Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

ATS 2010 Updates Thread - #(UPDATE Nov. 10)#

page: 63
40
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Oooo fantastic! New WATS formula has forced me from top 20 to outside of the top 50. Woot for progress.

edit on 28/10/2010 by serbsta because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
I noticed that the "new formula" for WATS doesn't seem to be based heavily on thread starters at all, as apparently high flag numbers no longer matter, at least as much as before.

--airspoon
edit on 27-10-2010 by airspoon because: I'll keep that comment to myself for now


I am guessing that the new WATS system is not based on an average of flags per thread or the overall number of flags a person has but likely works like this:

Threads with 01-10 flags = . 25 points
Threads with 11-20 flags = .50 points
Threads with 21-30 flags = 1 points
Threads with 31-40 flags = 2 points
Threads with 41-50 flags = 5 points
Threads with 51-100 flags = 10 points
Threads with 101-200 flags = 25 points
Threads with 200 plus flags = 50 points

Though that might not be the precise formula it likely works similir to the old This one is Aware, Deep Thinker, Fine Conspiracist, God like Wisdom applause system, and the bronze, silver, gold, cosmic content system where you achieve a higher point award for reaching certain levels of flags per thread.

This way members providing quality content are rewarded to a greater distinction than people just providing lots of content.

So where as before picking up 10 to 20 fresh flags spread over 2 or 3 threads or even 10 to 20 threads might have picked up another 1 or 2 points now that likely would only pick you up .25 to .50 points.

Members flagging your existing threads won't actually increase your point count until the number of flags on that specific thread hit the next spread level.

However if you have a thread that say has 200 flags, and someone adds that 201st flag then your score would zoom up by 25 points. (This is probably why the precise formula is not being revealed so people can't game the system in that way, but I highly urge all members who haven't read my great threads on The Skull and Bones322 and the New Health Care Bill, or my Tax Day April 15th the day the London Bankers Celebrate Lincolns Death, or How I have responded to 5 census enumorators, or my Obama wants to infiltrate the Internet Thread, to really check out these great quality threads)

I think this is a much better system personally, and ideally will encourage some of the better thread writers to just concentrate on that occasional great thread like Slayer's Atlantis or Great Game Threads, or Sky Floating's brilliant take on social issues, Zorgon's great conspiracy threads, or Schroedinger's Dog's great phillosophy threads, or Phages great scientific threads, though of course once in a great while a really great news story comes along that can gain tons of flags like when Israel launches a new war, or Wiki Leaks comes out with some great disclosure etc, but those are few and far in between. Members will just find it harder achieving a ranking off of doing nothing but republishing the News or posting YouTube videos with opening pieces that are one line long saying "I found this on YouTube what do you think?"

Forum Gangs and Friends won't factor in so heavily because they might be able to get your typical ho hum news story from 6 flags to 20, but they aren't going to get your 100 flag thread to 201.

Now I am sure management will deny this is how the new system works, but I am pretty sure it works along those lines.



edit on 28/10/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler because: Spelling



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Threads with 01-10 flags = . 25 points
Threads with 11-20 flags = .50 points
Threads with 21-30 flags = 1 points
Threads with 31-40 flags = 2 points
Threads with 41-50 flags = 5 points
Threads with 51-100 flags = 10 points
Threads with 101-200 flags = 25 points
Threads with 200 plus flags = 50 points



Nice theorizing, but that doesn't add up, at all. I've tried it on a few members, of course not with those exact figures, but that system overall doesn't seem right. I'm curious as to how this actually works, I don't see why the staff wouldn't disclose the mechanics, who could it hurt?



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by serbsta
 


Because for instance if you knew for certain your 198 flag thread just needed 3 more flags to pick up another 25 points then you would focus on trying to find a way to get those three flags and not writing a great new thread.

Now why you or I won't ascertain the precise formula as Skeptic Overlord says overall flags and stars and post counts weigh in slightly, so they might take that first count from the tiered spread scoring system of flags on each thread and then multiply that by a .02 factor for overall flags and then add those points, and then take that an multiply it by a .015 factor for stars and then add that, and then multiply that by .005 for post count and add that.

It's definately a tiered point system based on spreads of flags on each thread. Then with a few additional minor computations for the other factors that only marginally effect the over all score.



edit on 28/10/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler because: spelling



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


It doesn't add up though. I'll use you and me as an example: you have 2 threads between 100-200 flags and one higher than that (400 flags). I've got 8 threads between 100-200 and one higher than 200 (203). I'm just trying to figure out how it works and under that tiered flagged-thread system that you've proposed it doesn't really work, try it with yourself and other members, sort their threads via flags.

It deedeeennnt woorrrrrrk.



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


i checked in the hall of fame, all time top members and you are in second place, congratulation PT, wow what a spectacular parcours, you've only been here since 2 years, i guess your devotion paid off !



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by We the People
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


i checked in the hall of fame, all time top members and you are in second place, congratulation PT, wow what a spectacular parcours, you've only been here since 2 years, i guess your devotion paid off !


