Some new features on ATS (and soon BTS and PTS)

That's not available in this forum (Board Business& Questions) , as stated in one of SkepticOverlords posts on page 1.

[edit on 5/16/2007 by Mechanic 32]

I'm curious about this new rating system. Does each thread average your combined rating from that thread, and then that average is what goes to your global average? If so

Will we not be able to rate ourselves, unlike how we can give our own threads flags?


So why is there still "Way Above Top Secret" voting at AbovePolitics, but not at AboveTopSecret?

As you can see, when implementing a new function, it is slowly phased into ATS, then BTS & AP. The same can probably be said for functions that are being removed. It is immediately removed from ATS, and over time will be taken down from BTS & AP.

Too often people don't seem to have read the thread they're replying to.

Now you have this cool filter feature. Find a post of Skeptics and click 'thread'. He usually have the answers -- at least in a thread like this.

Great new features, both the filter function and the post rating.

Now we just gotta figure out how it works.

Posters are allowed to rate their own posts.

While I believe it is important to permit others to star a thread, the potential to offset one's own rating is high. I wonder if it would be wise to disable ranking one's own posts?

I'm sorry, I'm still confused..........these stars are awarded by the members or staff?? Is each post 'graded' individually, or is there some sort of cumulative or averaged effect??

I myself, have no stars anywhere, on any posts, not even the ones I've received applause for.......and I have seen a number of 'lightweight' posts ( a couple of lines, with a quote thrown in) with several stars......

Should I just 'realize' that none of my posts have any merit ??

I've also seen a number of 'full-size', and well thought out posts by other members, still with no stars......so I ain't the only wallflower.

The function is only a few hours old. It simply means that no one have rated these posts yet. Patience...

The new "thread" option is great for long threads

Look this thread www.abovetopsecret.com...

The 'bright boy bunch' quickly figured out how it works.

Not sure if you get negative stars trying to vote yourself. Doesn't show if you try.

I don't know what happens if you do. I haven't tried yet

In the other thread they discussed you got stars subtracted if you tried vote yourself.

Well, I did. maybe that's why I 'only' have 2 stars.

[edit on 16-5-2007 by khunmoon]

the gold stars are ran as an average system of the blue stars

if you clicked to vote for yourself and your gold star went down, you probably clicked on a lower star value

but I do not think you can vote for yourself

I tried to make a thread to explain all this

www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 16-5-2007 by ragster]

`````````````````````
fixed link

[edit on 17/5/07 by masqua]

Thanks, Ragster.....your thread was most helpful.

I still have reservations about this 'star stuff', as I've seen some rather idiotic posts with shining stars below........at least some one must have liked something else the poster said in another place and time.....

Now that the stars have been resized (and repositioned in the case of the sidebar) I like them a lot better.

or maybe it was the beer.

i don't know.

but either way I recant my earlier complaining.

Give it a few days. Stars are given out by the community only, and the community has only had stars to give out for a few hours.

Here in a few days, the star system should begin to regulate. It is worth mentioning that you probably won't get stars for any older posts, as they probably wont be read anytime soon, and no one will think to Star it. Eventually, slowly, you will start to get stars for older posts, as latecomers pilfer through the threads and find them.

Great system though! ...especially since I suggested it! Thanks for the stars Skeptic!

EDIT: On the member profile page, under your avatar and points, there is a rubric that shows total flags, total threads, etc. What if we added a thing there that shows the total amount of stars that you have been given?? Skeptic, what do you think about that?

It really doesnt matter much, but it would be cool to keep up with that as well. Just a thought! I'm just happy we have the star system!

[edit on 5/17/2007 by damajikninja]

What an amazing feature!!!! Well done. I had no idea that was added.

Also, thanks for moving the member rating next to the points bars....much nicer than under the name.

Will you also consider moving the post rating down in the post frame as well? (Near the other buttons you have there...) I just think it would make the post frame look nicer. It's also a little more logical... I should only be thinking about a post vote at the "end" of reading that post...

Thanks, again, for the nice ways you make this site a pleasure to visit.


[edit on 17-5-2007 by loam]

The only posts you can see that they've been awarded, is the ones chosed by you to be. That's 'the blue stars' quotted, but you only see the ones you, yourself have given. Not those given by other members. I think.

But maybe they're so scarce yet, only a few hours old, that you don't ran into them.

The gold stars on the avatar is the avarage rewarded, and the same anywhere that avatar appears.

Hej, Skeptic, may I ask if we get any statics on how the stars are applied?
Like total stars given this week to [these] or just number of posts.

Great function overall

Well thats kinda cool.

It's much like the ranking system for US generals.



Has the US ever had a 6 star general?

Would that be like Hitler?

How about ATS?

Ever had a 5 or even a 6 star poster?


[edit on 17-5-2007 by In nothing we trust]

Cool Sceptic!
I think it really rocks you guys take the time to read suggestions and seriously consider all the feedback that gets thrown at you.
If I could vote WATS for you, I would!

The way many people tend to use the stars is that they give 5 stars to a good post, and 1 star to a bad post.
Not really a bad thing, but something to be aware of.