Trustworthy Communities

Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad

Regarding an optional, additional level of identify verification at IAP

  • YES - I'm in favor and would verify

    Votes: 73 97.3%

  • YES - I'm in favor, but I wouldn't participate

    Votes: 2 2.7%

  • NO - I'm opposed to this being offered at all

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    75
jeff

jeff

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
9,036
Location
Westlake, OH, USA.
Some user communities, large (think Twitter) and small, offer an additional level of user verification beyond just getting an account. This is said to encourage and maintain trust between users. On Twitter for example, the little blue checkmark next to the username indicates that the account has been verified as authentic. Twitter only offers this to "notable" accounts because with >300 million accounts, they can offer verification to only a small fraction of the community. The verification requirements are not trivial.

As many of you know, we have had some trolls and dishonest behavior from users over the years. With very few exceptions, the true identity of these people is unknown to us. In a couple cases, we've been ripped off by people we knew, but that's rare. I know many of us have purchased things from forum members we didn't know much about, and sometimes there's some uncertainty that things will go as planned.

I've been considering implementing a system to indicate (probably with a Twitter-like blue check mark next to the username) that an additional level of verification has been completed. I don't know what that verification would include, but enough for me or a moderator to confidently say that the user is who they purport to be.

I understand that many people like the anonymity of the internet, and there are many legitimate reasons why someone doesn't want to expose their identity. However, it's also not unreasonable that others many not want to transact with or believe the claims of an anonymous voice from the ether. There are people who are uncomfortable dealing with others they don't know and that's just as valid a position as those who like to be anonymous.

I don't want to create a division between the non-verified and verified people, but I am thinking that this might be a positive change for our community. We would continue to welcome everyone, but there would be an additional piece of information that some people might find valuable before entering into a transaction or a PITH, etc. I'm also not proposing that we expose personally identifiable information to the community. That would only be provided to complete the verification, so you'd have to at least trust me :)

I'd appreciate your vote, comments, and questions. THANKS!

TLDR; I'm considering an optional, additional level of user identity verification. What do you think?
 
Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
👆Ditto to what he said....

Actually, my community is suffering from some of the same issues, and honestly, this is a great idea.

A great idea I might steal for my forum :P
 
1000% agree things need to change or improve however you want to state it. We are in a changing world and we all know of people who have been scammed or have runins with scammers weather by phones or by internet. Many ways this can happen and we being trusting people can be easily taken. I had such an instance and will not go into it. Nothing to do with this site. This statement by Jeff sums it up the feelings here I am sure. But within the statement is alot of truth and needs to be thought about.

I understand that many people like the anonymity of the internet, and there are many legitimate reasons why someone doesn't want to expose their identity. However, it's also not unreasonable that others many not want to transact with or believe the claims of an anonymous voice from the ether. There are people who are uncomfortable dealing with others they don't know and that's just as valid a position as those who like to be anonymous

I have a problem with people not at least giving us a name to call them by except their sign-on identity. I have said this before. Make up a name if you want. I was always brought up to call people by a name. We are a family oriented forum here and not a facebook type platform. We are not seen by as many followers and possible trolls but it is still possible. I brought this up years ago and believe we even discussed this with Jeff on the forum and believe it ended in a stalemate. I hate seeing new members join here and the very first thing they do is try to sell things. We have no idea who they are and how legit and this plays right into what Jeff is talking about now. I believe another form of identity should be some sort of post count if you want to become a vendor here. What that number should be can be discussed. It was years ago. Yes this forum is a good source to not only buy at some reasonable pricing (MAYBE) some items weather pen related and to also sell these items, looking at it from both sides. This is great and we all like a deal. But having some context with said buyer or seller means alot in my eyes. It protects both parties to some extent. Sure things always will get through but again the way things are changing on the internet and throughout the world one can not be careful enough. So I am in favor and would like to see things go even further as I mentioned.
 
