All Internet Forums have a design that foster ignorance. I post this in an attempt to deny that ign

In fact...do you know whats strange? When I browse the ATS list and see a thread title that I completely agree with, such as "parallel universes exist", I dont even bother to open that thread. It would be boring.

reply to post by Redge777


Has it occurred to you that some things just can't be proven conclusively, and that's why people will argue based upon their differing experiences and world views? Or, that a post is so ignorant that no one else is going to even dignify it with a response. This doesn't mean that ignorance is being fostered, or that those who you consider to be disinfo types, are in fact the ignorant ones.

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Xtrozero
What would be interesting is to post three posts. ... Then you could see which one has the longest life.

Not necessary, actually. You can do the same sort of thing looking at similar posts on Usenet and elsewhere (his pattern is pretty consistant). You can also do mathematical modeling of the patterns (I did this for an old paper that I presented to the Society for Applied Anthropology back in 2004 or thereabouts). You can also use some methods from the science of Applied Behavior Analysis (I'm doing this for a current paper) to check the results.

Check the "top threads" from previous years for interesting examples.

I agree with you, but I was also trying at a little humor that has been overlooked in suggesting that zany totally false ideas are followed by the OP never admitting they are wrong, and extreme view posts are followed by the OP who will never bend in the least from their point, so two posts like this would not be notice out of the ordinary on ATS.

[edit on 25-9-2007 by Xtrozero]

another problem with this is ... a lot of great posts go without stars. A lot of not so great posts get a lot of stars. To have a utility that pulls high-starred posts doesn't necessarily give you the content to which you think it would.

Think about how many 'hoax' threads have a lot of stars, but, that was before it was a hoax. Now, that may be something good to look at to show something about culture and personality, but not give you the quality posts you wish to revive.

One reason a lot of great follow-up posts go un-noticed is, not all replies get read in the first place, not everybody gives stars, even if they agree and find the post to be great, and not everyone agrees with a great post, even if it is sound and correct.

There is a lot of threads to wade through, a lot of posts to read.

I wish there was a way to more easily skip over the bickering posts, the hate, etc. I think I suggested a red star system to be added. This way we can flag the ignorance and hate. I really don't wish to ever use the ignore feature, but some people have pushed my limits. There is one member in particular that emphasizes the reason not to put someone on the ignore list ... even though I highly disagree with the persons methods of denial about space and alien related topics, and they get quite annoying with the lack of evidence though they claim lack of evidence against the other side, I fully agree with them on a lot of the political and worldly statements.

I do see a lot of 'I agree' posts, or 'hey! I don't have time now, but I will check it out later' posts ... which, is beyond me why they bothered posting it unless for a higher post count. Not that it takes a long response everytime to add to a discussion, but, if it has no real content at all, why not wait until you can give a bit more feeling, or had time to check out the material and give a proper response? The flag and star system does work even if you don't reply


I do see what you are saying; I wish it was that simple. I also disagree with the fact that a well-thought out post should garner no responses, for even if someone agrees, they still have a different viewpoint, or maybe some additional info that wasn't considered. Just like those who disagree could have a little more respect and intelligence and not just pull out a club and start beating on people who have different views, which happens way too often.

Great idea, people new to ATS should be able to sort threads by the number of flags, and posts by the number of stars; that way they get access to all the best and most important/relevant content with one search!

I think you've hit upon an interesting analysis here of the dynamics of forums. I think forums in general are not designed to foster conversation as much as they are designed to foster argument. Most posts are not well-reasoned or carefully considered. They are reactions. It's kind of like ATS (and other forums, too. This is generic.) is a large bar. There's lots of background noise. Each table is a thread. You don't get your choice of friends at a table. Others just arrive. Many aren't like you. They don't have the same backgrounds, educations, age, etc. The conversations are in theory 'on topic' but it is nevertheless a maelstrom of opinions. Good and well-researched opinions have the same weight as emotional outbursts and worse, often get buried in the swirl.

Now, the thing about this is, if there is more noise and more arguments, the bar sells more beer. That allows them to turn a profit. Once they figure this out it behooves them to cause more beer to be sold by allowing more argument. Just translate beer to page view and click thru and you have converted from a bar to a forum. And though you can sometimes get some 'good work' done in a bar (The first Compaq 'luggable' computer idea was drawn on a napkin.), it's probably not the best place for thoughful conversation.

Now, to segway to the star and point system, specific to ATS, for just a moment. There has been a lot of criticism of both. A star is local and ephemeral. You can get 20 stars sometimes, but it doesn't really do anything for you. You can be The Man for a moment, but it doesn't last past the thread. Can it be abused? Sure, but it doesn't matter because it doesn't get you anything anyway. Sometimes a star is just a star and maybe if we see it that way we can get over it. It's just a little temporary something.

