the vote review it's shit, i really don't understand who i'm voting....... if the scammer or the scammed.....
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah really strange, I've come upon so many cases when both have so many -reps, so you either don't know who is the scammer or some scammer got scammed as well lol. Scammerception! :P :D
Comment has been collapsed.
When it's not obvious, I just click on Skip and move on to the next one
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, it is not obvious that the displayed name is the commenter and not the commented.
But to be honest, what they ask us to vote for : rejecting simple comments like "scammer" can be scripted by checking if comments are less than 10 characters long or not...
Comment has been collapsed.
indeed, just auto-remove all negative comments that have less than 10 or 20 characters. I see no reason why anyone would leave -rep without explaining in detail what happened.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can't find my trade threads when I use the search options
Comment has been collapsed.
I have no problem finding them. What are you using for search term?
Comment has been collapsed.
What's the reason for now publicly revealing the authors name + picture on the vote section? It used to be anonymous on launch, which I found very good, I don't get why this has been changed..
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe it's because people complained that the reviews were "taken out of context", and they needed to see the rep of the reviewer as well as the person being reviewed (along with other reviews) to accurately determine the usefulness of the reviews.
Not saying I agree with that approach - just giving the reason why.
Comment has been collapsed.
well i agree with it as long as it still gets reviewed prior to the actual deletion of the reviews. not literally check each individual, but make sure there wasn't apparent abuse.
even though several of them say just "-rep scammer" being able to look into it, you can even see they are both economy banned and steamrep banned but the 5x -rep were all so generic with zero details the anonymous route would of eventually cleaned a very apparent scammers -rep all away. whereas with all those details and information, most users would probably notice those same details and most of those generic scammer comments can still remain.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't trade. Too much of a pain in the ass for me.
I was just trying to answer geo's question. :X
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah, i've only done one trade in the last 18months. and that was because i managed to creep upto 299 rep and sat there till it drove me nuts. i gave away a game for something i didn't even need just to hit that clean 300 =)
but.. just giveaways now, i'm too lazy for trading anymore. xD
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree that it should have remained anonymous. Now, I'm trying really hard not to be prejudiced against some reviews. :/
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm skipping a lot less of them now that I can put them in context.
And I'm now hopeful that the fake -rep I received might actually get removed. Because with the anonymous voting, there's no way anyone would have seen my reply or the impersonator warnings others had left on my profile and it would have sounded legit. (Heck, people might even have got the warnings removed, actually destroying the proofs I have)
Comment has been collapsed.
But now we're prejudiced. If a trader with 0 +rep and 1 -rep (from the guy he left a -rep comment to) has left a -rep comment in a known trader's profile that has a lot of +rep, we're gonna be prejudiced and think that there's no way he's saying the truth. What if he's saying the truth though?
Comment has been collapsed.
From what I've seen so far, when good traders go rogue they usually try to con as many as possible before going out. Single neg from a 0/-1 user are often people getting scammer by an impersonator, but if it's not actually clear from looking at both profiles I just skip to the next one.
Comment has been collapsed.
The way it was anonymous was disastrous, as MOST of the feedback be it valid or not was useless and still is without viewing the parties involved (user-name > link / Permalink). Now it takes slightly more time to vote the way it should most likely be.
(There is no helping the difficult/unclear ones anyway, but this takes at least care of the obvious ones which comprise many.)
Comment has been collapsed.
But now you'll vote with prejudice. You'll see the feedback of both parties and believe the person with the most +rep. :/
Comment has been collapsed.
Lets take that "prejudice" and call it basic information + 200 rep won't help if you have - 16 that means somethings definitely up, if there was additionally a trade ban and/or the way less informational, but sort proving one's immaturity the vac ban ... that's all information that can be used at a glance to somewhat access whether their full of shit or not.
Besides there's so many users, personally i don't care who they are - and so won't most, but they'd still play the game of
wanting to figure out "who da bad guy". Weighing that little prejudice that is possible but mainly basic information against
the value of it is a no brainier (esp. with whats given) ... thats why it changed from anon > openly visible.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's still prejudice. You decide mostly based on feedback, rather than the information given by the comment. Also, when voting, I found 2 comments of 2 friends of mine, so I allowed them, since I knew they were telling the truth - still, if I didn't know who made these comments, maybe I wouldn't be so fast to judge. Still, the fact that I could see who made each feedback, helped me in a case where a moron would write scammer and include a completely IRRELEVANT steamrep profile of a scammer that had no relevance to the guy that he left a -rep comment to (and he did that to multiple people).
