[b]Hello SW members! :) Thank you for the feedback thus far regarding our new [u]User Verification feature[/u], and thank you also to those who have tried out this feature![/b]
We understand completely why some users may not feel completely happy with this feature, specifically [b]those who prefer not to have a public image of themselves on SW, yet would like to have the "Verified" icon appearing next to their username[/b].
This feature [i](the ☑ badge)[/i] was originally/mostly intended mostly to combat the ever growing issue of users being tricked and "catfished" on SW, by those claiming to be someone who they are not (sharing fake/stolen photos).
Those who post (or share privately) images of themselves (or images claiming to be them) can use this feature to help verify that they are indeed the person in those images.
This portion of our verification feature [i](the badge)[/i] was intended for users who are more public about themselves (photos), and not really aimed at those who enjoy using SW anonymously.
(The other half of this feature, the initial verification photo, is mainly for security/account recovery purposes).
We do understand that it still can seem unfair to many other loyal users, as they too cannot have such a badge without being public about their appearance.
[sep]
The SW Staff has not yet come to a conclusion regarding if and how we can improve this issue, however, we would like to put forward a potential idea.
[b][u]Would you prefer if SW offered different modes of the Verification Status (Badge)?[/u][/b]
[b]• [u]Publicly Verified[/u][/b] - Verification Photo visible to all SW Members
[b]• [u]Visible to other Verified Users[/u][/b] - Verification Photo only visible to other users who have also verified up to this level.
[b]• [u]Visible to SW Staff Only[/u][/b] - Verification Photo only visible to SW Staff.
[c=#BF0000][b]Please note that with each decreasing level, users will have less ability to verify whether or not a user is the person being claimed in their shared images.[/b][/c]
[i]For example:[/i] [quote]You, a SW member, may be chatting with another user who has the Verified Grey Badge [i](Visible to SW Staff Only)[/i].
We the SW Staff will not be able to always monitor whether or not this user is sharing true images of themselves (nor do we monitor what users share privately), after having already been verified. Neither would you or the rest of SW members have access to their "Staff Only" verification photo, to be able to cross-check their identity.
In this case, members would need to use more discretion when it comes to trusting who the user claims to be in their shared photos (since you are unable to see the already approved verification photos).
This is a concern to us, especially for new users who may join the site, and could be misled regarding the authenticity of certain other SW users.[/quote]
[b]We would like to hear your thoughts and feedback!
What do you think about this idea regarding the various Verification Badge modes?[/b]
Do you fully understand how and why the other more private modes of the verification photo (while having a badge) can be potentially used to mislead members?
Please share your opinions, suggestions, thoughts on this new Verification feature and how we may be able to improve it.
Thank you, [i][c=#005E2F]-The SW Team[/c][/i]
[sep]
[c=#004A59][big]Updates:[/big][/c]
[u]Regarding the option of having [b]"Friends Only see your Verification Photo"[/b].[/u]
This defeats a lot of the purpose of this verification feature, and is about equivalent of using the "Staff Only" option, while posting the image also to your "Friends Only" album.
The issue with this idea is that someone can easily have:
[b]• 0 Friends. • All Friends are alternate accounts of their own.[/b]
It is not a useful way of adding trust to someone's verification.
The reason why we opt to have other Verified users be able to see the photo (as the 2nd option), is that there is more validity in this method, as other users who are not directly connected to you, and are verified/trusted themselves, can also verify your own photo identity for the rest of the site.
[sep]
[b][u]Regarding Not having other options of Account Recovery or Verification[/u][/b]
We [b][u]will[/u][/b] be looking into having other options for recovering your SW account in case of loss, such as: [b]Recovery Questions, Secondary Email Address, Phone Number[/b], etc...
Please keep in mind that we cannot develop everything at once. :)
Now that we have more feedback and new concerns from users, we can address such issues.
[c=#800000][Note: This was never a major concern to users before we released this new photo verification feature today, so we are a bit surprised that some are very upset for us not yet having other recovery options][/c] :)
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
[u]Regarding the option of having [b]"Friends Only see your Verification Photo"[/b].[/u]
This defeats a lot of the purpose of this verification feature, and is about equivalent of using the "Staff Only" option, while posting the image also to your "Friends Only" album.
The issue with this idea is that someone can easily have:
[b]• 0 Friends. • All Friends are alternate accounts of their own.[/b]
It is not a useful way of adding trust to someone's verification.