Regarding JT's point. Years ago, we did discuss requiring real names as usernames. That would have served a similar, albeit weaker, purpose, but there is one drawback. Usernames show up with posts to guest viewers. However guests can't go "deeper" than that as one must be logged on to see a user profile.
 
jeff said:
Regarding JT's point. Years ago, we did discuss requiring real names as usernames. That would have served a similar, albeit weaker, purpose, but there is one drawback. Usernames show up with posts to guest viewers. However guests can't go "deeper" than that as one must be logged on to see a user profile.
Click to expand...
And thus we discussed a post count at least to try to lock in on a feeling of said person if I remember we talked about.
 
Both Jeff and John T have valid issues and concerns. As a point of reference, I worked part time at a hardware store that we always asked for the persons phone number. Helping us track items and proof of purchase from our store.
Some would not give it to us demanding we have no right to ask. Some didn't want to give theirs because they knew that we could track their purchases and returns.
We had those anonymous purchasers that would buy, use and return the merchandise claiming it was defective and only wanted their money back, showing a cash receipt.
The store knew this but, well, we guaranteed satisfaction.
What's wrong with these people?
I totally agree with Jeff's proposal,
I've noticed there are members here that have a member name but no contact information. Hmm...
They should NOT be accepted as members without membership requirements.
Scam, spam, ripoffs are all too common in this world. Let's protect our forum and our members. 😬
 
Unless someone has some mysterious, nefarious reason for remaining anonymous it must be better to know that we are dealing with upstanding, honest people? 100% behind it!
 
I am in complete agreement with this proposal, and have cast my vote accordingly. Thanks for the positive development. I think this will really help people become more comfortable when conducting transactions on this site.
 
I don't think we've ever had a vote 100% in favor of anything! Over the weekend I'll obtain and install the mod and reach out to a few of you for testing.

I'll need to come up with some type of verification criteria. Remember, this isn't a guarantee of good business practices or honesty, it's just a piece of information that says we're 99.9999% certain that this person is who they claim to be. For starters, I'd say that verification would be reasonable for someone who fits in one or more or these catagories:
  • With an established business presence including a published address and active web site, etc.
  • Who I've met in person or who is well-known to the community as a real person.
  • Who is an IAP store customer using a credit card with real name verification and a physical ship-to address.
  • For whom 3 other verified members will confirm their identity.
Other suggestions welcome. I suppose that providing some sort of identification document would be the gold standard of identification, but we're not running a bank here so I don't feel that's a reasonable ask.
 
jeff said:
I don't think we've ever had a vote 100% in favor of anything! Over the weekend I'll obtain and install the mod and reach out to a few of you for testing.

I'll need to come up with some type of verification criteria. Remember, this isn't a guarantee of good business practices or honesty, it's just a piece of information that says we're 99.9999% certain that this person is who they claim to be. For starters, I'd say that verification would be reasonable for someone who fits in one or more or these catagories:
  • With an established business presence including a published address and active web site, etc.
  • Who I've met in person or who is well-known to the community as a real person.
  • Who is an IAP store customer using a credit card with real name verification and a physical ship-to address.
  • For whom 3 other verified members will confirm their identity.
Other suggestions welcome. I suppose that providing some sort of identification document would be the gold standard of identification, but we're not running a bank here so I don't feel that's a reasonable ask.
Click to expand...
Obviously, the most serious need is for a process to verify new members These four rules seem to cover that reasonably well, but only experience and time will show how well they can be applied. Making the rules too hard could create a lot of work for Jeff.

At this point, there are a lot of people in the community who have proved that they are real people and good citizens within the community - it would be unfortunate if the acceptance critera made it difficult to qualify them for verification. To avoid this problem, I suggest adding this rule:
  • A long-standing member of the community with a significant posting history, and whose profile includes a full name and geographic location.
There are two vague aspects to this rule - what is 'longstanding' and what is 'significant posting history'. While it could be left to Jeff to apply his judgement on individual cases, in the interest of avoiding disputes I think its best to quantify the criteria. So, for example, this might be restated as having been a member for two years or longer, with at least 25 posts over that period. Obviously, the number are subject to debate and negotiation - haggling over the price! The objective is to differentiate between real people who actually contribute to the community, and spammers to appear out of nowhere, flood the forum with bogus posts, and then disappear into the vapor.

