As a buyer would you feel better buying and trading with a "verified member?"

[fishguy242]

doubts on this , but a red check for scammers/ dishonesty...

 

[revhtree]

Other social media sites are struggling with this. How is the verification performed? Is it simply paying 8$ a month to get a checkmark, or is there some identity and selling history verification involved? I buy through R2R using PayPal and have never had an issue. I think I'd prefer to rely on my own evaluation of the seller when considering a purchase. Additionally, I don't sell much on R2R so the marketing advantage doesn't interest me.

In my very first post I stated that verification would be a third party verification company. They verify identity of people.

 

[revhtree]

doubts on this , but a red check for scammers/ dishonesty...

No those are bans! We ban a lot of scammers on the daily!

 

[fishguy242]

I'm also looking into a better feedback system now!

the people of the reef...

 

[revhtree]

The check mark would just be an added layer of trust-ability, NOT a fool proof way to say "this person can be trusted."

 

[Cell]

I'm unclear on what the extra layer actually is though. Just a guarantee that you are dealing with an actual person? I never thought R2R had any issues with bot scammers, just real people scamming in real time.

 

[Tamberav]

I don't get how that makes someone more trustable, real people scam people, or even how they could prevent me from sending my grandma's credentials and say I am her.

 

[revhtree]

I'm unclear on what the extra layer actually is though. Just a guarantee that you are dealing with an actual person? I never thought R2R had any issues with bot scammers, just real people scamming in real time.

Pretty much yes.

1. If someone is willing to submit to being verified then they, IMO, are less likely to try and scam someone knowing that we know who they are.

2. We ban accounts daily that pretend to be real hobbyists who are straight up scammers. DAILY!

 

[Cell]

I'd trust more an internal application process ruled on by the mods based on previous sales and post/membership history.

 

[fishguy242]

I'd trust more an internal application process ruled on by the mods based on previous sales and post/membership history.

second that

 

[revhtree]

I don't get how that makes someone more trustable, real people scam people, or even how they could prevent me from sending my grandma's credentials and say I am her.

It's not a fool proof way and it doesn't mean someone wouldn't still try to scam someone, but to me it's just an added layer. Also the companies that verify people have ways to verify people but when it's all said and done there is no 100% way to keep someone from ripping someone off.

 

[ReefGeezer]

In my very first post I stated that verification would be a third party verification company. They verify identity of people.

My bad. My reading skills failed me... again.

 

[revhtree]

I'd trust more an internal application process ruled on by the mods based on previous sales and post/membership history.

We don't want your private information. BUT that does bring up an interesting point and idea. I guess we could allow someone to apply for verification and it all be based on your activity and how many good deals you've made on our forum. Hmmm. Great thinking.

 

[revhtree]

We don't want your private information. BUT that does bring up an interesting point and idea. I guess we could allow someone to apply for verification and it all be based on your activity and how many good deals you've made on our forum. Hmmm. Great thinking.

I'm liking this the more I think about it!

 

[Cell]

We don't want your private information. BUT that does bring up an interesting point and idea. I guess we could allow someone to apply for verification and it all be based on your activity and how many good deals you've made on our forum. Hmmm. Great thinking.

The only potential pitfall is possible subjectivity when approving or denying, but with a panel of several mods involved in the approval and some very specific minimum requirements, I don't foresee any issues other than perhaps sour grapes from those who don't have the collateral built up yet to be verified.

 

[spsick]

I'd trust more an internal application process ruled on by the mods based on previous sales and post/membership history.

This hits me as it’s how I evaluate if I will do a deal with someone on here. New users or low activity? NOPE. Now the real trick is how to help these newer/low users that just don’t use forums much and genuinely want to unload some gear.

 

[Atherial]

I'm liking this the more I think about it!

We need an easier way to give feedback if we're going in this direction. I've done several buys through the forums and have never figured out the feedback system.

 

[Coral Kai]

How do i sign up to get verified?

 

[revhtree]

So what if we have a way for you to "click to be verified" and then the process allows to upload a few screen shots or links where you have had good feedback here on R2R. Then we check that against any negative feedback and decide if you get awarded the checkmark?

We would also need to come up with a list/criteria for what constitutes being approved or disapproved and how you could also lose the verification.

 

[revhtree]

We need an easier way to give feedback if we're going in this direction. I've done several buys through the forums and have never figured out the feedback system.

Agreed 100%!