Thanks, I have put a lot of time and effort into my writing on ATS. Working a big, popular thread can be an almost full time job if you are actually interacting on a on going basis with the sometimes hundreds of members who post to them asking questions or adding information.

Still it should be noted that Slayer69 at number #3 joined just a handful of months before I did, Modern Academia at number #5 joined just six months before that, and Schroedinger's Dog at number #6 joined also at the time I did.

All of them have worked very hard to make outstanding contributions to the site in their relatively short time here and I think moving forward with the system gravitating now towards quality threads versus just picking up a lot of flags, that all of them as well as some newer much more recent members could easily ascend to that number #1 spot in relatively short order, as their gifted minds and their dedication to denying ignorance conspire to bring us even more quality efforts, topics, and stories in the near future.

For those who’s ranking in the top 50 is important to them or those getting to the top 50 is important to them, this new tweak to the system has the real potential to create a renaissance here on ATS of extremely well researched, and well written opening pieces that so many other members and lurkers constantly crave, look for and often lament there are not more of.

That makes me pretty excited about the future of the site, and as always respectful of my very noteworthy and formidable and brilliant fellow members.



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
As a poster rather than a thread maker (I find making threads oddly embarrassing from a shy perspective, I like to respond rather than instigate) this is much appreciated.

At least my meager but much coveted Applause's (yes they make me glow, and yes that is sad
) now exist in some form outside of my profile...

Then again there just numbers... but oh how we humans love that sort of thing.



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by BigfootNZ
 





I find making threads oddly embarrassing from a shy perspective


Me too actually, and I cringe at some of my post.
shiver



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   
I just stumbled on to the U2U-Replies feature. Awesome! Also I think I'm finally coming around to the new look, should have known that it would just be a matter of time. Nice work SO!
edit on 28-10-2010 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   
New feature added into the recent posts page: "ATS History."

This provides members with a drop-down selection of years and months to go back and review the top-800 threads (by replies, flags, or last-reply) for any given month in the history of ATS.


So for those of you who are prone to say, "ATS was better back in the day," here's your opportunity to do a little easy research and show us what you mean.



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
New feature added into the recent posts page: "ATS History."

This provides members with a drop-down selection of years and months to go back and review the top-800 threads (by replies, flags, or last-reply) for any given month in the history of ATS.


Any chance of making the replies, flags, and post-date user sortable on the

http:// www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/profile.php?member=USERNAME&display=posts
page? Pretty please?



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 01:45 AM
link   
WATS index number is showing up differently in places. It doesn't appear that the revised WATS index numbers transferred to the settings on the personal profile page. Example: my index shows 50 in threads but 21 (which it was prior to the revision) in my profile.

Just an FYI
edit on 29-10-2010 by LadySkadi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Ok, so a banned member with one post that was removed as 'off topic', no stars, flags or w's, has 20 k's? How does the weighting work? Are k scores randomly generated?



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by teapot
Ok, so a banned member with one post that was removed as 'off topic', no stars, flags or w's, has 20 k's? How does the weighting work? Are k scores randomly generated?


I think Karma was a bad choice for that feature, JMHO,



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadySkadi
WATS index number is showing up differently in places. It doesn't appear that the revised WATS index numbers transferred to the settings on the personal profile page. Example: my index shows 50 in threads but 21 (which it was prior to the revision) in my profile.


Yep. Old WATS scores are still in your profile.

Great, so it's settled again.

TAE (Total ATS Experience) = Old WATS score + new WATS score + Karma!


Let's see 331 + 150 + 36 = 517 Yippee! I am leeeeeet! Care for an Ego? Half price today ya know...



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Yeah how does this karma work. I haven't seen mine change at all ?



posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


Not sure why they decided to call it Karma anyway. Shouldn't karma arise from the act of giving to others; not receiving? Maybe it means that every star you get is initself some sort of karma??

Oh, who cares, only the most materialistic persons care so much anyway about money, points and recognition. I am happy to just be. For me, all this accounting and statistical analysis is just a distraction. The ideas that provoke thought and keep my brain in shape are the real rewards of being part of ATS.



posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by wayno
 



only the most materialistic persons care so much anyway about money, points an


Then this may be only your perception of it. While I don't consider myself particularly materialistic (hm, maybe I should rethink that one though), I do consider all the stars/flags/points fun. I consider money fun, too.

Yip. Stars and money are fun.



posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ladyinwaiting
 


Hmmmm, I'd like to think that I am not the only one who doesn't worry too much about money and the material stuff. Pretty sure there are at least a few of us out there. I do believe, tho, that it is something ingrained or imbedded somehow in our DNA so that you are either one way or the other. For example, I take absolutely no joy in squandering my hard earned money on gambling; yet millions of people think its fun. I don't understand it, but I accept that for those thats fun.

It's the same with points here. I accept that it means something to alot of people. I am sure SO is one of those because he is so good at coming up with schemes to rate, quantify and qualify members.
Well, y'all enjoy your status. I am just happy to be able to come here and get showered with new ideas (almost) every day.





new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join