The ATS Issues Thread

I am currently unable to post youTube videos in thread comments ...

The last two times it worked for me were
here
and here.

Now, when I use the ATS BB-code - [yvid]bPXVGQnJm0w[/yvid]

What appears to be generated into HTML source is

[yvid]bPXVGQnJm0w[/yvid] ==> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPXVGQnJm0w\ ...

Where the 'red-backslash' ( \ ) causes the youTube link to be 'ill-formed' and hence does not display the desired clip in the ATS-widget inside the body of my post ...

Another 'issue' which I really haven't mentioned before, but might as well now since I am assuming I have somebody's attention ( although I realize that is a stretch ... ), I recently had a video from ATS media suddenly 'deleted' without warning or any u2u notification or anything ...

The only reason I mention it here is that it happened to be the # 1 video on ATS-media, so I was rather 'suprised' nobody in 'the front office' noticed it ...

Anyway, that 'issue' just a 'passing' item 'of note' ...

What I'd like specifically to address here is why my youTube post links are being broken.

Thanks in advance, vv

Originally posted by visible_villain
I recently had a video from ATS media suddenly 'deleted' without warning or any u2u notification or anything

What video was it?


And...


I'm not seeing any problems with embedded youtube videos on this end... do you have an example of an attempt that failed?

One more point deserves attention...

Originally posted by americandingbat
I do not put much weight into statistics on how many times the Debate Forum index or threads are viewed as compared to the past for one major reason: they are almost impossible for most newcomers to find. If the goal was to increase views of the Debate Forum, there are dozens of ways that a savvy marketer (which SkepticOverlord certainly is) could have increased its profile.

Statistics: We (ATS) are a public medium, and as such, the statistics that define how we're used by those who visit are an important metric used to determine success or failure.

Given the flagging-system, the debate forum threads are no harder to find than any other thread on ATS... all it takes is for members to notice, appreciate a good thread, flag-it, and it appears on our site home, top-topics page, RSS feed, and email newsletter given enough flags.

But, during the first few months of 2009, we've almost 1 million visitors clicking-through to threads from over 15,000 different websites with links to ATS threads. After some detailed analysis (we're discussing this issue at length in the mod forum), none of those referring links have been to any content in the debate forum.


Actual Views: And here is the really disappointing aspect of the current harsh nature of the debate forum... many of the threads have less than 50 views more than what was needed to create the thread (assuming each post racks-up 3 views in the analytics software)... some have more, but most on page-one of the debate forum index do not. That tells me than even our members have lost interest in the debates.


With data like this, we have no choice but to examine what needs to be changed, strategize on changes, and implement a new system/approach.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Here's the embedding from my previous post


Also, the deleted ATS media video was the Mini-gun equipped GMC diplomatic vehicle. It would at least be nice to know why it was deleted ...

reply to post by visible_villain

Ok, great ! It works ...

But, be advised - when 'previewing' a post ( at least for me ) having an embedded [yvid], then the 'previewed' html has the 'red-backslash' as indicated in prev post.

I guess this is the 'actual' problem then - previewing embedded [yvid]'s .

Thanks.

reply to post by visible_villain

Yes, the "preview" display seems to be an entirely different code-path (in PHP) to convert bbcode to HTML, than the actual code that formats the bbcode for display in a thread. There's lots of inconsistencies: yvid previews don't work, size and color tag behaviour is inconsistent, emoticons don't display. As I've said before, there once was a little function called "postify()", back when ATS was just:

XMB 1.8 Main Developers - Tularis, Kathryl, Richard, IT, RevMac For More Information On Other Staff - Visit XMBForum.com

...and it did all the work, poor little thing. Why the different code-paths? It's an ATS Mystery.

reply to post by Ian McLean

... [ just another ] ATS Mystery.

Yep !

Well, like they say in the caves all up in the Himalayas -

It is what it is ...

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Statistics: We (ATS) are a public medium, and as such, the statistics that define how we're used by those who visit are an important metric used to determine success or failure.

Given the flagging-system, the debate forum threads are no harder to find than any other thread on ATS... all it takes is for members to notice, appreciate a good thread, flag-it, and it appears on our site home, top-topics page, RSS feed, and email newsletter given enough flags.

