[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 »
SW, a site where you're meant to be able to be anonymous, is now punishing people for making that choice. Yes, it is still a choice, but you're making it unnecessarily disadvantageous to not be verified.
Also. Making some people more trusted, is entirely equivalent to making others less trusted. This. Is. A. Bad. Idea.
@RoboChloe If you lost your email and password last week you'd still be fucked. I don't see what's changed? An optional, extra retrieval step is a new feature, not the removal of an old one. I may be wrong though.
@Jackaloftheazuresand There's no reason for it to be unrecoverable before this "verification". There's no reason sw can't have us enter an alternative email address or use security questions to recover an account... you know, like almost every other site does.
the issue has absolutely nothing to do with recovering the account or not. there's all kinds of "recoverable" options to implement that don't collide with privacy neither require anykind of photos. it's blackmailing. if you don't verify and upload personal pictures then you can't recover like the other users. that's discrimination.
Going from "I'm going to punch you no matter what", to "I'm going to punch you unless you give me private information", is maybe a mild improvement. That doesn't mean either of them are acceptable.
@Jackaloftheazuresand no you didn't. there's laws. http://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/article-9-processing-of-special-categories-of-personal-data-GDPR.htm
@RoboChloe Sure, but that's not holding accounts hostage.
You're identifying an issue with the status quo which has always been there. It's a reasonable one to point out. A second form of account recovery is a good thing.
But introducing picture-related verification is not holding accounts hostage. It's a failure to fix an existing feature, not the creation of a new problem.
that doesn't make it okay. I'm talking about morality, not legality. I'm not saying they [i]can't[/i] do what they're doing, I'm saying it's a dick move.
@RoboChloe I’m not saying it’s a perfect solution but it’s not like you suddenly lost the ability to recover your account unless you provide a picture. There is a really important distinction between those two things.