Comment has been collapsed.
I've seen cases when someone used a large group of friends to gang up on a user and deliver -20 feedback to an otherwise clean profile. Now imagine seeing that +1, -20 profile while voting on reviews.
Comment has been collapsed.
Seems exceptional and in addition very unfortunate, unless its blatantly obvious and reported. The affected user is
most probably toast, by the time were accessing their review, they haven't probably visited the site in years ...
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm pretty sure I've seen one of those already. A lot of generic "Scammer!" on profile with not a single one of them explaining their situation is a definite red flag. Looking at both sides, it became obvious that it was a group effort.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've seen a specific profile, while voting on reviews, that many friends of a steamtrades user have left negative feedback. They were all like "scammed my friend (name goes here)".
Comment has been collapsed.
I always vote to remove those. Feedback is meant to represent your own experience with that trader, not someone else's.
Comment has been collapsed.
When cg allowed to show user names and links, I can understand why, but this leaves the door open for buddies helping each other out just because of the username and not because of the content of the post and it also leaves the door open for phishing links to be shown, clicked and get voters into trouble.
Comment has been collapsed.
I find this an improvement actually.
There are a lot of false -rep reports made by the scammers to hurt their victims even more.
Now we have the context to remove vote those false ones and protect the genuine users.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know there are a lot of fake -rep, but still, I wasn't voting with prejudice before. Now, it makes it so hard to believe someone with low feedback against someone with a lot of feedback.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're not voting to judge who is right and who is wrong, but to determine if the feeback meets some minimum requirements.
I'd rather go back to anonymous if people are taking sides.
Comment has been collapsed.
but what if all 6x of the -rep feedbacks on an actual scammer (economy, community, & steamrep banned) are so generic and uninformative? they all would of been removed going off the "minimum requirements" with anonymous voting. we'd effectively clean up 90% of the actual scammer rep as well, because prior to this system people were very generic and uninformative when leaving their feedback.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're not voting to judge who is right and who is wrong, but to determine if the feeback meets some
minimum requirements. I'd rather go back to anonymous if people are taking sides.
You got that wrong for sure ... if that would be the case, why didn't cg run a script that invalidates every negative comment with 1 to 4 words? Those feedback's are literally useless without the information provided by counter feedback and profile information's.
Hell you could remove 85%+ of all the negative feedback if you'd be looking for sentences with actual context you could rely to.
Comment has been collapsed.
What if it's like "-rep Impersonator of DominusFerrus"? As you can see, not every short comment is useless. ;P He could delete all the comments that only include the word "scammer" though.
Comment has been collapsed.
How is "-rep Impersonator of randomperson" - good for anything? How would you know the user giving that feedback isn't a scammer bum-hole with +2 / -7 rep (and that is most of the time darn obvious) + in addition to the other rep of "randomperson" that might shed more light.
Comment has been collapsed.
What more do you want? If someone sees that you have an impersonator, he'll go to his steamtrades profile and say "-rep Impersonator of DominusFerrus". He won't need proof or something, if your impersonator still has your picture and your name.
Comment has been collapsed.
https://www.steamtrades.com/vote
Allow reviews that...
- Explain the reasoning behind their negative trading experience
Remove reviews that...
- Do not sufficiently describe their trading experience, but rely on general statements (e.g. 'Scammer', '-Rep', 'Bad trader')
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah the short "manual" in the votes is there to get a "sense of direction".
But apply that automatically and i daresay you've successfully purged 80% or more of all negative feedback.
Can't tell what cg's actual intent is, but rebuilding the rating sys. or training people to write better feedback might be part of it.
What i can't see if that is going to change anything, given the user-base and the people that usually manage to get scammed ...
a proper negative feedback would most certainly require a template for people to follow suit.
Comment has been collapsed.
What I mainly wanted to say is that if someone is giving their side of their story, but you don't believe it for some reason, you shouldn't vote to remove it. You can have your opinion on what happened but it shouldn't influence the vote, this isn't what we are voting on.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hm, then I kinda misinterpreted some parts, thanks for the clarification
Comment has been collapsed.
Assuming moderators will be instated (I think it's what cg is planning), the community could weed out most negative reviews, while mods could look into the remaining ones. Ideally any approved review would be forwarded to these mods.
Comment has been collapsed.
