reply to post by Diplomat
I doubt you read that all in two minutes, let alone posted your reply in that same duration. But thanks for acknowledging the idea.
Any anti-flagging system would be a very delicate issue. So if it follows that which I proposed in detail above, and further below, then it should be
both very systematic in its approach and very effective in its results.
reply to post by chissler
Well the above outlined system is substantially different. And again to the above, I'd appreciate if you commented on the actual mechanism of the
system, it's implications, but not the general sentiment. I know of previous attempts at this concept. But this is a considerably different stance,
so it should warrant the respect of closer scrutiny.
This worry can easily be refuted. The type of threads that I mentioned above are incredibly prone to excessive flagging by members that simply wish to
fuel their own debate, or are of a random nature, and not a true reflection of the intellectual voracity of the thread, or significance to the
average ATS member
. Popularity alone doesn't mean that for some reason or another, the thread should warrant placement on the front page. Sure
everyone has a different reason for flagging a thread, but we can assume that everyone does so for rational reasons, whether it be for its insight,
its ease of discussion, its debatability, or the conclusions that it has as a community drawn. You said this yourself. But after a certain number of
threads, that notion becomes a mathematical improbability. The reliability of the flag count deceases at a significant rate after this hypothetical
"critical number". Typically, as the number of flags increases, and surpasses that "critical number" we can determine that the flag count isn't
in relation to the rational conclusions of the first half of the members, which happened to flagged the thread initially. Now I'm not saying
people's opinions are wrong, that can't logically be so. But there is definitely a more efficient system for determining whether or not threads
should warrant the attention that one undoubtedly gets when its flag count reaches a certain number.
The major difference in my system, as opposed to simply flagging and anti-flagging on a 1:1 ratio... is that by examining the change in the ratio of
flag to anti-flag over time (anti-flags being limited by a proportion of the flags present, which is based on popularity, considering both views and
reply count) we can determine the overall significance of the thread to the average ATS member. Popularity alone shouldn't be the major determinant
in that thread's being displayed on the board's front page. Doesn't this seem counter-intuitive? These particular threads I mentioned are cases,
which when elevated to a position on the web site where even more views would be encouraged, only fuel the incessant nature of the thread itself. As
of now, the thread Welcome to the USSA has about 60 flags. The very context that these threads are placed in is debatable (when linking to the TOP
threads page on the horizontal navigation bar at the top of page, the headline IMPORTANT TOPICS RIGHT NOW is the first thing you see). The majority of
those topics shouldn't be there.
Again, at a certain threshold, popularity no longer becomes a measure of the quality of that post. There are probably many more topics that deserve
better attention. Using my system you could find a natural medium for the actual "most important threads". Isn't ATS as a business not interested
in the creation of a self moderated quality dynamic
? If my proposed system is actually sold as part of the media package, it could prove a
significant factor in a customer's decision to purchase, though not that there are any other options anyway, the Above Top Network is kind of a
competitive monopoly... Oh and I'm not here to make money, so feel free to use me. Great thing about ideas is that they're free. Great thing about
dedicated members is that they appreciate being used.
Sure, there are moderators to handle such large threads, and their discretion is all that is truly necessary.
But then again the proposal outlines an interactive, intuitive system that would better reflect the quality of any particular thread, especially the
very large ones; it would put moderation into the hands of all the members, and although that may seem unwise, we know that people in the end make
The system is hardly exploitable. Now whether the implementation of such a system is even necessary is the question that I'll leave to the site
staff. It might be fairly complex to implement, and would require the formulation of a few equations, some calculus, and creative programming.
[edit on 5-11-2008 by cognoscente]