Now a point is different. To a certain extent it can buy you stuff, but after a few thousand points, there's nothing more to buy so it ceases to be currency and instead gives you a very general idea of the amount of contribution of an individual. So if you see someone with 50,000 points you can bet they've been around for awhile and also, they have contributed. Either they got points for applause or they started a long thread where they got five points for every reply. Now, this second issue is kind of problematical because it violates the 'long threads reflect disagreement' principle you first enunciated. But regardless, you tend to get points for promoting activity (selling more beer), and in that context it makes sense.

The problem with the point system is that it is often subverted. There was a contest on here a week or so ago for someone to win 20,000 points for having their picture slogan selected as the best. So the person wins for managing to be witty enough for a couple of minutes to attract the attention of the judges and gets points that would otherwise require 40 to 80 incidents of applause for well considered posts. Maybe soemtimes life just isn't fair, but the point is that the point system is not as reliable an indicator of the level of contributions as it could be. When you see someone with a million points, you know darned well they didn't get those for posting well. I believe moderators get a certain number of points as a 'salary,' and I can understand that. But the point system is very uneven and perhaps needs its own discussion.

Take a look at the statistics board on ATS and you find some startling numbers. First of all, 49% of people have never posted at all. Secondly, about 80% of those who have posted at all have less than 20 posts. Third, about 5% of posters are responsible for 95% of the posts. Fourth, about 1% of members have over 500 posts. (Rough numbers: Please don't correct me for small differences. Public math without a calculator is hard.) So the bottom line is that very few people are responsible for the vast majority of the activity here. So when you hear these crazy numbers of how busy ATS is, you might want to put it in context. There are lots of people looking in, and few people actually providing this 'user gernerated content.'

Just a few tidbits, for which I will now earn a single point.

reply to post by Redge777


I agree 100% ..

ATS does not value thought out post nor academic level posting. Instead it thrives on ignorant threads where someone says something outlandish and everyone squabbles about if hes right or wrong, eventually a voice of reason comes in and ends it.

Notice how the top sensational threads end up being hoaxes.

If you make a thread and make it well enough that you leave little room for argument, you will get no replies.

Interesting discussion, thanks OP!

People need to be reminded that ATS is also a bussiness enterprise. A damn well run good one, but still a business. They need all kind of people here, smart,dumb, ignorant, educated, blue collar, white collar, they even need the lurkers (nothing but love to the lurkers as I was one for a long time). My point is that by having everyone here we do 2 things we allow everyone to express their opinion and we learn from each other.

The star system like anything man made is flawed, I have seen post that deserve 20 stars without one and pure opinion based posts getting a lot, somewhere in between you have a lot of good context post that get some stars, this is what I do, if I see a good post I will give a star and on my next post I will ackownledge the poster for a great post even if I don't agree with the views that the person expressed, you know you have read good post, something inside your brain let's you know IMO.

Before I came here I was ignorant on many topics either by not knowing or by not being exposed to anything different than my own views, I love this place with the goods and the bads with respect to everyone that post regardless of how their level of knowledge they have, because at the end everything is in the eye of the beholder, what someone call garbage another person mind find it worth of respect.

My .02

Originally posted by Byrd
Actually, you've done an excellent analysis.

Well reasoned, but I'd suggest that the "most challenged thought" is the correct concept, because it applies across all examples of boards. A rather typical example would be an athiest posting about evolution on a Christian board. The athiest might have the latest scientific evidence, but their "denial of ignorance" in their world scheme means that they may repeat or argue with incorrect information that they find personally convincing.

I agree with what you allude to with world scheme. These arguments seem to also rarely give new information, because they are about people who hold there beliefs, this is the A G model where no convergence occurs. But I agree, the sort I suggested has limitations also, which I believe could be solved with two sorts, where a user chooses

There's a little more to the dynamic, here ... ...Topics also have to be a known "thing of interest" to the board.

Agreed, but if we compare two threads that are both interesting we see this situation. just like if we compare two obscure topics, I believe, the theory would still hold.

There's also the anticipation factor. You just hammered someone for being an ignorant twitterhead and you can't WAIT to see how they try to deal with it because you've got such a comeback. You'll check the threads more frequently and when they do show up, you're ready with a reply. You'll see a sequence of these kinds of battles going on between several combatants in the threads.

This entertainment should not be stiffled, but that entertainment can be from both ignorant and logical remarks. It happens two ways, one where they offer nothing and go back and forth forever(many post). And one where a guy in debate style 'toasts' the other till he just can't say anymore(low post count) In the second one the responses, I feel, have more value, yet less weight in sort.

Other factors include how well known the original poster is (if well known, then friends will hop in to support and applaud and their detractors may hop on to try and do battle against them.) Unknowns don't get the "there's that idiot again" factor for themselves. The "that idiot again" factor can also apply if someone posts and then vanishes for a bit but a well-known board member steps in to support the original post.