I get that the vote should only be based on the information given not on sympathies. I was mainly stating, that most feedback-ratings are/were so awfully uninformative, that you can't/couldn't do anything with them, but blindly shove them through the "cookie-cutter" for the few hours it was anonymous - that is why it is not anymore.
Comment has been collapsed.
that's what i keep saying.. the first cple hours mostly were just "remove" but now ~50% of even the "Scammer -rep" ones are even valid after you see they clearly were due to their current economy ban as well as a steamrep warning.
prior to this new system there was no real reason to write more then just "-rep", especially after seeing 5x other people only write that, they would almost feel weird for being the only one that explained their horrific experience with the scammer. i know if i were scammed i personally wouldn't of really wanted to share the details of my stupidity., just would of wanted to keep it short and simple to warn others.
obviously now with this system in place people will leave better reviews and it will be much much easier and clearer as we progress forward into the newer feedbacks, but on the old ones those details really really matter. -- after we are fully caught-up, i'd say it probably could go back to anonymous personally IF there is a template added in order to fill-out a negative report.. i don't feel like coming up with a hypothetical list of questions, but make a negative report almost like filling out a form of questions.. how was experience, did you receieve your game but later it was revoked, etc etc.
Comment has been collapsed.
now with this system in place people will leave better reviews and it will be much much easier and clearer as we progress
Yup that is all it is what matters, in a nutshell.
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem with those "minimum requirements" is that a good number of legitimate feedback is going to be purged.
Removing comments like "-rep for -rep" or "lowballer" doesn't require context. But punishing someone for reporting a scammer in a way that's considered too short is not okay. Some people barely speak English and they're not going to write a novel as a feedback.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sniffff, I want more reviews to vote on. ;_; I have reached the limit.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not crazy about the new site.
Reading reputation feedback is more confusing now. It's easier to forget who's who.
Search function is still barebones; can't make exact searches or exclude words from searches. Ex. I want "The Forest" but not "The Forest of Doom".
Having separate message alerts is more inconvenient and will surely result in slower trades. Would like trade alerts on SG page as well.
Can't go to last page in Reputation. Would like more numbered page links to jump ahead to instead of only page at a time.
Personally I don't like the blue background that much. I think the SG style is easier to see and more appealing.
It was way better as an all-in-one site.
Comment has been collapsed.
the search function has been like this here already, though I don't mind it, since I reckon it would be impossible to "fix" this, as The Fortress is part of The Fortess of Doom and I don't know of any search function that would be able to distinguish between those therms unless one seperates their game titles in their lists, e.g. by adding a ";" at the end or another character (which of course the peorson who searches for it would have to know). Other than that I agree to what you said already, I'm not too happy about the new trades site either.
voting on reviews is really confusing + it shows me comments from 3yrs+ ago all the time instead of "mixing" it a bit. I've just tried it now but seriously, I don't see why I or any other user should bother doing this crap?
also, the new steamtrades site is a mess on my phone browser
Comment has been collapsed.
They could just use google's search functions. Use quotations for exact searches; e.g. "The Forest", and use a dash before a word to exclude it; e.g. -of -Doom
I'm surprised nobody else has complained about the search. It's really annoying if you're looking for the first game in a series and there's no way to filter out all the sequels. For example, if you're looking for Far Cry 1. Most traders won't have it listed as "Far Cry 1" in their trades. It will just be "Far Cry". If you search for "Far Cry" you will also get results for Far Cry 2, 3, 4, Primal, etc. and it's very time consuming to go through all those results.
Comment has been collapsed.
There was a label below the user name that indicated whether their suspended permanently or not ... haven't seen that anymore, nor is it
implied in any of the stats (as in the pics below, Economy Ban is for steam not steamtrades). Looking it up this way over steamgifts is too long winded and confusing as its supposed to be separated. > https://www.steamgifts.com/user/id/76561198077590817
Whats the way to tell if their perma-banned now?
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 yeah. We need to see the SG suspended status on Steamtrades as well.
And on SG I like too see the reputation of a user again.
Comment has been collapsed.
The whole point was to make Steamgifts and Steamtrades completely separate sites. Just because someone didn't follow the rules on SG doesn't make them a bad trader. Heck, even konrad actually has a lot of positive rep on there. (And is not banned if I see correctly)
Comment has been collapsed.
A little feedback on the profile page of steamtrades.
I'm missing the steamname / steamgifts name of the user.
