Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!


Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
User Polls Daily polls where users can vote and give their opinion!

Do you like how our "Trust Ratings" work?

Type: Our Site

Inspired by PinkPanther (46)
Yes, simple and easy. 48% 19 Votes
No, needs a comment field. 35% 14 Votes
No, don't like the wording. 0% 0 Votes
No, doesn't prove anything. 13% 5 Votes
Other, see reply. 5% 2 Votes

Reply to Poll
Register to Vote!

40 Votes Total

Apr 7, 2007

Poll Replies (13)

Replies to the user poll above.

Msg # User Message Date


Denner (235) A "Trust Rating" makes me feel like we mistrust our fellow users.
Like maybe this or this guy has an interest in some webs-site, moneywise.
That is not what this is all about - it's about giving everybody hints on how not to get screewed by some smartass website.
TBP has started this as a help for ordenary people searching for good porn-sites. Let's keep it at that and maybe us users can help one another.
If we state a mistrust, we should at least reason it!

04-07-07  09:32am

Reply To Message


PinkPanther (46) REPLY TO #1 - Denner :

I agree with this - being a recipient of two mis-trust ratings and wondering where that comes from.

It would be helpful to us users that are doing the reviews to see why other users thing that we are not to be trusted.

Hopefully the comments would be good, constructive criticism.

04-07-07  09:39am

Reply To Message


SnowDude (214) REPLY TO #1 - Denner :

I know I'm feeling frustrated with the "No" trust votes I've been getting lately, going up from 2 to 4 just overnight. I don't mind someone having a beef at all....if you don't trust me that's fine, but I'd like to know what it is that makes a particular user not trust me particularly if there's something I can do to address their concern. Am I not discussing a certain feature? Is there a misunderstanding? I work very hard to make my reviews fair and if I have a bias I state it up front.

I guess some kind of comment section would be good, but for now if anyone thinks my reviews are bad PLEASE send me a message or post a reply saying why and what I could do better! I take a lot of pride in my reviews and want them to be helpful.

04-07-07  09:56am

Reply To Message


PU Staff
This is great info so far.

A comment field is a good idea (when a user submit a no trust or simply from your profile). It would be easy to implement as well. Question is, would people use it? The reply feature (for individual comments/reviews) is readily available if someone doesn't agree or feel the feedback is trustworthy, but I see it rarely used for that purpose.

It doesn't hurt to add a comment field, but assuming most people who vote "No" don't use it, would that satisfy those who aren't getting answers to their "No" ratings?

I have another idea I thought of after my discussion with Snowdude (on Wed's poll) which was a variation of something he mentioned. What about requiring a certain number of pts (say 5 pts, like qualifying for the raffle) before a user can submit a trust rating? This would ensure that trust ratings only were submitted by the more experienced users (who also might be willing to comment). The negative is it would seriously cut down the number of total votes until we get a wider audience of partipating users.

04-07-07  10:08am

Reply To Message


PU Staff
REPLY TO #3 - SnowDude :

One issue that would come up with the addition of a COMMENT field is that the trust ratings would be less anonymous.

Seeing just how users have reacted to Trust Ratings so far, I'm guessing less anonymous would lead to ratings that were more a reaction to how someone else rated you.

It seems (to me personally) that users take a single NO trust rating far too personal. So much so that some even write asking that it be removed. What everyone seems to forget is that a Trust Rating is NOT a judgement of you as a person. It is simply the opinion of one person on how much they feel they can trust your reviews to be representative of what they will encounter when visiting the same site. It seems that many times, a negative Trust Rating is simply a result of a way biased review (i.e. rating a site 100 or 50).

04-07-07  10:31am

Reply To Message


SnowDude (214) REPLY TO #5 - Khan :

I'm not sure that comments would necessarily make the trust ratings less anonymous as long as the comments were anonymous as well.

You can say you think people take a no rating too personally, but you haven't had anyone say they didn't trust somethong you wrote on here which does feel personal. I agree I'm probably taking it too hard when I get a negative rating, but when you try to make a review as unbiased as possible it can be personal when someone essentially says you failed, especially when it's so easy and anonymous to do so.

I also agree that in most cases a negative trust rating is because of overly biased reviews like giving a site a 50 or a 100, but I haven't done either and I have had 4 negative trust ratings for reasons I can't explain. It's fine if someone doesn't like your review, but to anonymously indicate you are untrustowrthy basically sucks.