There is no need to convince me of the wisdom or the ethics of your decision. Whether it is wise depends entirely on your goals, and although I have doubts about whether some players in this business have behaved ethically, I do not see abandoning the current debate forum as an unethical decision by management.

As to statistics: I am relieved to be getting straightforward answers about how and why the decisions are being made. Without access to the numbers that you have, I am at a serious disadvantage in discussing the matter on that basis. All I can do is to point to questions that I would ask of your methodology and conclusions.

Today, I wonder whether it is relevant that by the nature of a debate there are only between ten and fourteen posts to a thread over the course of a week or more, which will obviously result in less time spent on the "Recent Posts" page than most successful threads would have.

I wonder what it means that there were no hits to the Debate Forum from links outside ATS: perhaps that there are few links to the Debate Forum outside ATS? For example, I don't think the debates usually get "digged" by their originator or participants, and as has been seen elsewhere here, without that first "digg" readers are unlikely to "digg" a thread again.

I wonder whether views of debates increase during the hours in which they do appear on the "hot topics" pages, and what the outcome of those links is.

I wonder whether all the other forums perform better than the Debate Forum has, statistically speaking.

I wonder what the response is to threads that are created in other areas by Fighters who have been inspired by research done by a debate to bring the topic to open discussion here.

In short, I wonder whether any selected set of numbers can tell a whole story. But that's a philosophical question that I often have about statistics: I'm very interested in the selection and presentation of data and how it is used to create and perpetuate image.

In this context, it's not that important. You have the numbers, I have questions. I believe that the numbers could be different if the debate forum were promoted differently, perhaps in ways designed to counter its relative slowness. But that's a hypothetical that doesn't need to be tested: your vision lies elsewhere.

As I said yesterday, I wish ATS well in its continuing evolution.

Originally posted by americandingbat
I have doubts about whether some players in this business have behaved ethically

?

Today, I wonder whether it is relevant that by the nature of a debate there are only between ten and fourteen posts to a thread over the course of a week or more, which will obviously result in less time spent on the "Recent Posts" page than most successful threads would have.

But the existing system is no different than what was being used in late 2007... and despite much less overall traffic to ATS as a whole, the debate threads and debate forum index received much more traffic and views.

I wonder what it means that there were no hits to the Debate Forum from links outside ATS: perhaps that there are few links to the Debate Forum outside ATS?

It's more than digging or tweets. People find ATS via search. When people find something interesting, they put links on their sites, blogs, or wherever they post. In just the past 30 days, 5,412 distinct pages were linked-to from other people posting links to ATS on other sites. This is one measure of the attractiveness or "draw" of online content.

I wonder whether views of debates increase during the hours in which they do appear on the "hot topics" pages, and what the outcome of those links is.

The analytics don't provide a granularity down to the hourly level, just daily. But the typical debate thread shows a plateau that beings when the debate opens, and falls-off when judging is complete.

I wonder whether all the other forums perform better than the Debate Forum has, statistically speaking.

I've been unable to locate a public forum that performs worse.

In short, I wonder whether any selected set of numbers can tell a whole story.

Numbers and experience tell as much of a story as we can get.

This (a web site) is a uniquely quantifiable medium. We have the ability to understand what content is attractive to the people who come here, how they get to it, how long they look at it, and what content they view next (or if they leave). With experience, a great deal can be learned from these numbers, and applied to strategies for change.

I'm very interested in the selection and presentation of data and how it is used to create and perpetuate image.

Given your tonality here in this thread combined with that statement, I'm given to believe you think I'm not being honest with the data.

I believe that the numbers could be different if the debate forum were promoted differently, perhaps in ways designed to counter its relative slowness.

There's no difference than when the forum was once a more popular destination than it is now. In fact, the forum overview pages are much more attractive/cleaner, and the home page link is much more prominent than it once was.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by americandingbat
I have doubts about whether some players in this business have behaved ethically

?

That comment was not directed at anyone in particular, and I have no interest in specifying which players I think may be sock puppets, which I think have used below-the-belt tactics, or even who I think may be getting a raw deal during this change. My opinion is my opinion, that's all.