If you look here, you don't see the name anywhere.
https://www.steamtrades.com/user/76561197962290563
Comment has been collapsed.
This is done intentionally to force traders who receive your Steamtrades URL to cross-check the user's Steam level and the amount of games before proceeding with the trade.
Comment has been collapsed.
I miss the old search function, to search in the title of a thread
Comment has been collapsed.
Can't we search in the trade titles anymore? It was useful for searching some keywords like "free" or "any".
Comment has been collapsed.
I missed the "last page" option when viewing a thread's comments, and also missed that you can't see anymore your original message on the reply, as we could before. So I don't remember which game I asked without clicking a link.
Comment has been collapsed.
The last page button is back, linking to page=last. It works everywhere aside from the general list of trades, and the messages page which are setup to exclude this feature.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ugh. When's the official API coming?
(please kill me)
Comment has been collapsed.
The number of unread messages is really hard to notice. Maybe have something similar as on SG, or at least change the color of the button if there are messages.
Also, could the green/red color scheme be used on the rep on the My profile button?
Comment has been collapsed.
Ohhh, it changed again. It was in red earlier but not looking exactly like that.
At least cg is listening to our comments and trying to improve the site.
Edit: Or is that your dark style doing this?
Comment has been collapsed.
since now community votings are triggerred only by replies to the negative feedback, we somehow need to let more people know about it^^
Comment has been collapsed.
October 28, 2016 - Voting Update
 +
Allow reviews that...
Are related to a trade, and appear to be legitimate and well deserved. Occasionally a review will rely on general statements (e.g. 'Scammer', '-Rep', 'Bad trader'), or a user will reply, claiming they were impersonated and the review is invalid. In these situations, you'll need to investigate the evidence provided by both sides, view their profiles, and use your best judgement.
^ Great update - creates priority, also better context when there's little to none. Anyone active and interested in their trading
reputation, will be on to that very soon. Also noticed the reviews sort of load quicker/smoother than they did before (firefox).
Comment has been collapsed.
i just helped to remove fake rep on cg's profile. i'm feeling so special now.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm curious about one thing. When replying to a trade feedback, does the other person get a new message alert?
Comment has been collapsed.
The person that left mine edited theirs to a quite a lengthy one, after I left a reply, so they found out somehow. :/
Comment has been collapsed.
I keep having to vote on that same review. Does editing the review (or answer) reset the votes or something?
Comment has been collapsed.
If a negative feedback is actually removed, some day, but the user is so vindictive can they actually just post negative feedback again? Is there some kind of restriction to not allow negative feedback from the same user (which seems bad in questionably rare cases)?
I just thought it would be funny if that "work" to remove the feedback had no effect because of what kind of person they are.
edit: some reviews are an essay and I hope other people who care enough will actually vote on these
https://www.steamtrades.com/user/76561198043315722#yWgzQ
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 also want to know if they can leave the feedback again, because then all this is in vain.
Comment has been collapsed.
I won the giveaway for Oniken
At least in this case the first few words are already enough to know it's not valid
Comment has been collapsed.
I actually didnt like at all this update :( Prefer old one. And here what I most dislike: bad visible for new message if someone reply to your thread (make these notifications red, just like here); confirmation messages when you bump thread, mark all messages as read (its just 2 more no sence clicks, will be much better without it); and that pop up message, when you want edit, bump or close thread have bad possition, as for me. Why not make it like was before? Just right down after you click on that. And about that Negative Review Voting: I can say its very strange option, because, for example, anyone can just for fun click on any of those 3 button, even not read anything. So result will be not correct (yeah, some people are simply stupid)
I think, only 1 thing that I found interesting its animated logo :/
Comment has been collapsed.
Since the two sites are different, I believe ST now needs its own forums, so trade topics/suggestions/complaints stop getting posted on SG.
Comment has been collapsed.
too scared of a +1.... yet it needs it... okay fine, +1
scared for those who will be the mods/support of it though
Comment has been collapsed.
what is wrong with suggestions and so on getting posted here? i don't mind them, and more forums = more work for mods.
Comment has been collapsed.
They're 100% irrelevant to this site.
Those topics would just be posted there rather than here, and since both sites have support staff, it wouldn't result in more work.
It makes less sense to have suggestions/complaints/etc from an entirely different site posted here, and makes much more sense to keep items relevant to each site contained to their respective site.
Those who trade have to frequent that site anyway, and those of us who don't trade could do without trade topics posted here.