Obviously, this means that there will be a few new members who won't immediately qualify for verification, but they will be able to request their 'gold star' after a couple of years of good behavior.
 
I think the state of the world has required us all to question way too many things, so I sadly have to agree with some type of vetting process here for people who sell anything. Seems personal honesty and respect for others is a lost commodity with many.

I know I have ordered large and small items from people here, including a pretty pricey group buy - so far, every one of them has been a great experience. I don't know if that is because I am selective about who I have dealt with or if it reflects a more general honesty of the vast majority of IAP members, which again points to why we need some other kind of guidance besides our gut instincts. I don't believe just posting our names versus 'handles' is a solution, as I have seen that fail in other sites I belong to. But however you decide to go, count me as a 'yes' vote.
 
I enjoy this forum and learned a lot here...I post very little and do not intend on selling anything on IAP...If I am required to furnish personal info to stay a member I will be leaving...Thank you...
 
Arnold said:
I enjoy this forum and learned a lot here...I post very little and do not intend on selling anything on IAP...If I am required to furnish personal info to stay a member I will be leaving...Thank you...
Click to expand...
Thanks, Arnold - I was afraid I may need to change my vote just so we would not have 100%. 😊

You are safe, the intent here is to help ensure anyone who wants to buy, barter, trade, etc. something from another member can ensure they are trusted source. It is intended to help protect you, not do you any harm.
 
MRDucks2 said:
Thanks, Arnold - I was afraid I may need to change my vote just so we would not have 100%. 😊

You are safe, the intent here is to help ensure anyone who wants to buy, barter, trade, etc. something from another member can ensure they are trusted source. It is intended to help protect you, not do you any harm.
Click to expand...
You are welcome MRDucks2...Since I do not intend on doing any financial transactions on this forum I should be exempt from providing personal information...What say you?
 
Arnold said:
I enjoy this forum and learned a lot here...I post very little and do not intend on selling anything on IAP...If I am required to furnish personal info to stay a member I will be leaving...Thank you...
Click to expand...
To clarify, this has nothing to do with remaining a member.
 
jeff said:
I don't think we've ever had a vote 100% in favor of anything! Over the weekend I'll obtain and install the mod and reach out to a few of you for testing.

I'll need to come up with some type of verification criteria. Remember, this isn't a guarantee of good business practices or honesty, it's just a piece of information that says we're 99.9999% certain that this person is who they claim to be. For starters, I'd say that verification would be reasonable for someone who fits in one or more or these catagories:
  • With an established business presence including a published address and active web site, etc.
  • Who I've met in person or who is well-known to the community as a real person.
  • Who is an IAP store customer using a credit card with real name verification and a physical ship-to address.
  • For whom 3 other verified members will confirm their identity.
Other suggestions welcome. I suppose that providing some sort of identification document would be the gold standard of identification, but we're not running a bank here so I don't feel that's a reasonable ask.
Click to expand...
Probably not on the 100% vote count:) I will assume that the information you may require is going to be private if you will be asking personal questions? The vetting process will be done by you and or moderator? The only information that will subject to viewing by members is a blue star or some sort of mark to indicating he or she has qualified? Thanks One other question, again I am making assumptions but this will only apply to people looking to sell here?? If so then at any time in the future if you want to sell you can fill out application? And will there be a separate vetting process to become a member?
 
monophoto said:
At this point, there are a lot of people in the community who have proved that they are real people and good citizens within the community - it would be unfortunate if the acceptance critera made it difficult to qualify them for verification. To avoid this problem, I suggest adding this rule:
  • A long-standing member of the community with a significant posting history, and whose profile includes a full name and geographic location.
There are two vague aspects to this rule - what is 'longstanding' and what is 'significant posting history'. While it could be left to Jeff to apply his judgement on individual cases, in the interest of avoiding disputes I think its best to quantify the criteria. So, for example, this might be restated as having been a member for two years or longer, with at least 25 posts over that period. Obviously, the number are subject to debate and negotiation - haggling over the price! The objective is to differentiate between real people who actually contribute to the community, and spammers to appear out of nowhere, flood the forum with bogus posts, and then disappear into the vapor.
Click to expand...
Good points, Louie. The only fly in that ointment is that there are some members who go to great lengths to appear as if they're legit, contributing members, but they're actually trolls with multiple accounts and intent to annoy. In fact, one in particular has written to me saying that he's looking forward to the challenge of cheating the verification system.
 
