Moderation of reports?

[NuCode]

Looking for Ganna Sovgut, i noticed that some report 10 points for simply finding a report, while as others report 5 for an actual spam abuse case.

I think simply finding a report does not validate severity 10. Hell even full blown spam doesn't validate severity 10 (was customer info leaked? was your business severely compromised?).

So i'd suggest some moderation based on the descriptions.
This could be crowdsourced as well. Tho eventually required meta-moderation (moderating the moderators).

It could be a simple show random reports choose what severity you think it is based on the information provided, and the final score is either a median or mean of the total?
Would be quite simple to code actually.

This would make the report scores more authentic, persistent and reliable.

[Zap5 Networks]

Agreed. I have a discussion on this matter here as well: https://fraudrecord.com/forums/index.php?topic=110.0

[thiswebhost]

Completely agree. Far too many hosts are trying to play detective and are submitting reports for POTENTIAL activities based on arbitrary criteria they use to determine whether they are LIKELY to be fraud, not whether they are ACTUALLY fraud.

For example, we recently had a new order from a person who had a recent fraudrecord report filed against them. The reason? They failed to provide a scan of their CC when asked. After 7 days the host just cancelled and refunded the order. Rather than blindly reject this order because of the existing FR report, we spoke with them and they told us that they didn't fail to provide the scan - they actually refused because they didn't want to have their card details potentially leaked from the host. I completely understand their concerns. Of course, the host didn't list this in their report and instead blindly assumed that it was because it was a stolen card.

The irony here is that they paid us with PayPal from a verified account, etc, and as a result we didn't need to verify any card details. We screened them as usual and everything looked good. There was absolutely no need for that report at all.

IMO, FraudRecord should only be used when actual, verifiable fraud or breach of policy has taken place. I appreciate people trying to use the service as a warning for others (came from proxy, couldn't verify card, used a fake name) but these reports ultimately come down to the competence of the person submitting them. Some people DO use proxies. Some people don't WANT to send you a copy of their credit card or photo ID. Some people DO have strange names. Not everything is black and white and sometimes proper fraud verification requires work. If all you're doing is relying on a system to do the work for you and you are accepting and rejecting orders based on how many points someone has, you're doing it wrong.

[oneilonline]

@Zap5 Networks - The thread should be merged. I will respond to this since this has a response and is more current.

However, it is also good info to know if the customer is still continuing their abuse, regardless of what method of abuse. Not only does it update the fraud record, but also increases their points. For me the higher the points the more threatening I feel.

I also think reports shouldn't expire, or allow the "customer" to change their info to circumvent Fraud Record history. I've seen reports go from 70-100+ points to 10-20 overnight.

[Zap5 Networks]

@oneilonline: I am confused by your response given the context of this thread. Are you supporting or against?

Also it's clear you are not familiar with how Fraud Record or WHMCS works. Fraud reports do not expire but can change over time based on changes to the client's recorded details (name, email, ip, etc) in your billing system. Also you can prevent clients from changing their contact information within WHMCS, this is not (and will not be) a feature of Fraud Record...