[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 »
[quote][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] [/quote]
You mean it hadn't been mentioned until today? The news is still filtering through so not everyone is up to speed.. But that aside, the 'alternatives' to account verification would come before a photo mandatory 'option'.
You still haven't given any reasonable or valid reason why you're putting this out in the first place. Anti catfishing and member verification are not good reasons and as I said earlier easily circumvented. So what ARE the reasons for having members' mug shots (that might not be their own) on your data base and this site?
The problem: 'Fake' identities' and 'Catfishing' Welcome to the internet.
I've been online since about 1995. Back then AOL was arguably the leader in ISPs to the extent that many believed the only way that you could access the internet was AOL, they were ubiquitous was the thinking. AOL never tried to discourage that notion either, why would they?
But they milked it with literally dozens of chatrooms and threads that covered everything, long before Facebook, twitter, Instagram and tumblr. Some used their real names but certainly not everyone, and regulars in the chat rooms just knew each other by their handles often never knowing true identities (Though I met and married my ex wife because of an AOL chatroom!), there was also a very deep feeling of 'family' too, I know this because in a 'pub' chatroom I belonged to, an authority on an historical author passed away and we only knew him as Tim Salmon. I have no idea to this day if it was a pseudonym or his real name, but a good friend of his (known in real life) told us he'd passed away due to illness he never mentioned to anyone. The real loss was palpable.
At the other extreme the nasty and the downright evil trawled the rooms looking for easy prey. But the 'reporting' back then was quite robust, AOL had lots of mods and admin staff (I personally met a couple of them, but that's another thread-to do with meet ups!) and they surprise surprise were human, just like us!
On another forum that I was on (recently closed-reason not clear) several years ago, the owner announced that a certain member had been absent because the FBI had asked to look at this individual's content (on that and apparently other forums) as he'd been arrested and charged with child molestation. NOTHING that he'd posted would even remotely suggest that he would be of that sick mindedness. He talked about music, concerts, food recipes, fixing cars; Pretty much run of the mill stuff that everyone does. Hiding in plain sight. He was subsequently imprisoned and still is as far as I'm aware.
My point?
My point is if you want to stop it you can't. Not with presenting photos you can't..But what you CAN do is give more options for reporting disturbing/borderline criminal/overtly criminal postings.
Do you really think that someone (for example) who posts their 'interest' in spanking children with various implements if telling the truth might not be an abuser of children? Sure they pretend to sound almost matter of fact and nonchalant about it, but child abusers do. They have a 'normality' that does not tolerate any descent to what they perceive as acceptable. I know, because once open a time I was a volunteer for an organization that received calls from adults and young people who had been abused and conditioned to endure what they had, as 'normal' and 'our secret'.
I fully accept that what I just typed will have hit a raw nerve to similar victims and I apologise for anything that has awoken; But I do not apologise for reporting the sick bastards who continually post this stuff and NOTHING is done by the admin to remove it. WHY? Free speech? What about the freedom that was and still is denied to those who suffer because of this filth?
I fully accept you have a minimal mod and admin team, but if there's a will there's a way. It can be done and done right.
@HerKing I knew a lot of the AOL mods and used to eat lunch with them when I was traveling for my job. They were amazingly caring and they took their jobs seriously. I think the admins and mods here really do care, and I don't think they will be able to please everyone. I had never thought about it from the perspective Elandra brought out. I did know some of her history because I have known her since EP but I also know she is generally a very private person so for her to comment in the way she did made my heart go out to get and others even more. I can see why she wouldn't want to be singled out because she isn't verified but at the same time has been very honest about who she is with friends and acquaintances here (with me personally) Why would her not having a check next to her name impact me. I dont think it would because I have known her since probably the early.2000's but that doesn't mean everyone would and for that reason, it does concern me.
@HerKing [quote]But what you CAN do is give more options for reporting disturbing/borderline criminal/overtly criminal postings. [/quote]
I agree, I have seen so many users here that should be booted off of SW not because they they hurt my feelings or that they said something I didn't agree with, those type of people I can block and move one, but the users who spread fake information and who are abusive or suspicious behavior don't get flagged.
I was a little disappointed when half of my reports where rejected because the admins thoughts I reported them out of spite but they were for good reasons and this made my anxiety act up and I also tend to over think and I thought that they would ban me if I kept reporting people so I actually used to hesitate or not report awful users at all. This is the main reason why people leave the site.