Let's step back for a minute - the original concept here was to create a process whereby members could become 'verified' - that is, a process to confirm that users are who they say they are. The main reason for doing that relates to commerce - users who are 'verified' as likely to be more trustworthy than users who are not verified,d and therefore commercial transactions between verified users would be less likely to end in fraud. Verification is not a guarantee that participants in commercial transactions will always be happy with the outcome - instead, it's only an indicator that the participants are who they say they are.

But that does not mean that only verified users can be part of the community. If you look at Twitter as an example, there are millions of unverified users who routinely tweet, and that's just fine. Its up to users to decide how to interpret tweets from unverified users. There are both verified and unverified Twitter users whose accounts I choose to not follow.

Of course, verification gives verified users the distinction of having a blue check or gold star or green skew chisel as a means of differentiation, but aside from the significance in commercial transactions, it's only a symbol that the identify of the users has been verified. The Fountain Pen Network forum differentiates users based on a point system derived from the number of posts.

On the other hand, if IAP is experiencing problems with trolls who are disrupting the community, that might call for some other form of action. And that problem isn't limited to 'trolls' (trolls are individuals who aren't who they say they are - non-trolls can still be disruptive). In that case, a more extreme process might be required to 'vote users off the island'. Unfortunately, creating that kind of system could be very harmful to the cohesiveness of the IAP community.
 
I'll succumb to your mind control and world domination plans Jeff.

Among other reasons I see it as a way to ensure those in pen swaps, piths, etc would fulfil their obligations.
 
jttheclockman said:
Probably not on the 100% vote count:) I will assume that the information you may require is going to be private if you will be asking personal questions? The vetting process will be done by you and or moderator? The only information that will subject to viewing by members is a blue star or some sort of mark to indicating he or she has qualified? Thanks One other question, again I am making assumptions but this will only apply to people looking to sell here?? If so then at any time in the future if you want to sell you can fill out application? And will there be a separate vetting process to become a member?
Click to expand...

The verification process will be done by me. I don't expect to ask for personal information.

The only indication would be a check mark next to the username.

It's not just for people selling. It will be available to anyone.
 
monophoto said:
But that does not mean that only verified users can be part of the community. If you look at Twitter as an example, there are millions of unverified users who routinely tweet, and that's just fine. Its up to users to decide how to interpret tweets from unverified users. There are both verified and unverified Twitter users whose accounts I choose to not follow.
Click to expand...
I was surprised to find out that less than 1% of Twitter's 300 million users are verified.
 
Sorry to be a bit late to get into this discussion , but Jeff`s original post references a couple of individuals who did not deliver on orders they had been paid for . I dealt with those , and had developed trust with each through at least two well fulfilled orders . In doing so , I had learned a bit about the circumstances each was living with , so it didn`t bother me greatly that I lost about $100 of wood and $200 of blanks . Life happens . It has to me .

If you were to purchase something from me , I would expect to get it to the post office 20 miles away and you would be expecting shipment confirmation , but I might accidentally pick up a moose as a front seat passenger on the way , destroying both me and the package . You would be unable to contact me , and there would be no one at my end contacting you or the forum , so you would be out of pocket , and wondering how you could have so misjudged someone who has been on the forum so long .

I assume Jeff removes anyone he knows to be a troll . But as NGLJ undoubtedly knows , some people never grow up . Basically , it is just a different style of bullying .
 
Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
I've installed this feature and I'm testing and tweaking it. You may see a few checkmarks appear next to various usernames as I get this dialed in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom