ATSNN Submission News

Greetings all!

In an effort to make ATSNN better for all we have changed the way in which articles are upgraded.

As of now, all submissions --expert and newbie alike-- will have to be approved by the ATSNN team before they go to a public vote.

By doing this it helps us control the flow of what goes into ATSNN. We are striving to bring in more conspiracy related topics and articles that do not meet these standards will be moved into Other Current Events or other relevant forums.

Here is a LINK to the ATSNN Realignment Discussion thread that further discusses how ATSNN is being changed.

Happy Newsing!

I'd like to step in and add that this is the first step in a series of significant changes to ATSNN on our way to ATS 5.0.

Stay tuned.

This is a brilliant refinement to the ATSNN News Portal.

Well done to all involved, and thanks for your hard work.

Sanc'.

Why is the ATSNN staff just bumping this thread instead of approving or rejecting the open (pending) status threads?

Just to add:

If anyone has questions or needs help the ATSNN team is as follows:

Thomas Crowne
FredT
intrepid
Nerdling
parrhesia
Valhall

I'd like to say "w00t." We've got a crack team on this, and they're absolutely the best. This advancement will really help ATSNN become the new portal it was meant to be, and, in doing so, will continue to advance ATS closer and closer to that perfect vision. Can't wait for 5.0!

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Why is the ATSNN staff just bumping this thread instead of approving or rejecting the open (pending) status threads?

We're still working out the bugs in the new system, dj. Please be patient.

Originally posted by parrhesia
We're still working out the bugs in the new system, dj. Please be patient.

No problem parrhesia, I didn't realize all the kinks weren't worked out in testing.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
I'd like to step in and add that this is the first step in a series of significant changes to ATSNN on our way to ATS 5.0.

Stay tuned.

Whoa! ATS 5.0

I can still remember the transition to ATS 4.0, seems just like yesterday...

*sniff* They group up so fast...

Originally posted by Nerdling
As of now, all submissions --expert and newbie alike-- will have to be approved by the ATSNN team before they go to a public vote.

I've been hesitant to reply as I have been an ATS member for a while, but with very few posts. However, I'm a daily lurker and I'm a global mod on another conspiracy site.

I'm bothered by the filtering of submissions by moderators before a submission is approved by membership. Don't get me wrong, I respect the moderators that have been compiled to look at the submissions. What I don't understand is why the need to change the way news is submitted.

I come in and vote on submissions each day (even after I found out I wasn't getting points for it). Weren't the members an effective filter for news that would actually be posted and commented on?

In other words, the members were voting on the news they felt was worthy. Now you have moderators who decide what is worthy before sending it on to the members. Will this truly deny ignorance? I'm unsure.

Originally posted by sosuemetoo
I'm bothered by the filtering of submissions by moderators before a submission is approved by membership. Don't get me wrong, I respect the moderators that have been compiled to look at the submissions. What I don't understand is why the need to change the way news is submitted.

Well, you see, ATSNN is for conspiracy-related news and what was happening with the member voting was that regular old news items were ending up on ATSNN, and it's purpose isn't a gathering of regular news articles. So, because of this an extra step was added which happens to be the requirement for approval by an ATSNN staff member. Don't misunderstand this as like a censorship of what current events we're allowed to discuss as there are a number of forums for news that doesn't quite fit in ATSNN. For example, there's the "Other Current Events" forum on ATS, the US and Global News forums on BTS and the "Breaking Political News" forum on P@ATS. So it's not like you wont be able to find other things here, it's just a matter of making everything more organized.

I happen to agree with the staff on this one

Hope that I helped explain this, and that I'm not wrong
UO

[edit on 10-1-2006 by UnknownOrigins]

Bump.

When it goes to public vote, how many votes does an expert need and how many votes do contributers need for it to be approved?

Experts start off with 7 yes votes. Other contributers need 15 yes votes for it to be upgraded.

This is after it is moved from pending status to submission.

edit: spelling

edit again: I put on my glasses and saw more mistakes


[edit on 11-1-2006 by parrhesia]

It would be nice if people could vote on these pending submissions even though final staff approval would need to be given before final upgrade. At times the staff is less than immediately responsive in dealing with these and they get many views/replies before the ability to vote is granted -- causing many lost possible votes.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
It would be nice if people could vote on these pending submissions even though final staff approval would need to be given before final upgrade. At times the staff is less than immediately responsive in dealing with these and they get many views/replies before the ability to vote is granted -- causing many lost possible votes.

The coding for that sounds difficult, and I think the system is fine as it is. It could also lead to confusion between the two categories.

We try to be as quick as possible about upgrading or moving, but keep in mind we have other areas of the board to look after, as well.

Just an idea...I actually like the new system inasmuch as I'm getting the 250 point bonus for an upgraded article again. As an expert posting directly to the forum, I didn't get any point bonus for articles.

ok guys, i have a question.

i sent in a suggestion the day before yall announced this new change, as well as a follow up yesterday requesting information on my suggestion.
i still have not heard anything from the powers that be, even though i included my screen name on both submissions and requested follow up information in my second submission.

now, i dont atribute this oversight to the atsnn staff. however, since i havent been contacted, i will repost the suggestion here as it is pertinent to this topic (not to mention that all of the atsnn staff will probably see it here):

i have seen a rash of atsnn articles in which two or three pages of discussion were generated, and yet the articles werent upgraded. it seems to me that if an article generates that much discussion, then (unless it isnt atsnn material..in which case it should be moved to the appropriate thread), it should be automatically upgraded after a certain amount of posts.....say one or two pages worth. certainly three.

i am beginning to think that certain topics arent getting a fair shake. people deem them worthy of discussion, but not worthy of a "yes" vote because they disagree with the author. that's kind of hypocritical in my opinion.

and no, this hasnt happened to one of my articles. i just think that if a submission generates that much traffic, then it has shown itself worthy of atsnn, and should be automatically upgraded after a certain amount of traffic.

sorry to be this longwinded here, but as i said before, the suggestion forum hasnt bothered to follow up as i asked.

thanks,

snaf

[edit on 12-1-2006 by snafu7700]

Has the directive that ATSNN submissions be conspiracy-related been rescinded?

Lately, I've seen a plethora of submissions that don't seem to fit that mold at all be approved by the staff.

dj,

Could you please look at the current white page

www.atsnn.com...

And the current submission list:

(submission) (news) John Bolton Opposes Additional UN Troop Deployments to the Ivory Coast
(submission) (war) Kidnappers Promise Death in 72 Hours for Female Reporter
(submission) (war) "Why We Fight" by Eugene Jarecki, Opens Jan. 20
(submission) (terrorism) Security Council Members United on Iran
(submission) (news) Office holds college's missing $275,000 (submission)
(submission) (news) California's Oldest Death-Row Inmate Scheduled for Midnight Execution.
(submission) (terrorism) Disposable Cell Phone Sales Increased Since NYT Leak (submission)
(submission) (news) Global Warming Is Irreversable Says Gaia Principle Scientist.
(submission) (terrorism) 44th Person Arrested over 21 July Attacks
(submission) (news) Study Finds Living Plants Produce "Greenhouse" Gas
(submission) (news) Lawyer Kidnaps Client for Non-Payment

***

and tell me what you're having your biggest problem with here? Because, with the exception of maybe 1 or 2 submissions being voted on right now by members (some of which need to be moved due to time limits), I'm not seeing any great deviation from the new policy. And I also admit that the 1 or 2 I personally wouldn't move to submission, were obviously moved to submission because some one else deemed them appropriate. So it looks to me we're down to 1 to 2 instances of subjectivity.

And that's not too bad, now is it?