I'm very interested in the selection and presentation of data and how it is used to create and perpetuate image.

Given your tonality here in this thread combined with that statement, I'm given to believe you think I'm not being honest with the data.

Not at all. I think you're being perfectly honest with the data. I just think that given enough information, different pictures can be painted depending on how you are sampling and presenting the information. Since I don't have access to your data, I obviously can't provide specific examples. What I have done with my questions is simply to list the first few questions that popped into my head as things that I would look at were I trying to analyze patterns of usage at ATS.

I'm not accusing you of anything but being good at public relations and marketing.

I believe that the numbers could be different if the debate forum were promoted differently, perhaps in ways designed to counter its relative slowness.

There's no difference than when the forum was once a more popular destination than it is now. In fact, the forum overview pages are much more attractive/cleaner, and the home page link is much more prominent than it once was.

And that's fine. My point was that if the goal were to raise the stats of the debate forum, there would be ways to go about doing it. That's not to say that you have any obligation to do so, just to point out that there are always other options.

Again, you don't need to rationalize your decision to me. I'm not questioning its wisdom or its ethics. I'm just letting you and other ATS members know what debating meant to me, and how I see the issues that have been raised on this thread.

EDIT: end quote tag

EDIT AGAIN: for an open quote tag


[edit on 4/24/2009 by americandingbat]

[edit on 4/24/2009 by americandingbat]

Originally posted by americandingbat
and I have no interest in specifying which players I think may be sock puppets, which I think have used below-the-belt tactics, or even who I think may be getting a raw deal during this change.

But you do have an interest in innuendo and rumor-mongering?

I'm not sure what you're attempting to imply, but sure seems "below-the-belt" to let fly vague accusations.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

I wonder whether all the other forums perform better than the Debate Forum has, statistically speaking.

I've been unable to locate a public forum that performs worse.

I just wanted to jump in on this one if I may ...

I am sure that high school or college debate competitions are also the lowest attended extra curricular events, to consider them in such simplistic terms is in my opinion slightly unfair. Perhaps the argument can be made that those institutions' priorities are by nature not as singularly "business" oriented as ATS', yet many businesses consider certain aspects of their product as "loss leaders" in order to meet their marketing needs. Perhaps you simply don't consider the value added by the existence of the debate forum as such.

However, since the decision seems to have been made as to the standing of the debate forum in its present form, may I make a suggestion for its next incarnation ...

Perhaps allowing the debate threads to be accessed by the rest of ATS membership for participation after the judgements have been rendered would go a significant way to maximize general interest in the debate forum and its threads, and allow for greater integration to all ATS members. This is a simple remedy which I imagine could be implemented rather easily, would add much to the debate forum even in its current form.

Having said all of that, if there is to be a debate forum in any form, I can't envision how it would operate without the benefit if a companion public forum information thread. Lest we forget that this issue alone is what precipitated this latest round of discussion.

I think, mercifully for everyone, these will be my last thoughts on this topic. I am finding it quite unhealthy to care to this degree.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


I will take this point into consideration, and if I decide that it is my responsibility to provide names of those I suspect, I will do so in a more appropriate setting, through u2u or by alerting relevant posts.

Otherwise, since I haven't pointed any fingers, a simple statement that I think one or more people who have posted on ATS on the topic of the debate forum over the past two weeks may be a sock puppet, or that I worry that some people may have gotten a raw deal, does not seem "below-the-belt" to me.

Unfortunately, I'm in the midst of packing for an out-of-town trip, and will most likely not be able to respond here for some time. I will check the thread when I get back, or if I have a chance while I'm away, but I apologize in advance if I'm not able to respond promptly to any other questions or accusations you might have with reference to this.

Sorry to have to change the topic. I just wanted to point out that a prominent advert on the homepage is intensely off-putting:

This is not a joke - Congratulations you won!

Apart from the crass nature of the text, what really gets me is the very rapidly flashing green and white lights. Not only unpleasant, but just the kind of thing that can set off an epileptic attack with some people.

Personally I find it so nauseating it just makes me leave the homepage.

reply to post by pause4thought


Not off topic; the topic is ATS issues. Flashing ads are annoying. And possibly dangerous to those with particular sensitivities or potential for migraine.

