@arturkiulian yeah... most dissapointing that because of such fraudsters suffer really good projects

@mikeorren thats just fallback. Here is how it looks like when campaign have prediction: https://www.producthunt.com/tech...

@creotiv I get that. What % of campaigns have predictions? I'd also say that the fallback isn't useful with this level of data. Better to just call the campaign "unrated."

@mikeorren we processed about 100-150campaigns on both platforms, started from fraud.

@riyadhalnur Yellow saying that it medium risk, and also when campaign not processed by us and have only user votes. Do you think when campaign risks based on user votes it should be other color? and which? Also your question showed to me that we have bug that should be fixed today. Cause some of the campaigns shouldnt have user votes cause thay too old(made before our launch). So thank you for helping us with this))

@creotiv Haha glad to help albeit unintentionally. It's not the colour that I'm worried about. Anytime, you let users decide, there will be strong biases in either direction (this is a problem with most things on the internet and I'm not blaming you guys here). I don't know if you take into account if the campaign is by someone who have had other successful campaigns (this is a possible indicator) but there are so many data points and it'd be a nightmare any day making sense of all of them. Regardless, it's great what you guys have been able to do so far. Kudos to you and the team (pun intended).

@riyadhalnur Yeah it's hard to get all this information to one decision, but someone should do this, cause number of fraud campaigns increasing with each year, and it's sow distrust in people's hearts that basically killing spirit of crowdfunding. We want that crowdfunding be like in the first years, when it was help hand to interesting project to growth up. About user decision you are right. Do you think better to set just title "Unrated" without any voting?

@riyadhalnur Thanks, we'll think about that)

@volodarik We use two-step mechanism. First our algorithms get data and process it making draft report. Then area experts look at this report and verify/update it. In such way we make result more accurate and more faster. Yes, of course owners can contact us, and this would be much better, cause we will get info from the first hands. But still this does not negate the general inspection.

@creotiv @volodarik I'm skeptic of how well an algorithm can ascertain those things. What kind of data does it actually look at? at the moment it only says how many users think that the campaign is not reliable. This is out of how many? With ~59 users with the extension, how do you get this info (I think I know, I just want to make sure)? it must not be from submissions from users with the extension.

@creotiv @volodarik PS: it would be nice to get to know why they think that it's unreliable

@joantune @volodarik we use fallback for campaigns that still not processed by us, in such case user will see users voting mechanism that you are talking about. If we process campaign then user will see something like this. Fraud: https://www.indiegogo.com/projec... OK: https://www.kickstarter.com/proj...

@joantune @volodarik We thought about comments, but then we will get problem with filtering swearing from it and other things, and it's not that thing that we wanna do right now. So maybe in feature.

@lisadziuba and also time hope

@serkanplay Just look at the Triton or Laser shaver to understand that not. Not all people knows physics/mechanics/bizdev/etc. they just see a cool thing and thats all

@clemmakesapps yeah of course. that's another reason why we are doing this. Cause we have needed expertise, that media sometimes doesnt have.