The reason why we opt to have other Verified users be able to see the photo (as the 2nd option), is that there is more validity in this method, as other users who are not directly connected to you, and are verified/trusted themselves, can also verify your own photo identity for the rest of the site.
@Andrew The problem is that you're trying to do too much and making verification into something it's not. That's a setup for failure. Verification doesn't mean that someone can be trusted. It doesn't mean their experiences are real. It doesn't mean they're really a doctor or not. It doesn't mean regard what they say as true. It only means their photo is real.
I repeat, there is no trust. The fact you can even think that some members can be trusted more than others shows me you have no clue what it's about or how a social site like this functions. This can only end in failure. I just hope nobody gets killed in the process because of claims you make.
@Andrew I don’t like that we can’t be verified without exposing part of our identity. A majority of users here are here anonymously. Having a verified feature that exposes our picture only to be labeled as real and not a catfish doesn’t seem worth exposing my identity to thousands of random people online. I come here because I’m anonymous and can express myself freely. If this was a dating site I could see the importance of verification, but this is just a social platform.
@MeisterAndrew [quote]when it comes to trusting who the user claims to be in their shared photos[/quote]
If you are not a user who shares photos of themselves, then you do not have to worry about users trusting whether or not you are the person claimed to be in shared photos.
@Andrew You don't get it. You are making claims that some users are more trusted than others. That is an inherently false claim to make on a site like this. As said this isn't a dating site where you verify the identity of a person. The way this is set up is the problem.
The only thing people asked for was a verification for being male or female so they DON'T HAVE TO MAKE THEIR PHOTOS PUBLIC. That is the whole point of verifying. If people want to show their photos are really theirs they can do so on your own accord and some here already do so but to make it a feature just shows you're missing the boat.
@MeisterAndrew [quote]@Andrew You don't get it. You are making claims that some users are more trusted than others. That is an inherently false claim to make on a site like this.[/quote]
@Andrew It's not what I interpret. It's how it could be interpreted. The word trust shouldn't even have been mentioned.
I said what I wanted to say. The only thing some were asking for is a system to verify they are really male or female, mostly females, without publicly showing their identity. Not something to show they really are who they claim they are in their pictures that can then be stolen and put on other sites.
This neither adds anything that wasn't available before nor is it usable by those that asked for it. Cheers
Exactly. And after the Facebook fiasco, you'd think SW would tread very carefully into such waters. But apparently it's "Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead."
SW-User
@Andrew In my opinion it does add a great deal of trust. The check mark only validates the particular photo used for verification. Photos in your albums could be entirely different so uploading a copy manually does not verify it.
@SW-User Thanks for the feedback. The concern about the "Friends" option, is that a user's Friends list is a very small sub-set of users from which to verify their identity by.
As mentioned, some users may also have "0" or very little friends in their list, while it doesn't stop them from using the "Verify by Friends" setting.
I do understand your point regarding the photos in albums not matching.
The reason why I opted for the last option as "Staff Only", is because I've received a lot of feedback from members who are willing to verify themselves, but prefer that their photo is not visible to anyone but staff.
So to keep from us bloating to 4 or more different Verification badge modes, I opted to omit the "Friends" option.
I do understand that the "Friends" option is an extra layer of security upon the "Staff Only" option, but my understanding is that there are more users who prefer staff only verification, and those users would share images of themselves on their Friends only albums if they ever wish to.
SW-User
@Andrew Maybe I don't understand the verification process entirely. Is there more to it than confirming the person in the photo is the account owner? If not, it makes much more sense to show the check mark on the photo rather than on the profile. That would solve all privacy issues too: the mark is visible to the people who can see the photo.
@SW-User [quote]Is there more to it than confirming the person in the photo is the account owner?[/quote]
This was the original/main idea for having this feature. However, I understand that this is largely a site of users who choose to remain mostly or partially anonymous.
Many are interpreting this "Verified Badge" as a status of trust on SW, rather than simply a verification that the person is who they claim they are in shared photos.
My latest suggestions are attempts to help other users who do not feel comfortable about making their identity public, not feel alienated and deprived of having a similar badge also.
[quote]If not, it makes much more sense to show the check mark on the photo rather than on the profile. That would solve all privacy issues too: the mark is visible to the people who can see the photo.[/quote]
I didn't understand this completely, but the idea is to have the verified photo very easily accessible. It would be difficult to notice, or even know that a user is photo verified, if this image were hidden away in their albums.
Where are you suggesting the verified photo should be?
