To Jay: A question of trust

This morning I read Anaid's interesting blog post about his meeting with Mikhail Tal.  It's a good story and worth reading but I was also interested in a response from Jay who said, I've set you as a trusted user so that any further blogs you write will get featured on our HOME PAGE!.

So I thinks to meself, thinks I, “What's this 'trusted blogger' caper? How does it happen? Who qualifies?”

 

Trust implies a lot of things:

• a belief in the honesty and reliability of others:  “I trust this boy comes from a good family.”

• expectation: "I trust you will bring my daughter home by midnight."

• confidence:  " I trust she will be in the same condition then as now.”

• a trust:  something given into the care of another person:  “She's my only daughter. Look after her.”

• trust in God:  “Please save my daughter from that young man's wandering hands.  Amen.”

• wishful thinking:  “I trust you're going to raise the baby yourself and not depend on your mother and me to do it for you.”

So, Jay, how does one qualify to become a trusted blogger? By years of trustworthy blogging?  By sheer luck?  By being discovered like a wanna-be movie starlet?  Or by avoiding posts like this one?

Basic Principle: The Chess.com staff wish to put forth the best possible product.

 

In general, the actions of the staff can be traced back to the Basic Principle. In this case, the links on the home page are part of the product put forth on chess.com. So the staff, in order to fulfill the Basic Principle, will make someone a "trusted blogger" as long as they believe this person's blog posts contribute to the best  possible product chess.com can put forth.

No doubt that if the blogger does anything that is contrary to this goal, the link from the front page could be removed. So there's not a great deal of risk in making someone a trusted blogger if they appear to be writing a good blog.  My guess is that it only takes a few good chess content blog posts and to be noticed by the staff. The last bit may involve some luck, or perhaps one could actually make a request (making your own luck, as it were).

Loomis wrote:

My guess is that it only takes a few good chess content blog posts and to be noticed by the staff. The last bit may involve some luck, or perhaps one could actually make a request (making your own luck, as it were).

---

Or perhaps make an indirect request by writing a post about trust.

BTW, and it scarcely needs saying, I love your blog, Loomis.  Great stuff.

Having met the old man (sorry Dozy, one old man to another), I can vouch for Dozy's trustworthiness.  When we last met, I had to insist on his sharing a drink of liqueur with me!  One not-so-trustworthy bone I've found is when he plays defensively (as in sheep-in-wolf's clothing gambit)... we had a game after the liqueur and he beat me fair and square with some deceptively quiet moves.  Also, having met his young wife with my young wife, it's clear that they do a better job "keeping the bastards honest" than the Australian Democratic Party on which the sun has just set!

chessknot wrote: Also, having met his young wife with my young wife, it's clear that they do a better job "keeping the bastards honest" than the Australian Democratic Party on which the sun has just set!

---

LOL ... but for the benefit of our overseas friends, the Australian Democrats were a minority party formed around 1980 on the slogan:  (Vote for us and) "Keep the bastards honest."  

Their strategy was to get a workable minority in the Senate and use this minority to bargain with both Government and Opposition with whom they would vote as the  occasion seemed appropriate.  They gradually lost influence failed to win any seats at the last election.  Their three remaining senators retired yesterday. 

And although politics doesn't have anything to do with trust (the sine qua non of this thread) that's what Chessknot was alluding to.

Dozy wrote:

Although politics doesn't have anything to do with trust (the sine qua non of this thread) that's what Chessknot was alluding to.

---

Hmmm... that sounds a bit like the "all pollies are liars" school of thought... not sure I agree with that!  Sure, there's no shortage of bastards who give us honest folks cause to be cynical about our politics but once in a while, some bloke (or sheila) comes along who tries very hard to restore our faith in good old fashioned values.  So far, I'd count Kevin Rudd among these.  Loomis, would you say Barack Obama or John McCain (based on what you've heard from them so far) are too?

No more politics, please. 

I think there's a politics group on chess.com somewhere if that what you want.

(My explanation was necessary because ChessKnot introduced Australian politics which would have been meaningless to anybody outside the country.)

I was slightly curious about the same thing but for the simple reason that, although it was an excellent chess posting, it was the person's first and only posting. There have been many - or at least several - people who have been writing consistantly about chess over a period of time without becoming trusted users. So, my curiosity isn't so much directly about the definition of trust (although it is indirectly, I guess), but about what guides the selection for said honor.

Batgirl raises a very pertinent question. While Anaid's singular contribution was a work of quality and immensely pleasurable in content, being granted trusted user status for it would appear to serve as a caution that trusted users may have little history of trusted use!

It is mostly as Loomis pointed out. If we find/read a good blog, we do a few things. We check the person's homepage, see what type of person they are in terms of occupation, maturity (age), chess experience/skill level, etc. If we find the person to be someone we can "trust" to not write something offensive or "lame", then we set them as trusted to get more interesting content on our homepage and to encourage them to write more interesting blogs/articles.  If someone has written a few good blogs, but has also written lots of lame ones, then they won't be set to trusted because we don't want ANY lame content showing up on the homepage. And yes, if you feel like you SHOULD be trusted, I guess you always good request it and we could check out your content/profile.

Thanks for clarifying it, Jay.  Cheers