long feedback thread searching for my nickname, I can only find that 4 feedbacks have been left (by 3 users). During this period I think I have done 50+ transactions with forum users. Now, I think feedback on transactions are very important on a forum like this. I can be hesitant on doing a deal with a user, but if I see that another trusted and respected user has done a deal with that person I would not be so reluctant any longer. But I feel the whole feedback thread isn't the best way to get people to leave feedback. So, here is my suggestion on how user transaction feedback could be improved: Add a "User transaction feedback" subforum in the user marketplace, along with the 2 current subforums: http://assemblergames.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=23 In that forum, people can create a new thread with their nickname and anyone who deals with that person can go straight to that thread to read all the comments that has been left on that perticular user without having to go thru 64 (atm) pages. Users that do many deals could even link to their feedback thread in their signature. I would like to hear what you other forum users think about this whole thing. Do you use the current feedback thread to leave feedback when you have done a deal? Do you search thru all the pages of the current feedback thread before you do a deal with another member? Would you rather visit a special feedback thread for just that member instead? Would you be more likely to leave feedback in a special feedback thread for a perticular member after a deal, compared to leaving feedback in the current feedback thread? Any input is welcome. Shiggsy
Well, I've never made a transaction here, but surely I would look the feedback thread. The thing is, I didn't know until now, how it was the thread. It's very difficult to look after someone's feedback, like the user above said. So, as a lot of you people should know, in other forums there's a post (the first) updated often, with numbers, indicating positives, negatives and neutrals. (In fact I'm surprised that this forum doesn't use a system like this, but just a simple thread instead). Well, IMO, it's a good system. If someone receives a negative, then the user can search what happened in the thread. So a balance in the first post should be useful. As many of you realized, it takes time, of course, for a user (generally a mod, in most forums) to read all the posts from date to date and keep something like a spreadsheet with the records, and the duty to update often. The system described by the user Shiggsy looks like more "automatic" and maybe better. But is just to expose another system that works, apparently...
Sounds like a good idea and very easy to implement, not requiring the use of an add-on as for point system or something like that which was suggested in the past which is too much of a hassle. It would make searching much easier. I agree with Shiggsy and support this motion.
We will look into it however for now searching the thread is fairly easy just click search this thread on the top right and type the users name.
I use to go to this site called sythe.org (mmorpg rwt forum) anytime you made a trade, the other person would give a written vouch you would quote the vouch (post) and it would have a link to the page for verification, whenever you were selling you would post your vouches so people could see you positive feedback with the proof links, and there was a place to put them in your user profile area , this worked there however it may not, just a suggestion