Comment has been collapsed.
well we didn't mean for the trade topics and the discussion topics to get mixed together, separate sections. the trade threads get bumped like crazy, but the discussions section is a different page entirely. don't know why that wouldn't work.
as far as staff, idk when but them sharing staff is contrary to everything we been told throughout this thread as to whom would be support for that site. i'd imagine this whole voting thing is part one of the vetting stage for staff. it's not suited simply cause it's not there yet though.
Comment has been collapsed.
it would depend on how large and trustworthy the staff chosen would be though in order to really even know if they could handle supporting that additional forum section. so no telling if it really is something that should or shouldn't happen, but imo a good suggestion. i'd rather not see a bunch of trade topics over here personally.
as well as for new users, they may not even be able to register a user account here, but could over there.. we don't know what the limitations are there, but here they had to have $X.XX value in order to startup an account. there it maybe $0.00 for all we know.
edit: the reason it's not already in place, is because there is no staff in place to moderate it.. makes total sense not to have it yet.
Comment has been collapsed.
so I don't think what you suggest would work unless Cg also implemented a Discussions section for ST
That is exactly what I am suggesting. "I believe ST now needs its own forums." Not sure how else I could have stated that. First you tell me there's no way it could work, then you tell me exactly how it could work ...
so it kinda makes sense that they would still share some stuff
It makes no sense to me that they would share anything. Otherwise, why make them separate sites at all? The same changes could have been implemented right here on SG. Even trade feedback was removed from SG, only further emphasizing my point.
And it doesn't look like ST has any dedicated support staff either, but that they share staff
That's irrelevant, and it's already been stated that ST would have support staff It wouldn't create any more work for support regardless of where the topics are posted. The same topics would be posted, it's just a matter of where they are posted. SG would end up with far fewer "I was scammed", bugs/suggestions that have nothing to do with this site, and misplaced trade posts or questions. They could be posted where they are most applicable, on SteamTrades forums.
Comment has been collapsed.
well, maybe you're right. i think i still need to seperate the two in my head. ^^
Comment has been collapsed.
Since I don't trade, it's definitely much easier for me to make the "separation" and want them separate.
Comment has been collapsed.
former trader here, and i can still see why it's better to separate them really. one does help promote the other to a degree, but separate the load to each is much better. i've already noticed quite a large improvement in database retrievals.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just a few remarks:
- I miss the 'new messages' icon from SG... I see it's already been mentioned. Readability is important.
- Editing my trade posts (or really writing/editing any post in general) has become very slow on Chrome Android and Opera Chromium for Windows (maybe all browsers). There must be some JavaScript executing in the background every time I move the cursor... Not ideal. At least please optimize the code. ^^
- When do negative reviews get removed 'automatically'..? I've seen that my lone review got 49 votes out of 57 in favor of removal, but it's still there.
Also... 57 votes?? Really? Are there really THAT many users on SG/ST? I would imagine only 1% would actually vote for neg reviews, and there are probably hundreds of thousands of recorded neg reps on the site... To have so many votes this early in the site's life... Impressive, really. Also, good thinking overall. The rules for posting -reps are now very clear, and they encourage users to post detailed explanations of what went wrong.
Comment has been collapsed.
It would be convenient to have a link leading from user's steamgifts profile to user steamtrades profile.
Comment has been collapsed.
here is userscript by Daerphen that does that: https://www.steamgifts.com/go/comment/7Kh0lh5
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you, it would do for now, but I wish there was native link.
Comment has been collapsed.
Page 7 of this discussion https://www.steamgifts.com/go/comment/Nahe7n7 has some reasoning why they are reluctant to add it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Lots of great improvements. Thank you!
I think it's great idea to allow voting on the negative reviews.
However, regardless of the results of the voting I think none of the reviews should ever be fully erased. Because first of all, even if the review is not determined "proper" by the community, it still tells us something about the person who wrote it (and sometimes vice versa). And for some of the reviews it's just nearly impossible to determine are they valid or not. I suggest that something like this should be done instead of removal:
-
"Voted for removal" reviews could be called "neutralized" or "disputed" instead. So they no longer count as -1, but 0
-
"Neutralized" review remains visible, but the voting score is shown with message something like this: "Neutralized based on community voting." or "Authenticity of this review is disputed in the community voting."
-
Instead of showing the reviews in the negative reviews section, maybe there should be third review category "Neutralized reviews" or something like that?