SW-User
@Andrew Thank you for the clarification. So the check mark is intended to convey two messages:
1) Rest assured that my identity has been confirmed. 2) This is what I really look like.
The icon can stay where it is, but only needs two versions: with or without a link to the photo. It doesn't really matter how many others can see the photo, just whether you can see it or not. A Friends Only album without having friends has never been an issue, so I don't see why it would be for the verification photo. It would just come down to the same as Staff Only until you add friends.
On a side note: is it being considered to add "Verified users only" to all privacy options?
[quote]The icon can stay where it is, but only needs two versions: with or without a link to the photo. It doesn't really matter how many others can see the photo, just whether you can see it or not. A Friends Only album without having friends has never been an issue, so I don't see why it would be for the verification photo. It would just come down to the same as Staff Only until you add friends.[/quote]
I'll try to explain in another way.
The initial purpose of the Badge was to help verify whether or not a SW user who shares photos of themselves (or claiming to be them) is actually the same person in said photos.
It was a feature aimed for those who are already open about sharing images of themselves, to help combat scrutiny.
However, based on user feedback, we can see that many other users (who do not share images of themselves) feel left out not having such a badge.
[i](I think maybe you understood these parts already)[/i]
The initial "One Badge" idea would work perfectly for this purpose.
[sep]
To help alleviate this imbalance, we are proposing the idea of various levels of badges.
With each decreasing level however, there is less ability across the site to validate whether or not a person appearing in shared photos is the same as the SW user.
Lets say a user is constantly posting photos on SW of a pretty, model looking lady, claiming to be themselves, the verification helps to validate whether or not they are being honest.
[b][u]• Publicly Verified - Verification Photo visible to all SW Members[/u][/b]
This means that each and every user of SW can compare the "Public Verified" photo to those the user is posting around daily on the site. Which means, highest level of Validation that the user is being honest.
[b][u]• Visible to other Verified Users - Verification Photo only visible to other users who have also verified up to this level.[/u][/b]
This means that only other users who are verified can compare and validate whether or not the user is the same person claimed in shared photos. In this case, there is a much smaller set of members able to compare and validate their authenticity, however, it is better than none, "Staff Only" or "Friends Only".
[b][u]• Visible to SW Staff Only - Verification Photo only visible to SW Staff.[/u][/b]
This would be the lowest level of Public photo verification, as only staff can compare and validate if the user is the same as claimed in shared photos. Naturally, staff do not spend time analyzing who is fake or not, so users would have to use much more discretion when assuming someone who has this "Grey Badge" is the person claimed in shared photos.
[u]The aim of this latest suggestion was:[/u]
1) To be more inclusive of all/most site members, by allowing those who do not wish to show their face publicly to also have some level of a Verification Badge.
2) Allow the Badge Tires indicate how much discretion users should use in assuming a verified user is the same claimed in their shared photos.
[b]As to your suggestion of "Friends Only". [/b] As I mentioned, this one would definitely [u]not be more verifiable than "Visible to other Verified Users"[/u], and opens up loopholes where users have 0, very little, or only fake friends on their Friends list.
Additionally, there are users who prefer to only be seen and verified by staff, and not "Friends Only".
So from what I see, it would either be best to omit the "Friends Only" option, or add it as an additional level, of which I prefer not to clutter things further.
[b]HOWEVER... I believe I got an idea from your feedback.[/b]
I think it may be a good idea to [u]have some checkbox option for the other two lower verification levels, which allows all of your Friends to also see your verified image[/u].
I do understand your point about this, and the benefit it can have.
As "Friends" are the most important group of people to be honest about your identity to.
The reason why I omitted "Friends" in my idea, is that it is an easy group to cause validation loopholes (with the user having little to no legitimate friends on SW).
Many users already bypassed the SW verification using take pics. It defeats the purpose. Also only being able to recover the account if you post public photos is blackmail. Users have lost their trust in SW. If people didn't want to be anonymous they would just use Facebook
@Andrew [quote]If you are not a user who shares photos of themselves, then you do not have to worry about users trusting whether or not you are the person claimed to be in shared photos.[/quote]
🙄
Sharing photos of ourselves doesn't mean we are looking to hook-up with someone.
Do you think everyone who has a Twitter or Instagram account is looking for hook-ups?
@MeisterAndrew [quote]The only thing some were asking for is a system to verify they are really male or female, mostly females, without publicly showing their identity. [/quote]
Step one is the photo thing.
Step two will probably be asking for verification of age since photos could be from anytime in one's lifetime.
What about people who say they're from a given country.
