Comments on: Trust decreasing among CouchSurfers?

By: Anu

Anu — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:57:59 +0000

Well, at least CS proved once again who they really are – hiding the “inconvenient truth” as soon as it’s uncovered – surely something for the still-believing but doubtful ambassadors and the like to see and learn from…

BTW hi to whomsoever of the inner circle observing this blog, thanks for outing yourselves once again.

By: Kasper Souren

Kasper Souren — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:53:55 +0000

I guess it could have been better to wait with posting this. Pretty sad it’s taken offline now.

By: adia

adia — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:25:20 +0000

Quality of Service
Oops! This page is not working properly. A bug report has been filed with our tech team and we expect to have this page available again as soon as the kinks are worked out. In the meantime you can check out the links above for more related info!

Hmm… the page is not available anymore (also no links from ‘mission statistics’ and ‘regional stats’). Was the page taken offline? Some time ago the amount/percentage of ‘negative’ experiences was stated on ‘mission statistics’ too, but as they increased, they have been removed from the page…

By: Kasper Souren

Kasper Souren — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:02:50 +0000

The trend is that average trust is decreasing. If it keeps decreasing the network.

The missing numbers don’t seem to be influencing the average trust. Here’s the complete info I got, in the spirit of transparency:
year week users online virtuality introductions users avg quality avg trust ΔNOC 2008 16 100.0% 6625 3890 1.526 0.370 70.7 2008 15 100.0% 14238 7345 1.506 0.377 131.7 2008 14 100.0% 14818 7591 1.490 0.379 134.6 2008 13 100.0% 16520 8201 1.527 0.388 149.0 2008 12 100.0% 13895 6952 1.500 0.387 124.2 2008 11 0 100.0% 12252 6291 1.479 0.379 110.7 2008 10 0 100.0% 12303 6490 1.493 0.392 115.3 2008 09 21397 69.7% 12796 6482 1.480 0.382 82.3 2008 08 67931 91.4% 11336 5875 1.483 0.376 2.6 2008 07 68544 90.7% 12484 6408 1.486 0.391 11.3 2008 06 68595 90.9% 11778 6215 1.469 0.409 6.6 2008 05 67239 91.2% 11201 5945 1.453 0.406 2.8 2008 04 66045 90.9% 10570 5998 1.479 0.415 7.3 2008 03 68639 91.3% 10757 5983 1.489 0.410 3.9 2008 02 30366 84.0% 9560 4872 1.503 0.410 42.0 2008 01 0 100.0% 13972 6425 1.484 0.417 113.5 2007 52 52884 91.9% 7749 4279 1.476 0.414 -3.5 2007 51 56283 90.9% 9332 5118 1.467 0.421 5.6 2007 50 59204 90.7% 10975 5500 1.480 0.422 8.8 2007 49 57732 90.2% 10309 5632 1.454 0.415 11.6 2007 48 58492 90.6% 10664 5500 1.454 0.413 8.2 2007 47 58283 90.2% 10335 5734 1.487 0.425 14.7 2007 46 56690 89.8% 10835 5762 1.492 0.429 18.0

By: mr e

mr e — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:51:28 +0000

Joe supposedly writes “In that case, it could be interpretted as a *positive* result: perhaps the ideal would be to take people who DON’T trust each other INITIALLY, and give them POSITIVE EXPERIENCES such that later they DO trust each other, or they start to trust other people from a new demographic MORE.”

Kasper follows with “Let’s just hope this trend does not continue.”

Yes, let’s hope that positive experience and an increase in trust does not grow in a place it didn’t exist before. What a horrible world that would be!

Also, the page you’re getting your facts from is obviously either being worked on right now or broken. Right at about the point where you cite the decline in trust is where there were supposedly zero members counted online. I see that you happened to have omitted that from your copy/paste job. I know it doesn’t completely support your case to include that or admit that something might be wrong with the rest of the page but in the spirit on the transparency that you claim to stand behind I’m just letting the rest of your audience know.

Flame away, OCS.