basically a number system thingy underneath your points where your avatar is.

the more you most... the higher your credebility number goes. the less you post.. the lower the number drops but no lower than 0 thats just cruel.

perhaps this would bring more people to reply to threads? good idea?

That would'nt work, for a number of reasons.

The number of posts made, has nothing to do with credibility. Just look at my post count for example. On most of these forums I seem to have zero credibility. Even though at least some of my posts were high quality.

Quanitity does not equal quality, or credibility.

As for getting replies... relax, in time they will come.

Isn't that what the gray...pink...pinker...red bar is?
Right under your points?

Oh, I see, you just joined..but thats what that is under there.
more posts, it grows in length.
More applause, it turns red..
sounds kinky, now that I typed it out..

Nah, my internal BS sensor does the job good enough. Besides, what is credible for one may not be for another. Take this as an example, all those UFO and abduction posters, how credible are they to you. Personally, I dont find them credible at all.

Now on the other hand, government manipulation is very credible to me, yet many refuse to beleive it is possable.

So, one persons garbage is anothers treasure.

Credibility, comes in due time. It is much like respect, has to be earned, and once lost, almost never regained.

ALthough

When I first saw your thread title, I thought I was going to read a different request..

4 or 5 little "meter" smilies..each one pegged a little higher..
To be used as a response to another's post...

...\... <--not credible

.../... <---more credible

[edit on 22-12-2006 by spacedoubt]

Originally posted by spacedoubt
ALthough

When I first saw your thread title, I thought I was going to read a different request..

4 or 5 little "meter" smilies..each one pegged a little higher..
To be used as a response to another's post...

...\... <--not credible

.../... <---more credible

[edit on 22-12-2006 by spacedoubt]

i know where you got that idea from!!! theres this website with hundreds of free games where users rate the games with smileys i forget the site.

maybe if we tried something like the smleys insted to get people to reply more?

Read each members post and determine for yourself the level of credibility and veracity each poster has.

Or is being spoon fed what to think by a "meter" better?

My thoughts about members rating other members posts or threads.

On the surface, it seems like a good idea.

But in reality, there is a huge chance for abuse. Lets say for instance on a particular thread the original poster has his friends give favorable ratings on the thread, in return for the same for the second members next thread.

I don't think the Admin would want to do it, for this reason.

As it is now, we have the applause system in place. As well as the "Way Above" rating system.

They both seem to work rather well.

[edit on 12/22/2006 by Mechanic 32]

but remember, never trust non-human primates.
they are bananas.

Originally posted by conspiracymaster
the more you most... the higher your credebility number goes. the less you post.. the lower the number drops but no lower than 0 thats just cruel.

Why do you think the number of posts reflect the credibility of the poster?

I see people with many posts who post utter garbage.

I'm probably one of them.

[edit on 22/12/06 by Implosion]

na cause my credibility meter would be in the negitives constantly cause I am totaly full of crap.

i think its a good idea! before you even read the thread all you have to do is look at the credibility meter. if its too low you would not click. if its higher you would click.

Perhaps it could be a rating given to a person by the MODS kinda like this person is ok and contributes to a good discussion or this person constantly absolves themselves to posting garbage. Kinda like a MOD ranking.

Course I would still be hosed....

Originally posted by conspiracymaster
is look at the credibility meter. if its too low you would not click. if its higher you would click.

So, lemmie get this straight, your good self, with like, 88 posts, is gonna rate low, we dont click, and your thread doesnt get all these high quality\low cost replies?

basically the more views and posts a person makes the higher their meter goes.

[edit on 22-12-2006 by conspiracymaster]

im sure those brainy moderators can figure something out

A nuclear physicist joins up just to tell us how the Russians have secretly discovered real cold fusion - a world-changing, world exclusive on ATS. Uh oh, he's got zero credibility and no one clicks his thread. Bummer.

Originally posted by conspiracymaster
im sure those brainy moderators can figure something out

I'm not brainy, but I think this is a bad idea.






[edit on 2006-12-23 by wecomeinpeace]

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
I'm not brainy, but I think this is a bad idea.

Ohh sure you are.

This isn't necessarily a bad idea. It's just (IMO) unnecessary. There's enough widgets and gizmos already. I don't want to feel like I need to be an F-14 pilot to navigate the site.

Posts should stand and fall on their own merit. After a while on the site, we've all got our favorite contributors we watch for. Favorite in terms of solid content and favorite in terms of entertainment value.

Heck, even I may eventually make a cogent point. it would be a shame to miss it because my meter's low.

Bad idea IMO. Credibility meters would need to be based on member opinion. Any opinion/belief expressed that the majority didn't agree with would win that member a low "credibility" score. It wouldn't be unlike the thread rating experiment we did some time ago.

Perfect example. Someone claims to be a "indigo child", most don't believe so this member would receive a low credibility rating. How about a Christian that expresses hi/her belief, many ATS members don't believe so they also receive a low rating.

This type of popularity contest can ruin a community like ATS by making members afraid to toss out their true ideas, thoughts and conspiracy theories.