Understood and agreed, also your second comment is why I rarely pay attention to OP name, I do however watch stars, a similar way that people show support of allies

Other threads that get a lot of attention include current shocking events, where there's a kind of crowd effect -- posting a "I have opinions about this, too." The "Ron Paul straw poll voters turned away from voting" had the same sort of feel to it.

If I understand you I think I agree, it comes in two forms, one wide ranging so there are lots of side trails to take, and visceral where people do 'I agrees' with slight opinions injected, something I agree with since it bumps post back in view.

All in all, a very nice set of observations. Bravo!

Why thank you, where are my applause points OK I have to go and revisit my post on greed, humility and self serving actions. brb

Thanks again for comment.

reply to post by Byrd


I was just made aware of a 98 page post that was a "hoax" for someones test. This was done after responding to post that suggested testing this, and agreeing and supporting this idea. I did not think of how it waste time of users not interested.

I revoke my prior support of trying this. Besides as you said the evidence is already widely available to those who have studied the subject. Thanks for passing on what you learned in your research.

[edit on 26-9-2007 by Redge777]

reply to post by Redge777


There's only one terrible foundational flaw to your theory that the star system and the structure of this board promotes ignorance. The star system hasn't been around very long, but people choosing not to respond to a well written, logical OP has been there all along. There is no "structure" promoting silence from the membership on a well-written first OP. The decision not to respond lies in the membership.



[edit on 9-26-2007 by Valhall]

good observation. I gave you a star for being so honest with us.

reply to post by FreeThinkerIdealist


The idea of bad threads getting to many flags is solved by using the ratio of 'flags' to 'members that have viewed it' so after it is over it slowly loses value as people look and see it is not that good after all.

reply to post by schuyler


The Bar Analogy is excellent to show what is going on.

To expand on this:

The solution would be to go to the backrooms of the bar, where there is less noise and more sophisticated conversation. Having arrived there I look around the room to determine what table interests me the most. I filter out all other tables and approach that one. Having arrived at that table I get to know someone who`s talk I find highly interesting. So I go check at which other tables this person has sat at. I go to even further backrooms. And I see the minutes of many meetings that are unfinished and it is in my power to re-activate those discussions.

Actually its your choice which discussions you choose to learn from and contribute to. Even if ALL OTHERS are making the "wrong choice" and following the "dumb threads" it doesnt mean I have to do it too.

An observation:

By entering a room/thread and saying something in the lines of "I dont like this thread, I dont think it should exist" you are contributing to the thread and prolonging its existence. Sometimes it takes some discipline to refrain from posting like this.

reply to post by Redge777


Your point seems to be lacking in logic.
It doesn't matter how well thought out or typed etc a post can be, it doesn't stop those that may disagree from finding something to attack.
You would be correct if the "truth" (whatever it maybe) had a magical field that made people accept it as such. But it doesn't and no matter how logic or well thought out you think a post is you will always find someone who will poke holes in it.
No offense man.

Originally posted by Valhall
The star system hasn't been around very long, but people choosing not to respond to a well written, logical OP has been there all along.

It's also been revised at least once. I think the idea was that it would take some time to integrate into the structure and 'normalize' so that you could trust it. It hasn't been around long enough to do that yet. It kind of reflects the excitement level of a thread, but I suspect it hasn't turned out quite like the inventors imagined it. That's probably true of ATS as a whole, though--or life!

[edit on 9/26/2007 by schuyler]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by Redge777

 

Your point seems to be lacking in logic.
It doesn't matter how well thought out or typed etc a post can be, it doesn't stop those that may disagree from finding something to attack.
You would be correct if the "truth" (whatever it maybe) had a magical field that made people accept it as such. But it doesn't and no matter how logic or well thought out you think a post is you will always find someone who will poke holes in it.
No offense man.

your post proves your point (just kidding)

Remember we are not talking about finding someone, we are also not talking about the ability to find good information. Yes someone will poke a hole in it no matter how good it is, but fewer people will, this fewer makes it scroll off, the thread that lots of people poke holes in just keeps being put up front where everyone sees it first.

An argument of the weight of two categories is not disproved by saying 'some will still' the point is fewer will, thereby giving it less weight.

I am also not saying the good post of how you can find the good table at the bar is wrong, I am saying that someone that walks into the bar has clutter in front of him. why not set up a search system where those good tables are near the door also.


[edit on 26-9-2007 by Redge777]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
An observation:

By entering a room/thread and saying something in the lines of "I dont like this thread, I dont think it should exist" you are contributing to the thread and prolonging its existence. Sometimes it takes some discipline to refrain from posting like this.

This is because the visibility of the thread is based on how many posts it gets, you have learned this and know the mechanism to let your choice of threads have a better chance to appear at the top of sort list. If everyone did this then my sort idea would not be needed, and also, ignorance would go unchallenged.