What determines if a post gets starred a lot or not?

reply to post by Frankidealist35


I agree with those who think that some members get starred more because of who they are...some might call this speculation because I don't know who starred a post nor why...but a lot of heavily-starred material is just bland clichés, you know, and various replies occur "you're so right, you're so clever" when it should be you're so obvious, you're so cheap, you're so lame, you're so ordinary...again, I'm not talking about people whose views I dislike as such, and I know that conventional views are popular, by definition...but some members do seem consistently overpraised for utterances that are so much more typical than brilliant...It does make me think that folks are just saying "Star for her, she is just a good sort"...and nothing is wrong with that, as such, but I do think that's a prevalent motivation...

[edit on 22-10-2009 by nine-eyed-eel]

reply to post by Frankidealist35


From what I can tell a lot of it involves brown nosing and supporting ones friends, regardless of how utterly revolting or ridiculous the post.

Originally posted by Simon_Boudreaux

Originally posted by intrepid


To be honest, I believe it's both. I'm not griping about it, just expressing an observation. I've seen some members that have contributed many good threads and have brought quite a bit of good information to us here at ATS, and now it seems that when ever they start a thread they have a "following" you might say that automatically will flag the thread simply because of the OP.

This is avery sensitive subject. I tried to make a joke about the cliques and see my flag of shame.

Speaking of starring a post.

What is up with people starring a post after it has been removed for being off topic or ill mannered???

It's like "yeah they must have said something cool man! I'm gonna star it despite it having a big off topic banner on it! Yeah!!"


I've noticed this a few times now, it's really, really not cool.

I give stars to quality posts, sometimes to viewpoints I disagree with but have been stated eloquently and lay out their case well. Sometimes I give them as kinda moral support as well. And sometimes I just give them for posts that give me a laugh. A great topic or a great find is also worthy of a star, IMO. They all have to be well written, first and foremost.

To me however, applauses from the Admins and Mods are the real prizes for good posts. I really value those. And I'm not just sucking up there.........

[edit on 22-10-2009 by pavil]

i give stars to people who i agree with or to who ever just posts something awesome

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
I've been reading some threads here and looking around. I've been browsing... and there are some posts that get a lot of stars and I really don't understand why it got a lot of star because there wasn't any proof to the post (it was just speculation).

Wow Frank,

150,000+ points and 800+ flags. Silver content contributor.....

You don't know why people get stars yet? You've written over 900 threads.

I dont even bother with the importance of stars or flags anymore...i mean i saw a thread with a youtube video and 5 lines of text, and it got over 50 flags, and then saw a well thought and researched thread which barely warranted 5 flags....ATS has gone topsy turvy

Now I just judge a members contribution by applause numbers. Regardless for what is posted or the mods or FSME's views, applause is given for well written threads, and well researched threads. Not for some of the subjective anyday tripe we see all over the boards.

I usually give a thread a flag if I think it is important and others need to know.

I star a thread or post if the member has put a lot of effort into writing it, sometimes I even star threads that I don't necessarily agree with, if I can see the member put a lot of work into it.

I see threads that have nothing but a news snippet posted on it, and they get like 30/40 stars. If it was an important topic, I would flag it but not give a star.

I wonder if the Mods can tell us if there's much evidence of people with multiple accounts starring / flagging their own posts?

Not something I'd ever consider doing, but I'm sure there is a minority who aren't as scrupulous

like some have said ..

i stick by these rules.

1. It gets a star if 'I' think its a good post (specualtion or otherwise) .. well thought out, well written etc.( wether i agree with the subject or not)

2. it gets a flag if 'I' think 'Others' should see it

thats my method anyway

I mostly star a post because i agree with what the poster said. Like saying "yeah, me too". Not very intelligent, i know, but that's how it is.

Another main reason for me to give a star is a well researched, informative post. I don't even have to be extremely interested in the subject, but i star it as a way of saying "good job".

Sometimes, not often enough (but still I'm proud of this one ) i star someone's post even though I don't agree with what the poster is saying, but because they make a very good point and they explain it in a civilised manner.

Sometimes i star something just because it's so damn funny... Especially in threads with a lot of tension and negativism, a really funny post will always get a star from me.

Finally, and i really hate this one, i star the first post to contradict another post that got on my nerves in some way. Mostly it's one liners and in other circumstances they wouldn't get many stars, but like this, they get plenty. It's an emotional reaction i guess.

Originally posted by Quantum_Squirrel
like some have said ..

i stick by these rules.

1. It gets a star if 'I' think its a good post (specualtion or otherwise) .. well thought out, well written etc.( wether i agree with the subject or not)

2. it gets a flag if 'I' think 'Others' should see it

thats my method anyway

Ahhh one who "gets it".

This is how I star and flag as well.

Originally posted by elevatedone

Originally posted by Quantum_Squirrel
like some have said ..

i stick by these rules.

1. It gets a star if 'I' think its a good post (specualtion or otherwise) .. well thought out, well written etc.( wether i agree with the subject or not)

2. it gets a flag if 'I' think 'Others' should see it

thats my method anyway

Ahhh one who "gets it".

