It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# So The Top 50 All-Time Contributors List is Up! I am Shocked!

page: 8
27
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 08:25 PM

I must say I am intrigued...plug me in if you have a second...u2u me the results so I don't have to be shamed in public...

posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 11:23 AM

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

The "WATS Index" is calculated as: ((FLAGS x 5) x STARS)/1000000.

Flags definitely have more weight, but someone with lots of stars but solid flags can get into the list.

SkepticOverlord, I hate to correct you, but: if your formula is (Flags X 5) X Stars /1000000, then that's the same mathematically as Flags X Stars X 5 /1000000. Putting parentheses around the Flags X 5 doesn't give flags more emphasis, since the product of Flags and Stars is mutliplied by 5. Therefore, Flags and Stars have equal weight in the WATS Index.

posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 10:56 AM
so if my wats index is 2, what does that mean?

posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 11:00 AM

Apparently, the formula has changed and not so much a user-generated rating anymore.

--airspoon

posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 11:06 AM

well i dont really understand it in the first place. really. i need to be spoon fed.

posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 11:12 AM

Originally posted by mutantgenius
so if my wats index is 2, what does that mean?

It doesn't mean anything just yet. Here's the list of people with the highest WATS ratings (WATS rating calculated by number of flags, stars and post count I believe), to even make it onto the list at this moment in time, you need a WATS rating of at least 74.

posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 11:20 AM
reply to post by Rising Against

oh. well if doesnt mean anything then whats the point? Just kidding....seriously though. I only have two flags! I would think it would be zero! I was hoping somebody would point me to that list though. Thank you. I understand that it is baed on a formula but wasn't sure what to compare it to. Know what I mean?
BTW I will never be on that list!!!!!!

THANKS AGAIN.

posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 12:15 PM

seriously though. I only have two flags! I would think it would be zero!

Yeah, you may have only 2 flags, but you also have 281 posts and 221 stars.

posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:28 PM
Ive been a member here for long time, but as of lately done more browsing than anything. So much to read, a lot to post about... but anyrate, is a WATS of seven good? I just noticed it.. and what's a K?

edit on 11-8-2011 by spliff4020 because: additional question, avoid one line reply(and the devil made me do it too) (seriously!) =D

posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:37 PM

SkepticOverlord, I hate to correct you, but: if your formula is (Flags X 5) X Stars /1000000, then that's the same mathematically as Flags X Stars X 5 /1000000. Putting parentheses around the Flags X 5 doesn't give flags more emphasis, since the product of Flags and Stars is mutliplied by 5. Therefore, Flags and Stars have equal weight in the WATS Index.

posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 08:17 PM
Congrats!! I've interacted with a lot of those users at one time or another and they've done a lot for the site so I am not at all surprised of them making it on the list.

I am however surprised that Dimensional Detective isn't on the list. Seriously? That dude has way more stars than anyone else I've seen on ATS...

posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 08:22 PM
This is the most blatant attempt at self-gratification i've ever seen.

Making a thread about how surprised you are on a list with the hope of everyone seeing that your on the list?

Just come out and say "Hey look what i've done people"

posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 08:50 PM

Originally posted by kro32

Just come out and say "Hey look what i've done people"

"Hey look what I've done people"

Happy now?

fyi...I didn't make up the rating system. I almost got banned for complaining about the old rating system.

edit on 12-8-2011 by whaaa because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 08:54 PM

Originally posted by kro32
This is the most blatant attempt at self-gratification i've ever seen.

Making a thread about how surprised you are on a list with the hope of everyone seeing that your on the list?

Just come out and say "Hey look what i've done people"

I think someone's just jealous.

posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 08:56 PM

Not at all and I think TrueAmerican has some very good posts even though I always debate him on them. I just think tooting your own horn is silly and beneath his obvious intellectual gifts

posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 09:41 PM

This thread is almost a year old, and I don't know why someone raised it from the dead. At the time there was a lot of talk about putting up the WATS list. I was expecting it to have many more different names. Names of some who have come and gone. Names of a few that are still here. But all names of some very seriously smart people who I really admired and made some very good contributions to this site- before you joined, kro32. You would have had to been there to understand, because my history here goes back to 2003 really, when I lurked for a year or so before joining. But I wouldn't expect you to understand, as new as you are. Instead you accuse me of posting this as some kind of "look at me, I made it" post.

But it wasn't. I was genuinely surprised to be on the list at all, but I was almost mad that I entered the list at number 7, when I damn sure knew I didn't hold a candle to so many other people intellectually that should have been all over that list. But it didn't work out that way. So would it be too hard for you to understand that this site had a long history before you, and a lot of things happened that are outside your experience? Why don't you just leave it at that instead of making such accusations.

*shrug*

:shk:

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:19 AM

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

This thread is almost a year old, and I don't know why someone raised it from the dead. At the time there was a lot of talk about putting up the WATS list. ...
*shrug*
:shk:

Because its still relevant to getting acclimated here, and deserves a bump. Like this...

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

The "WATS Index" is calculated as: ((FLAGS x 5) x STARS)/1000000.

Flags definitely have more weight, but someone with lots of stars but solid flags can get into the list.

Bummer I didn't get to star that post.
edit on 3/21/2012 by reitze because: +quote, context, bump

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:29 AM
I'm not on the list...ahhh....yikes!

Congratulations to those that are!

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 04:46 AM
I spent like a good 30 minutes trying to find the ATS store...
Thanks to this post.
...Which is nonexistent.

Bummer

posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 12:48 AM

2ND

Well deserved

new topics

top topics

27