Hello all,


I've noticed that some people have stars and some don't ... etc... etc...


Can someone please explain the star system to me?


- Thanks in advance!

You can "star" a post if you like and or agree with it or if you think that it is a quality post. I don't think that it adds points for someone to have their post starred (someone correct me if I'm wrong) but it's nice to know when someone likes what you have to say.

Rush

reply to post by kreese

---

Stars are what hsur2112 said.

It is a way that members can applaud a post they think was a great post, or that they agree with heavily.

Sometimes it makes it easier to read long threads by scanning through and reading only the posts with stars. Posts with stars normally indicates that something beneficial was added to the thread.

Stars have no worth as there is not a counter for them, nor do you get more points.

[edit on 19/8/2008 by SilentShadow]

reply to post by SilentShadow

---

Then why do so many new people have stars? I mean someone who just joined and they have stars already???

For the "older" members, do the stars even matter? Does any one really care that the have X number of stars?

Just curious?

reply to post by fishneedh2o

---

I think you are confusing stars and points.

Points are the number shown to the left of this post in my mini profile, sure they don't really matter. There are some things you can buy with them, however, they are also a bit of a prestige thing. The more points, generally means that member has contributed to the site.

Stars are the little blue stars seen around the site at the top of someones post (not in this forum as they are disabled), they are just a member indication of appreciation for a post.

[edit on 20/8/2008 by SilentShadow]

Thank you. I understand which is which. I have seen so many new users, brand new- just joined, and they already have a little blue star.

Maybe there is a star conspiracy.

I don't care about stars, nor how many friends I have. Hell, just yesterday a member adding me drew my attentiont to the fact that I even HAVE friends listed. And just then I added silly's to my profile for the first time. I've only been here four years. lol.

My question now is, what are the flags? I have four flags. Is that good or bad? I assume as in RT, a bad thing. Can I find out what those are about? How would I know what to look at in me if I don't know what someone else thinks they saw? Er, what?

Misfit

[edit on 20/8/08 by Misfit]

That just means that someone liked that particular post.

Rush

All it means is that members like their post and hence starred it. Stars are just like applause for members to hand out. Moderators can give a person applause to show their appreciation for a post, members can star other members (Mods star also).



Flags are a good thing. As you may have noticed every thread has a little red button up the top that allows you to "Flag" a thread. That means you think the thread is a good thread.

The "4 Flags" that your profile mentioned is in relation to the threads YOU have made. It means 4 people have flagged your threads and thought they were great threads.

reply to post by SilentShadow

---

Hey thanks for that

And thanks to whomever flagged me!!

It was me.

Rush

PS) And you don't fool me a bit, Misfit.....you like the fact that you have friends. You like your points too.....admit it....go ahead.

Heh, nope. Karlhungis can tell you about it.
Same of points - they would only matter if I can cash them out at the end of a session !! lol

What would bother me, what I now see there, would be to have an enemy. I don't like that someone would think that ill of me. To blatantly disagree with me is one thing, but I'de hate to think I've made an enemy of someone.

An yet another note of this star/flag/friend thing is --- what is a "Sharp Firend"?

The star system is pretty good but it is never going to be perfect. When I see people getting like 10 stars for a post like..

"Good post! Starred and flagged! "

Something is wrong with
1-the star system. or
2-the judgement of ATS members

Either way, it goes to show that the stars you get for a post don't necessarily have nothing to do with the validity of the post or whether it is a major contribution to the thread (which is supposed to be the case).

From what I've seen, it seems some people literally live on ATS waiting for new threads. And I'm only saying that because the threads with the most stars usually have the SAME people over and over who are the first ones to respond. If you can get in on a thread early on (say the first couple pages) and the thread turns into a big hit on ATS, if you make a very well-thought out logical post you can usually get at least a couple stars.

But since very few people actually read the entire thread, the later posts largely go unnoticed regardless of the content of those posts. I'm guessing this is why in the most popular threads, you have the first couple pages littered with stars. Honestly, it is better than the system that was in place before.

-ChriS

[edit on 24-8-2008 by BlasteR]

[edit on 24-8-2008 by BlasteR]

All that means is that 10 people agreed heavily with his comment. So instead of all posting: "Good post! Starred and flagged! ". They just star the post that they were going to make.



I also have noticed this, however, there is nothing to worry about. Most threads all you need to read is the first few pages to get what is going on, then the rest turns into arguments.

The biggest thing though is what does it matter? Stars are not counted anywhere, you don't get points or applause for them. What does it matter if your awesome post on page 5 doesn't get a star?

You don't post on ATS expecting recognition for everything you write and post otherwise you will get bent out of shape.

That doesn't make any sense though. The point of the star system is to give credit to the posters who make the good, valid, well thought out posts. Why does it make sense to give that credit to someone else who contributed nothing to the thread? If you are going to give a star at all, you should give it to the person who is actually making the good post. Not a member who gives someone else credit via another post. Telling someone "Good post! Starred and flagged!" does not contribute to the thread. It's clutter that could have been sent in a U2U.. Yet I see these posts getting all kinds of stars? That's all I'm saying.



That isn't always the case.. And if you make a post without fully knowing what is going on in thread you can make yourself look pretty stupid. THEN people get frustrated because everyone goes over everything they just argued ALL OVER AGAIN, and the thread goes for another 3 pages of people making re-posts because people didn't read the thread to begin with. SEEN IT A THOUSAND TIMES!!!

I could care less whether or not I get ANY stars. I am here on ATS to learn, do research, share my research, make valid posts that contribute, and apply uncommon logic to the discussions and debates of the day. However, I DO give out stars whenever I read something that is profound, interesting, noteworthy, or otherwise important to the discussion.

But this doesn't take away from the fact that latter pages in a thread get much fewer stars than the first 3 or 4 pages. It isn't an argument, it's just an observation..

-ChriS




[edit on 24-8-2008 by BlasteR]

[edit on 24-8-2008 by BlasteR]