In the end, I think the trust ratings were started for a reason and the alternative of no trust ratings is even less appealing. However, that doesn't mean a person doesn't feel bad if even one person labels them as untrustworthy.

Just my $0.02.

04-07-07  11:04am

Reply To Message


Woodruff (37) I too was first motivated to reply, because I got 1 "no" trust rating. I can see, though, that while it feels bad, it's not a big deal. Obviously there's some element of getting used to the system.

I can't see any reason not to offer an anonymous comment field though. People can certainly choose whether to use it.

I do like the idea of limiting trust ratings to those with a certain number of points. That way you'd know your "trust-raters" had some minimal level of involvement with the site.

04-07-07  11:31am

Reply To Message


uscue (39) It seems that alot of things can be taken to make the trust meter better for the whole. I don't think it should be limited to members with a certain number of points (maybe at least 1 rating posted though), but I also favor an anonymous comment section that a user has to madatorily fill out for a "no" vote. This is so that the users learn what about their reviews caused someone to be skeptical, and also ensures that people who vote "no" contribute to the community by their input.

The main reason why there should be an anonymous comment section is to help keep the community active. If a user gets six no votes without knowing why, that could discourage them from participating in the site if they begin to think that what they say isn't worth anything. However, useful comments for "no" votes are a way to keep them interested in posting rather than feeling too personal.

04-07-07  11:58am

Reply To Message


SnowDude (214) REPLY TO #8 - uscue :

I think it's fair to ask that people who would judge others by a trust rating be limited to those who have provided some reviews of their own. If nothing else, this demonstrates that it's not easy to write a review and if you limited it to people with a score of 5 they'd be more aware of that fact. I think my original suggestion was a score of 10, but I agree 5 would be more reasonable and at least 1 as uscue suggested. I don't think it's fair for someone to register and then waltz into the site saying they don't trust anybody by voting no.

I really like the anonymous comment section for no votes because "I just didn't like something they wrote" isn't a valid reason for voting no. There are plenty of valid reasons, but I think the member getting voted down deserves to know what it was.

04-07-07  01:23pm

Reply To Message


uscue (39) REPLY TO #5 - Khan :

I'm still in favor of a mandatory anonymous comment if someone votes "no" on your trust rating. This helps users understand the community and what it is that makes people not trust their reviews so they can improve in the future.

Maybe it's also because I've received two "No's" recently without having written a review in the past month. I have no idea why I have no's, and therefore I can't fix it with my next reviews.

06-23-07  06:33am

Reply To Message


PU Staff
REPLY TO #10 - uscue :

It will be good to note that the Trust Ratings have changed since this discussion was active. We've since added the option for leaving a comment. Also, the voter can opt to be anonymous or not.

As far as your recent ratings ...

When you received a rating is more a function of when another user read your review than it is when you wrote it. As I've mentioned before, it seems giving out extremely high (95-100) or extremely low (50-60) will cause some to see your review as biased an thus, not as trustworthy. You should be able to respond to the negative trust rating (though it might not get answered) to ask why the user doesn't have confidence that your reviews/comments will match what they'd see if they visited the site. But that's just an educated guess. I have no crystal ball to show me the reasoning used when a User decides to cast a "No" Trust Rating.

Keep an eye out ... there will be a few more poll questions related to Trust Ratings coming up shortly.

06-23-07  07:03am

Reply To Message


RagingBuddhist (65) I'd like to see it mandatory that any No vote require an explanation. I'd also like to see more than a 150 character limit on those comments! I've a couple of examples of people being dismissed as untrustworthy just because someone didn't agree with their tastes in sites. That's just plain wrong!
07-15-07  11:04pm

Reply To Message


Monahan (42) REPLY TO #12 - RagingBuddhist :

I agree 100%. I see a Trust Rating as useful, but only when they communicate something worthwhile as well. A "No" without any explanation is useless except in making the reviewer not want to waste his time writing additional reviews.

A "Yes" without a comment doesn't do much either except that it doesn't drive away those who sincerely want to write good reviews.

07-26-07  08:44pm

Reply To Message

*Message rows highlighted in light orange are replies to replies.

Home - Sites - Users - Reviews - Comments - Categories - Forum

Contact Us - Announcements - FAQ's - Terms & Rules - Porn Review - Webmasters

Protecting Minors
We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.


To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP!  We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction?  We recommend this helpful resource.

Copyright © 2007 Ranks.com, Inc. and its licensors. All Rights Reserved.

Loaded in 0.17 seconds.