[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 »
So, just to be clear, the Admins and mods don't need to have a picture up to have the verification icon? Remind me again, the point of that verification icon? And if you're brave, admins, try to justify this bullshit.
@RoboChloe I was thinking the same thing but to Nuno's credit he does and always has had a pic. Andrew says below he doe snot have to as SW admin and mods are exempt form it. i find that pitiful as that is not leading by example. The tare trying to force something on people that some want and have done others are very opposed to. Yes SW staff cannot sees to find pics of themselves?
There are only a handful of them. Can't someone call a meeting a one take a pic of each with a date, time stamp and such on it to be verified as they expect others to be???
In 24 hours admin has made this place a shitstorm with this issue. they have caused divisiveness where there was none- and , at times pitted user against user!
Have a nice weekend-or Monday to those in AU and NZ.
If there were no "fake hunters" on this site and everyone left the other the hell alone rather than cast dispersions on them none of this would be an issue. If there were no JarJar's the place would be better. But one's like that, that took matters into their own hands, brought this on.
What bothers me is that this is meant to be an "option for people who post pictures". Well then, if they don't post pictures, they have no business being verified! [i]If it's so optional, then why do the admins/mods feel like they [b]need [/b]to have it?[/i]
@RoboChloe I get what it is trying to address, but it only addressing one symptom of there issue- not the issue itself. it's a band-aid where a tourniquet is needed. And I would bet SW lacks the resources for any meaningful solution to this issue.
Look at some of the ladies fashion sites, Namely Maurice's and LOFT. They encourage us to post what we bought- poor a pic of ourselves wearing what we got-is that not photo sharing? A form of social media on a shopping site? And no one has any way of knowing if what is submitted is them or not. Maybe it is a neighbor, or a sister. And if I lose a log in- or password on small sites like those two , not to mention large ones like Amazon and so on, password or email is very easy to retrieve and I do not need to submit a pic of myself for it.
Niche sites smaller than this do NOT require a verification (with pic and date) for a lost email or password.
@Elandra77 it's as i said if certain people didnt have to be vigilantes with nothing else to do they never would have implemented it. The person you mentioned got in trouble for publically naming and shaming users. Was told to not do it anymore.
@TheSacredOne I know they were -and I was one of the ones that went to admin and said that person needs stopped. And I believe the have- but their partners in that act have not. OK--some have and some are no longer.
The vigilante issue is a good one and I believe these people behave that way.
There are two issues-the one you spoke of, the vigilantes. And the ones that truly do seek to deceive . they are separate issues and need addressed separately- not in a combined clusterfuck as this is.
@Elandra77 Why do you keep using words like "force" and "require"? We are not forcing anyone do verify, but instead we are providing options in case it happens that you lose your email and password, or if you want to prove others you are the person of the photos (if you have any on your albums). If you want to stay away from verification, feel free.
@RoboChloe What is wrong with admins and mods being auto-verified? It's not like we assign random users as moderators, and admins are the owners of Similar Worlds. You know that we are not like normal users, and there is no danger that we might use fake photos for catfishing...
@Nuno [quote]Me: "What bothers me is that this is meant to be an "option for people who post pictures". Well then, if they don't post pictures, they have no business being verified!"[/quote]
This was literally [i]right there in the replies to this comment[/i].
[quote]Nuno: there is no danger that we might use fake photos for catfishing.[/quote]
Not [i]strictly[/i] true. I don't know any of you, and I'm sorry, I'm not stupid enough to trust you simply because you have above average programming ability. 🤷
Also:[quote]Me: Some people object to there being this kind of formal verification on an anonymous site. That is a valid opinion.[/quote] I am one of those people. I believe that allowing this separates people. You are marking some as better than others. That is equivalent to marking the rest as lesser. We are all equal. Some of us are now just less equal than others.
If you want a more full overview of my opinion, you can look at my other comments/replies. I'm sick of repeating myself.
At the very least, I'll give you credit for what I believe are good intentions, and for actually talking to us. That's more than I'd expect on most websites.
I'm sorry if I come across as frustrated, but honestly, it's because I am. I give you money, and you give me this? Not particularly happy.
@Elandra77 [quote]I get what it is trying to address, but it only addressing one symptom of there issue- not the issue itself. it's a band-aid where a tourniquet is needed. And I would bet SW lacks the resources for any meaningful solution to this issue.[/quote] [big]^^This, exactly![/big] I understand that catfishing has been a problem here, and I appreciate that admin is trying to do something about it, but I feel that they're missing the mark. I wonder if they realize that this is actually a symptom of a bigger underlying problem.
@RoboChloe That's no problem and I do understand your frustration. We appreciate your feedback and I'm happy to hear it. We are definitely taking lots of notes of what our users are saying, and we are making some changes to the Verification system based on that feedback. I'm very sorry that you are not happy. We really didn't mean to make anyone unhappy, and we honestly had good intentions here.
@Nuno (I feel it is appropriate at this point to reiterate my friend @OfflineFriend's suggestion of having a beta site for testing new features with a small pool of users to be able to address as many concerns as possible before going live with new features)
@RoboChloe I fully agree. The problem with this system is that it was stated as some users being better than others and that will forever taint it and determine its purpose. There is absolutely no way to undo the damage that was done. The correct thing to do would be to just scrap the system and implement what was actually asked for namely gender verification.
Really the whole point of a verification system is that it should always be private. If people want to show they are real they can do that in private like they've always been doing up till now. There is no need for this system and different badges like they are proposing just continues to show they are missing the mark like @TeresaRudolph71 stated. While the real issue isn't being addressed I quite frankly don't actually feel welcome here any more.
@Nuno I know how much you care! Believe me, I do. One would be hard pressed to find another, on a any social media site, that cared as much, in an admin role, as you do with SW. I can say that until I am blue in the face and some will never believe me- and that is fine.
I am sure some are unhappy-a lot have ended their accounts. Something you would know much better than I. But this HAS causes distention and divisiveness among SW members- at times pitting one belief against another. No matter the level of caring there is.
Look, I am 61, a transwoman and a translesbian. When I was legally male I had body image issues- I never saw myself as anyone special. I was not ugly but I was not handsome. I had a family. Now I am alone as they are grown.
Now I am legally female and those body images issues I had, when male, are multiplied TIMES TEN! And while I get told a lot I am pretty(and that I look young and NOT 61) I do not see myself that way. I'm still no one special.
So the last thing I wish to do is put up a pic of myself to prove I am who I am.
And I think that feeling , for whatever reason is resonated with others who wish to remain a static image and not a pic.
Left unchecked, this policy draws a line in the sand, so to speak, of those who are credible;reputable and those who are suspect and may lack credibility.
A member, one who has logged out and not returned-has already called me a fake and a catfish and reported me as such--I've been down that road.
@MeisterAndrew [quote]The correct thing to do would be to just scrap the system and implement what was actually asked for namely gender verification[/quote]
Even photos won't be sufficient for some. So I'd imagine birth certificates will be next. But then there are those "in transition." What will be demanded so some can be satisfied in ruling out those members? Genital proof?
