Skip to main content


Which do you trust more: logo accounts or face accounts?

#EvanPoll #poll

  • Strong logo (4%, 14 votes)
  • Somewhat logo (14%, 40 votes)
  • Somewhat face (51%, 147 votes)
  • Strong face (29%, 82 votes)
283 voters. Poll end: 3 days ago

Evan Prodromou reshared this.

in reply to Evan Prodromou

Lol with the new face making things, I'm more inclined to trust a foreign logo than a foreign face (at least online). Especially if there's not much else to go on.

(Thus somewhat logo)

This entry was edited (4 days ago)
in reply to Evan Prodromou

The accounts I find most trustworthy seem to have cartoon or abstracted faces.

(Part of why I changed to that)

This entry was edited (4 days ago)
in reply to Space Catitude 🚀

@TerryHancock I also prefer blueberries in my pancakes, but that's not the question under discussion.
in reply to Evan Prodromou

@Evan Prodromou none. I trust trustworthy accounts the most. And that builds up over time, while parallel checking the facts constantly.
in reply to Evan Prodromou

There isn't enough context in your question for me to figure out what you mean.

What you say "accounts" are you talking about fediverse accounts that seem to be operated by a single person, for personal reasons?

When you say "face", do you mean an apparent real photo of that person (like your image)? When you say "logo", do you mean a corporate-style identified, like the Macdonalds "golden arches"? What do you classify my image as? It's neolithic cave-art carving of a face - not my face, I'm not that old! - but it isn't an abstract logo of anything ...

in reply to Evan Prodromou

OK, so we don't disagree about the meanings of the words, but I still don't really understand the context of your question, given that there seems to be a large excluded middle and lack of description. I can only assume that this is a subtoot from something relating to #fediforum
in reply to CMDR Yojimbosan ⁂

@yojimbo I do polls literally every day with hundreds of respondents. If I wanted to have a more specific question, I'd ask it. I try not to over explain questions because I think it inhibits participation. I'll post more background after the poll is closed.
in reply to Evan Prodromou

That's cool, I'm not trying to double-guess you here, I just couldn't figure out how to answer this one - so I haven't - and tried to put that into words.
in reply to Evan Prodromou

I selected "Somewhat face" really this is a true neutral position in my opinion. I trust accounts based on verifiable posts in the pasts. It just happens to be mostly face accounts.
in reply to William McCormick

Is it possible that you might be falling prey to the rational actor fallacy, ascribing more rationality to your own behaviour than is warranted? Most of us use subconscious or conscious heuristics for this kind of decision; overcoming those biases takes a lot of effort and concentration, which isn't usually needed.
This entry was edited (3 days ago)
in reply to Evan Prodromou

@Evan Prodromou On a conscious level, it does not affect my trust either way. I find post history is a better metric.
in reply to Jonathan Lamothe

@me do you feel in touch enough with your intuition that you could gauge your subconscious response?
in reply to Evan Prodromou

Other:

I find a picture of any type to be an awful metric for trust, increasingly so in fact. That may however be an extension of my personal experience wherein actual IRL face snap judgements have proven unreliable indicators of trust/intention.

in reply to Evan Prodromou

I think when an organization has many employees, members, or other staff on a social network, it has two main ways to represent itself.

One is to let each human person (face account) speak about their own work, and then a brand (logo) account reshares it.

The other is that everything comes through the brand account, and the individual humans aren't given any official voice -- and are maybe discouraged from participating at all.

This entry was edited (3 days ago)
in reply to Evan Prodromou

I vastly prefer the first format. People using their own name and likeness have a lot at stake. They aren't hiding behind a corporate shield. They are owning the work they share.

But the second format has become very common, and for news in particular I'm likely to trust brands I know by their logo.

in reply to Evan Prodromou

One wild thing you see in the startup community is founders that take on the logo of their company as their only avatar, even for unrelated discussions. That's weird; don't do that.
in reply to Evan Prodromou

In general, a brand logo means a message crafted to manipulate.
in reply to Evan Prodromou

A lot of the repliers say it doesn't make a difference to them. I think that's unlikely, and that they're suffering from the rational actor fallacy, believing that their own actions are more rational than others'.
in reply to Evan Prodromou

I don't see trust as a one dimensional thing. I'd trust you to be positive about fedi-things and have some experience with the unpleasantness of accidents. That reputation isn't tied to your pictogram, but more to your name.
For your opinion of the best kombucha drinks, I have no idea how to rate that, so it'd be "random Person on mastodon" bucket. Again, I doubt your profile pic is going to have an influence there.
in reply to C.N.

dismissing dissenting opinions so easily does sound like some senior CEO bullcrap though. That affects trustworthiness.
in reply to C.N.

@chrisn

I don't understand this post. Are you talking about me saying that people are ignoring cognitive biases, or are you extending your example from the previous post?

@C.N.
in reply to Evan Prodromou

that's a reaction to the 'many people say X, but i think that's unlikely, they must all be [fallacy]'.

I'm not suggesting large groups must be right, but it sounds like the "you are not the user" fallacy?

It seems to me, you post these questions to learn more about how other people function. To then write that you dismiss a big group, seems weird.

But then, I hardly post, hardly respond to posts, so your engagement must be orders of magnitude different. That changes things too I guess

in reply to Evan Prodromou

i distrust brand logos and i distrust corporate faces, although it's hard to say which i distrust more. i suppose it's something like this, from "least trustworthy" to "most trustworthy":

- corporate logo
- professional headshot
- casual headshot / selfie
- casual logo
- furry avatar
- anime avatar
- cat pic
- abstract art

all in all, "somewhat face" but with notable caveats for the definition of "face" and "logo".

in reply to Evan Prodromou

For orgs with a lot of people what I’d prefer is account face, domain/instance BIMI logo
in reply to Evan Prodromou

Face for an individual? Logo for an organization? Not sure if "trust" is part of the balance for me as far as logos and faces are concerned.
in reply to Evan Prodromou

I'm too late to answer, but I find this interesting.

If I'm looking for trust in a company - to post about stuff about that company which is true - I'm probably more keen to see the logo. I want to know it's coming from the source.

Trust in a human - eh - I don't know. I guess for making friends, I do like to associate a face with a person, but I've been very online for very many years now and I'm used to handles and avatars and all that. I don't need a face, necessarily.