Mars Market addresses
Three published addresses for the same market. Copy rather than retype, and check the signature once you are through.
Address 1
marsautkudspgk6j23cxdtrk36ae4fpis2eoe7izu5y2rsksvmfji2ad.onion
Address 2
marshjhtog245vzjzcicnmv2ci6yljibvdm4pngq5kmkfvcutppboxad.onion
Address 3
marsiujka6lrsaqpnxiwvknthhzsrlmq77mnl2fi62guc4lwxif65syd.onion
This list is published, not monitored. An address that opens is not an address that is genuine, and the check that settles it takes under a minute.
Reference › Procedures
Leaving feedback
A small step that most people do badly, in a system that is more trustworthy than open reviews and skewed in predictable ways.
- What this step is
- Recording an outcome against a completed order, visible on the vendor profile afterwards.
- How to prepare
- Nothing, beyond having actually received and assessed what you ordered.
- What you will see
- A rating and a free text field. The free text is the part that carries information.
- How it works
- Feedback attaches to a completed order, so producing a hundred false entries costs a hundred transactions. That single property makes it far more reliable than any open review system.
- How long it takes
- A minute, and it is worth spending two.
- What you will experience
- A pull toward being generous, because a rating affects somebody you dealt with and the encounter is fresh.
- What can go wrong
- Nothing to you. The failure is systemic, in that the whole corpus leans optimistic for the reasons below.
- Benefits and limits
- It measures whether something arrived. It is read as measuring whether a vendor is good, which is a different question.
The four biases
| Bias | Effect on what everyone reads |
|---|---|
| Timing | Usually left on arrival, before anything is known about quality. It measures delivery more than the thing delivered. |
| Silence | Unhappy buyers frequently open a dispute instead of leaving feedback, so the worst outcomes are under-represented. |
| Pressure | Both sides know a rating affects future trade, which pushes ambiguous experiences upward. |
| Averaging | A headline number hides the shape, and the shape is what a reader wanted. |
Writing something useful
- Say what actually happened, including timings. Somebody reading later wants the specifics far more than the adjective.
- Separate delivery from the item. They are different judgements and merging them is why so much feedback is uninformative.
- Note communication. How a vendor behaved when something was unclear is the most predictive thing you can record.
- Avoid identifying detail. Nothing about location, timing patterns or anything that ties this order to you.
- Be honest about a middling experience. The corpus is skewed optimistic precisely because people round up out of politeness.
It is permanentFeedback is a public record that persists. Write it assuming it will be read by people who are not the vendor, including in circumstances you did not anticipate.