Sometimes I star posts because I agree, but usually those will have to be well written, well thought out posts. I find myself starring PT's posts a lot because he really goes above and beyond in many of his posts. I even starred him once when I flat out disagreed with him. But his argument was good, and eloquent.

Mostly though I like to star posts for content contribution directly related to the OP. New links, videos, and anything that contributes to the overall understanding of a topic, so as to increase the value of the thread, will almost always get a star, and especially in my threads. It encourages people to go dig up more stuff on the topic- and thus gives a broader understanding of the topic.

As to this supposed trend to star certain members because of their status here, I would have to disagree. And as an example, PT is not on my friend's list- but that doesn't matter- he makes good posts usually- so I star him often. And DD has had thread flops, just like all the rest of us too. I think for the most part the system works, just like with the flags. Neither is perfect, but then again, not much of anything is perfect.

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
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

I think that the stars on threads with video are not indicative of a site gone topsy turvy. Perhaps in your referenced case, they are indicative of a desire for people to see other media aside from words. I reference Skeptic Overlord, who on his bio states that he is a believer in the "wisdom of the crowds", in stating that perhaps there is a reason for the stars.

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.

Well, if you think so...

Some of my applause was a shock to me when I thought I was more researched and eloquent on other threads.

Personally, I don't look at stars, flags, or even applause in a member's profile. I look at the post itself.

Well I might speak for myself here but I star posts if I think the poster is a chick.

Originally posted by A Fortiori
Personally, I don't look at stars, flags, or even applause in a member's profile. I look at the post itself.

I was talking about a members contribution as a whole, not at a post by post examination.

Generally as a trend, the members that have more applause seem to have mastered the art of thread writing.

But yes, I agree, the post itself is what counts

Originally posted by silver tongue devil
Well I might speak for myself here but I star posts if I think the poster is a chick.

Well there is some rigorous honesty



[edit on 25-10-2009 by SLAYER69]

What I have noticed is that greater the depth of my thoughts expressed and/or the more original my thinking over and above drawing conspicuously upon rehashed material from de facto authority, the less likehood there is the post will get stellar attention. That is my observation for my own posts. Maybe they're too complex at times and the multiple layers of meaning are missed. Yeah, I'm misunderstood. The human race isn't ready for me, boo hoo.

As for others' posts, I'll star whatever seems to me to make a good point or shows a hint of even accidental but important bit of insight about the world. There are hidden gems all over the place.

Lately I've noticed that if you have an avatar that somehow denigrates Obama, you have a good chance of acquiring a lot of stars and flags, regardless of what the thread is about, how well it is written or what position it takes.