Editing Security features discussion on Brainstorm (section)

===Improvement suggestions===

*Separate the trust information to the affinity information. Reference stack together your appreciation of a person and your appreciation of an hospitality experience. If the two were separated, it would be easier to browse through and pinpoint incompatibilities.
*Separate negative experiences into 'non-fun' and 'dangerous' - or otherwise flag 'dangerous' references. Right now a dirty floor to sleep on will often be listed as the same 'negative' as 'I had to sleep with a knife I was so scared '. This is poor information segregation for others. 'Negative' and 'extremely negative' could, alternatively, be reinstated, each with a description. Such a bad hosting or surfing experience that it drives people out of CS, or makes hosts refrain from ever surfing, should be somehow notable.
*Register each couchsurf for both host and surfer, so that it is apparent when one or both have left NO reference for the other party. Most important when neither leave a ref as there is no indication then of the surf happening at all. 
**making this missing information more transparent lets people email to find out what happened.Currently the lack of a reference after a surf is NOT known by CSers nor noted by the system as a potential safety indicator.
**Missing references (especially a large number of them) can both alert CS to a problem and also if listed, allow people to contact both parties to find out what happened. 
*Drop down menu giving various graduation to a couple of key criteria: "cleanliness", "concordance with the profile" "respect for cultural norms" "manners"
*More explicit titles than "positive" through "negative".
**a long time ago we were able to leave little 'titles' for our references...
*"Neutral" should be the default setting for all refs, and writer/member should have to jump through some hoops to justify both a positive and a negative. Making it harder to leave pos/neg will make people consider if pos/neg are really worth their time.
*the term 'neutral' could be differentiated into 'OK' (meaning fine but no big deal, should be default setting) and 'mixed', meaning BOTH positive and negative.
*Example of typical use of each title available to the referencer. For example:
**Typical use of "Positive": "I had a nice time with her, she managed to spend some time with us in the evening, even though she was quite busy with work."
**Typical use of "Neutral": "He came to our place on very short notice (which was fine with us) and stayed only one night. He was quite tired when he arrived so we didn't exchange much."
**Typical use of "Negative": "He stayed for three days with us, making quite a lot of mess and never cleaning it. I suppose we should have told him up straight but we're kind of shy in the family. He's not dangerous at all though, I hope I'm not misusing the negative reference."
*Problem with above: how to differentiate a real negative from a DANGEROUS negative - that is, someone who makes others feel unsafe? Propose a special category for this.

*Ask relevant yes/no questions: * Would you host this person again? / Would you recommend this person to your friends (for hosting or surfing)?  This is the information people really want!
*
*these could be statistically aggregated after 5 hosts + surfs, to show "80% of hosts/surfers would host/surf with this person again.
*Filter on references: Relevant references often get swallowed by the constant stream of party-and-meeting-references. Party-and-meeting-references don't need to be an issue. If we could filter the references list with a little icon (surfboard, couch or plane. So that I can see "XXXX's reference as a guest", "XXXX's references as a host", "XXXX's references as a travel companion", and if a tag ever goes out for party-and-meeting-references, "XXXX as a social buddy".
*Propagate the trust: If my best friend had a really good experience, it is likely that I will have one too with the same person.
*Removing the "negative reference", replace it with "not so good", and have a link: "signal an abuse" on the reference page. Clicking there would take you to a page showing in which cases it is appropriate to leave a negative reference (with, there, the possibility of leaving a "negative" or "abuse" reference), and in which case it is appropriate to contact the MDST.