Other have complained about it also:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That thread's for complaints about specific ads.

Originally posted by americandingbat
Otherwise, since I haven't pointed any fingers, a simple statement that I think one or more people who have posted on ATS on the topic of the debate forum over the past two weeks may be a sock puppet, or that I worry that some people may have gotten a raw deal, does not seem "below-the-belt" to me.

Schrodingers dog has already accused me more or less openly of being a sock puppet, so you can just as well do the same. That IS what you are implying, isn't it? Is it really that hard for you guys to believe that quite ordinary members like me have their own opinions about the FCP, the debates and the fighters..? And that these opinions may not be very positive?

Check my posting record. Not many days ago I was accused in another thread of being Nighvision's sock puppet. This is getting amusing.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
I am sure that high school or college debate competitions are also the lowest attended extra curricular events, to consider them in such simplistic terms is in my opinion slightly unfair.

Actually, it's interesting that you bring up that analogy. From my perspective, and the hard-numbers don't disagree, what the debate forum had evolved into was little more than a "debate club." The club-like culture seemed to focus more on quantity of debates and less on the original mandate: "a place for quality back-and-forth structured debate on contemporary, provocative and important topics that are at the forefront of ATS topical discussions. "

And given recent events (!), it really does seem as though the socialization of a club environment was (to some) more important than the debates or topics. Not to make it seem like that's a bad thing, but not the "thing" the debate forum was intended to be... and it now looks like the original format was unable to survive the growth and popularity of ATS in general.

Perhaps the argument can be made that those institutions' priorities are by nature not as singularly "business" oriented as ATS', yet many businesses consider certain aspects of their product as "loss leaders" in order to meet their marketing needs.

In business terms, a "loss-leader" is something that brings in business, but is generally operated at a financial loss so that other products can be profitable. Inkjet printers are a prime example... the lower-end consumer printers are produced at a slight loss so that the consumables (ink cartridges) can be the profit focus. The "Swiffer" product lines are another prime example of a wildly successful product where the consumables are the profit engine.

However, the product sold at a loss still gets huge sales/attention. The debate forum was experiencing dwindling attention... so the comparison doesn't fit.

Perhaps you simply don't consider the value added by the existence of the debate forum as such.

To be completely honest and absolutely frank (in a Gordon Ramsey way so that we can know what's broken before we fix it), I think the value has been diluted by too many debates and too few debates that are on contemporary, provocative and important topics that are at the forefront of ATS topical discussions.

I can't envision how it would operate without the benefit if a companion public forum information thread.

I can. We're discussing (in the staff forum) several ways to organize and initiate debates that don't involve such a need, and perhaps even eliminates the need for special titles (while still clearly identifying successful debaters).

Lest we forget that this issue alone is what precipitated this latest round of discussion.

That's not an accurate assumption. While the chat-thread is what caught the attention of Admin/Owners, it's what prompted a closer look, and after that closer look (at the entire debate system), it was determined that change was needed.

I am finding it quite unhealthy to care to this degree.

That statements seems not to coincide with other "recent events."

I got an issue...

just tried to post a new topic in ABN and got this...

You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near 'Anti-Police' Bandwagon [/url] [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread' at line 2

so i tried a reload and same message came up... tried a reload again and still the same message..

Now, no fault of my own as i did not know if it was a succesful post or not, but i just got a u2u with the two threads removed ... i'm about to u2u the mod involved to inform whats happened so that this can be dealt with effectively and nicely

i'm running latest firefox, win XP , macbook laptop..

Originally posted by Extralien
just tried to post a new topic in ABN and got this...

It looks like there was some type of special character in the body of your post that was rejected by the code as it attempt to insert the new post (the thread title "Crime gangs 'pose rising threat'") was accepted, so it's definitely something in the post body.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Tanks so much for getting back to me on that SO.

JacKatMtn has been very kindly helping me get to the route of the problem and yes it does appear to be an ATS related thread which I had inserted into the submit form that seems to be causing the problem...

I have a feeling JacK was climbing the walls as I was trying to get that thread posted