-
I think could even go so far that negative reviews can't be edited afterwards, only commented. This is to prevent capability to hide what's been said before.
-
In cases like fake and bullying type of reviews: neutralized review should no longer be shown in the recipient's profile, but it should remain permanently on the profile who sent it - along with recipient's comment/explanation if such is given.
(for example: I think it's useful to know someone has history of bullying others etc - maybe someone doesn't want to risk dealing with such person. If such reviews are removed from site, then it's like erasing the history log of that person's past bullying activities, and then months/years later users won't know/recall about it anymore.) -
In the opposite cases like 'negative review due to impersonation': neutralized review should no longer be shown in the sender's profile, but it should remain permanently on the profile who received it - along with comment/explanation when such is given.
(sometimes it is useful to have "proof" about someone who has been victim of impersonation etc)
edit: simplified the suggestions, added examples, fixed typos
Comment has been collapsed.
This is interesting to think about in regards to the way Steam recently changed their reviews system. You could possibly leave the text of negative reviews up, but no longer have them count towards the feedback score, if community votes found them lacking. In this way, you would retain some context for a person's full trading history, but you wouldn't negatively impact their overall score.
Comment has been collapsed.
And to complicate it even further: I want to vote on the voters ability to vote..If that makes any sense at all.
I didn't care much about the -1 rep on my profile because it was nonsense anyway. But then i read that if i replied on the -rep, it would let people vote on it, same way i was doing. I used the guidelines provided. So now i went back to see how the voting is going and apparently 5 people deemed the -rep oke. All this tells me is that some people are obviously trolling the system.
"Negative attitude from an comment." should never be a valid reason to -rep someone.
I do want to add that the majority is taking it serious as shown in the votes, but still..
94% of users voted to remove this review (72/77 votes)
Comment has been collapsed.
I have left several wrong negative review votes because of missclicks and such. Please make it so we can change our review votes for reviews we have voted on.
Comment has been collapsed.
Might have already been mentioned, but please add the username on the profile page.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hi SG, we're rolling out some updates to our trade section in the next 24 hours. These changes are mostly geared towards the separation of trades to SteamTrades.com, and improving on the feedback system. No major changes to the core of the trading system are happening in this particular update and the site will still maintain the familiar discussion based format. However, like most users, I'd like to see improvements in that area in the near future. Below is the upcoming announcement to be listed on SteamTrades.com, highlighting some of the more noteworthy changes.
User Reputation for All Steam Users
To help SteamTrades continue to grow as a leader in Steam user reputation, our site now allows reputation to be written for every individual with a Steam account. To leave a review for a user, simply visit our homepage and search for a Steam user using their Steam ID, Steam vanity name, or Steam profile URL. Once forwarded to their SteamTrades profile, you'll see an input box at the bottom of their profile allowing you to leave a review regarding your trading experience together.
Replies to Negative Reviews
If a user has left a negative review on your profile, SteamTrades now allows you to write a public reply to their review. This way you can better inform users visiting your profile about why that review exists, and at the same time it provides you with an opportunity to share additional details the user might have excluded from their review. Below a negative review on your profile you'll see a Reply button, which you can click to add your reply. Please note, replies are only available for negative reviews.
Negative Review Voting
To help improve the quality of negative reviews and to help remove negative reviews that do not meet our standards, we added a voting page, where users can vote on negative reviews from others in the community. Using the guidelines listed, users can vote on whether a negative review should be allowed, or whether it should be removed from our site. Reviews will be automatically removed if decided on by the community.
User Profiles and Safety Check
User profiles now contain a safety check. This data is updated hourly, and helps you to be aware of any Steam infractions a user may have against their account (such as VAC or game bans). As well, user profiles show when a user registered on Steam, when they were last logged into Steam, their Steam level, and their game count (if their Steam account is public). Combined with our user reviews, this data can help you better determine a user's overall reputation before trading.
Design and Interface
Our entire site has been redesigned and recoded with a wide variety of improvements. The changes allows for quicker replies, and overall faster load times. Our database is now separate from our sister site, SteamGifts. Users with previous trades or reputation have been automatically moved to our new site. However, with separate databases, this will mean usernames on SteamTrades may differ from those on SteamGifts, and suspensions on one site do not affect usage on the other. For that reason, profiles on SteamTrades link to Steam IDs, rather than usernames to help avoid confusion.
Comment has been collapsed.