This is how I star and flag as well.

well then you should star my post by definition and me yours .... but someone stolen the stars here lol :p


and all those members that feel some people star others consistently... maybe they like what the person has to say .. maybe they have followed the persons posts as they like their style or have similar views ..

If DD (DimensionalDetective) puts a post up (to name one of many) u know i am gonna at least give it a read ... some i agree some i disagree .. hence the stars etc

Heck every post i do gets 1 star i am convinced i have a stalker :p .. hopefully they just like what i have to say .. the alternative is too scary to think about

[edit on 23/10/09 by Quantum_Squirrel]

We need a function to give a negative star.

By allowing stars a topic may get many stars giving the impression that many agree with the post, and that would be correct. It, however, does not allow members to show disapproval or disagreement with a topic. If just as many disagree, should that not be reflected somehow?

By having many stars a topic can give a false impression that the majority agree even if just as many don't but have no way to show it other than engaging in debate. Not that debate is bad, but it seems that whenever someone disagrees with a topic they get called names, belittled, or some other nonsense.

Either that or just get rid of the stars altogether. They seem to be more of a status thing rather than a value thing anyway.

reply to post by Frankidealist35
"Stars" for the most part are just a "high five".

And they are actually almost an appeal to numbers argument, a false one. just because someone has a lot of stars don't assume they made a relevant point.


It only means others agree with what they said, it doesn't make it true/accurate.

Politics is about 85% of everything in life and that's often true here on ATS too.

I think a lot of people put political thought in to not just what they write, and how they write it but what threads to post or not post on too.

As a critical mind and someone who has been on ATS a little while now (a few days shy of a year) I can say ATS Members might be attracted to each other based on politics of shared beliefs and sentiments but the ATS staff sure isn't.

As a critical mind and a rebel I will sometimes play Devil's advocate here on ATS and when I see no one is sticking up for the opposing argument I will take it.

Recently I defended Roman Polanski for three solid days. Politically it was a bad move, as a critical mind though a lot of people were over looking some important facts in a rush to gerneralize simplify and condemn.

Three different members of the staff applauded my efforts 8 different times. I don't honestly know or can say whether it was because the validity of my arguments or the fact that by providing an opposing veiw point I kept the thread alive well beyond the point every one else had a chance to say hang him high. Of course everyone just switched to wanting to hang me instead. Not the staff though.

A few months before that I defended the man who shot up the Holocaust Museum not on Neo-Nazi principals but on his history of invading the Federal Reserve decades before, and the posibility he could be a Manchurian Candidate.

I thought my first post to the thread would probably end up being removed by the staff because I was defending him and actually not just defending him but promoting him as a real man of courage and conviction.

Eight rounds of applause from four different staff members.

About 110 people have selected me to be their friend here on ATS. Don't ask me why. Some of them I have never read a post by or had them ever respond to a post of mine.

I average about 1 and 2/3 star per post when you break down the numbers. Don't ask my why.

I think the best thing you can do for ATS is the best thing you can do for yourself and that is be yourself.

Speak your mind, say what you mean and mean what you say. Stay with in the terms of service requirements doing it! Remember everyone has an opinion and every one is entitled to it.

Be yourself, believe in yourself. give the best account you can of yourself by giving the best account you can of the things you are speaking too and believe me it will show.

You don't have to set out to be popular to become popular.

I think everyone realizes when you are genuinely being honest and true to yourself. I think if anything or anyone can be respected it is someone who remains true and disciplined to their own principals.

If I had to stress one thing to people, if you have an agenda and a mission, ATS is just not the right place for you.

If your agenda is learning all that you can on a broad range of issues and topics, and sharing all you can on a broad range of issues and topics...

ATS is a great and vastly infinite place!

Frank you don't need stars, because you are a star!

Everyone who honestly shares here on ATS is in my book!







[edit on 24/10/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Originally posted by intrepid
Edit: Star this post.

[edit on 22-10-2009 by intrepid]

Here you go.....



Peace

[edit on 24/10/2009 by operation mindcrime]

reply to post by Frankidealist35


Why don't you start us all off telling why you either do or don't star posts? I think that would go a long way in helping others to understand where you're coming from.

Originally posted by Frankidealist35

... there are some posts that get a lot of stars and I really don't understand why it got a lot of star because there wasn't any proof to the post (it was just speculation).

... I'm wondering is like what determines whether a post gets starred or not?

Is it if the post is good or not? Is it where the post is placed? I'm confused now.

I would really like someone to either explain to me I'm not alone in this confusion or to help me out here.

I've noticed the same thing.

The first thing you need to do is take logic and reason and throw them out the window.

Take an average cross section of humanity and you will find that most people have the IQ of a turnip.

Perhaps you should try to dumb down your threads?

Sometimes the more knowledge and relevance that a post contains the less likely it is to be flagged, starred and/ or replied to. Or it could just be that that particular post just sucked.

[edit on 24-10-2009 by In nothing we trust]