The ATS Issues Thread, page 32
Pages: <<  29    30    31    32    33    34    35  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 126 times


reply posted on 4-9-2008 @ 08:53 AM by Kryties
reply to post by xpert11


Cheers for the word document idea. I was so frustrated I did not even think about that.


reply posted on 6-9-2008 @ 08:59 AM by SkepticOverlord
Bringing a reply to an issue brought up in another thread, to this thread...


reply to post by jamie83



Originally posted by jamie83
Originally posted by intrepid
So my point is, ATS is here for you, where's the pay back to this site that is offered to you for free?


I'm pretty sure this is how it works.

1. We the members post millions of words of content on keywords like Obama, Palin, McCain, UFOs, Bilderberger, etc.

2. Google's spiders index all this content in their search engines.

3. People Google things like "obama NWO"

4. Viola! Up comes ATS threads in the search engine results.


That is generally the overall mechanics of the three-to-four years of investments (time and money) into building a uniquely search engine optimized discussion board environment where anyone can post whatever they like, and have an exceptionally high probability that it will be ranked well in searches.

However, the example you give only brought 187 visits in the past 90 days. 488,050 distinct keywords/phrases brought 1,241,713 visits to ATS in the past 30 days (obama and NWO happen not to be a popular search).



5. ATS gets tons of traffic.

6. A portion of this traffic clicks on the ads.

7. The owners of ATS get rich by getting paid by the advertisers.


No one is getting rich. We have a very expensive infrastructure of five servers, use the premium level service of a global content caching network, and deliver nearly 18 terabytes of monthly Internet traffic. In additional we have hardware and security support contracts to ensure all runs smoothly, invest in professional organizations such as The Internet Advertising Bureau, invest in privacy certification from TRUSTe, have invested in a best-selling author to write our first book (based on member threads), and are constantly investing in new strategies to further promote what our members contribute through channels other than the Internet. This all takes money.



8. We get to entertain each other posting stuff back and forth.

9. The Mods get paid by the owners to keep things from getting out of hand.


If you're here to be "entertained" by the provocative topics of ATS; conspiracies, divisive politics, UFO cover-ups, paranormal, 9/11, etc., then I'd suggest you're likely here for the wrong reason(s).



10. Everybody's happy!


While ATS is now indeed my primary and only job, I personally would be much more "happy" if most of the topics we discuss here didn't exist in the first place. There's no joy in considering political scandals, conspiracies, and extraterrestrial cover-ups.


reply posted on 6-9-2008 @ 10:07 AM by SkepticOverlord
Originally posted by jamie83
I will be happy to abide by whatever TOS you as owner sees fit.

(There are several owners of The Above Network, LLC... I'm just the one with the CEO title.)

However, there is only one Terms & Conditions, it's linked at the bottom of every page, and all members agree to this one and only Terms & Conditions when creating an account.



My only comment (which seems to ruffle some feathers with the mods) is that the TOS are frequently enforced, or not enforced, with political bias, especially during this election cycle. By this selective enforcement of the TOS, it makes people think the standards are different than what they are supposed to be.


(My comment is that it seems like you have more than one comment. )

We make our best effort to apply the Terms & Conditions with perfection within an imperfect environment that ranges from those focused on intense and malicious disruption, to those unable to tone-down their intense passion on important issues. Judgement calls and gut-reactions based on years of experience and the advice of those with years of experience are part of our every-day life in managing the tone and temper of what happens on ATS.

When we ban or take action against an intense "9/11 Truther," we're suddenly government shills.

When we ban or take action against an intense "9/11 Debunker," we're suddenly "twoofer idiots."

When we ban or take action against an intense McCain supporter we're suddenly brainless libs.

When we ban or take action against an intense Obama supporter we're suddenly neocon mouthpieces.

When we ban or take action against a UFO Hoaxer we're suddenly part of the government effort to cover-up the existence of aliens.

When we ban or take action against an angry UFO debunker we're suddenly classified as UFO twits.

The list goes on as there are hundreds of examples of people who have been banned or received other Moderator intervention who feel we have inappropriately focused on them for their beliefs, and not for their atrocious actions in threads.


We can't and won't get bogged down in individual cases of self-imposed persecution complexes as a result of someone's over-the-top actions within posts on ATS. We continue to do our best with our continued monthly-rise in member involvement, traffic, and awareness as an overall indication that most of what we do tips the scale in the positive direction.


reply posted on 13-9-2008 @ 08:02 PM by HIFIGUY
In regards to the below thread link:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And then my subsequent thread regarding a violation of privacy after we have been given a a privacy assurance by ATS

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Thanks for closing my thread.

Is ATS in violation of its own terms of use when it calls out a network feed such as the one SkepticOverlord did in one of his posts that i linked in the thread above?

1). Posting: You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate. You will not solicit personal information from any member. You will not use information gathered form this website to harass, abuse or harm other people.


Isnt gathering information from your own site and publishing it identifying smartech a violation of terms?

Amazing

Peace


[edit on 13-9-2008 by HIFIGUY]


reply posted on 13-9-2008 @ 09:04 PM by Komodo
YEA .. I got an issue.. why does ATS allow harassment of it's own members???

Here's the thread !

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is the only gripe I have and have had for awhile..



reply posted on 13-9-2008 @ 09:33 PM by SkepticOverlord
Originally posted by HIFIGUY
Is ATS in violation of its own terms of use when it calls out a network feed such as the one SkepticOverlord did in one of his posts that i linked in the thread above?


This part of our privacy policy here...
We use non-identifying and aggregate information...

...is in spirit with our discussions of the level of access of a given network access point to ATS. We've often discussed aggregate data of certain networks (typically that of government domains) that hit ATS with frequency, but none of the information is personally identifying in any way. In fact, we cannot obtain individual IP's from the Google Analytics data. Discussing the number of hits from Smartech is no different than discussing the number of hits from Qwest, AOL, Time Warner, etc. All are firms that identify themselves with reverse DNS as access points to the Internet for a broad range of users.


reply posted on 13-9-2008 @ 09:57 PM by HIFIGUY
reply to post by SkepticOverlord


More of the policy paragraph:

We use non-identifying and aggregate information to better design our website and to share with advertisers.


but we would never disclose anything that could be used to identify any individuals.


Individual users, or individual networks. That is not clarified.

Give someone the right stream to fish in, and their probability of finding the fish they are looking for gets considerably easier.

I am not in agreement with you when " smartech " specifically was circled and identified.

In todays day and age, a corporation is considered an individual entity.
If smartech is indeed a corporation, their disclosure may be considered a breech of privacy.

Further investigation has been undertaken.

Peace



[edit on 13-9-2008 by HIFIGUY]
Pages: <<  29    30    31    32    33    34    35  >>    ^^TOP^^