posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 08:55 PM
Hello dear ATSers,
I know this open question probably won't be well accepted. The purpose of this thread is mostly to discuss how ATS would be without the star
rating system. Don't get me wrong, the idea of the star rating system is great and very fun. However, there are some problems associated with this.
The main problem with it, in my opinion, is that it sometimes encourages people to post stupid, off-topic, or arrogant posts, especially when a
debunker vs believer war is ongoing. Too many times did I see one-liner arrogant posts, often composed of attacks towards the original poster or the
user bringing the controversial claim.
Even though this system may look very useful when one wants to know the credibility of a poster, to my eyes, it isn't so. It does show how much the
user participates in the forums life, but it is the only thing it does. I believe the star system has been implemented to give the user an quick
overview of the reputation of the posting user, and the idea works really well when the forums are devoid of arrogant posters. Ever noticed how the
most aggressive users are alway the ones who have to most stars.
Fact is, an inappropriated post may well be awarded with a lot of stars if it is intended to be an attack to the claimer, usually in a believer vs
debunker war. Debunkers rate inappropriated debunkers posts, and believers do the same.
Shouldn't we judge a post by the quality of it, instead of the user's star rating? I'm generalizing here. I'm not saying everyone is doing so.
I'm just saying that sometimes, the star rating system encourages displaced posts in order to get more stars. I believe I'm not the only one who has
noticed the pattern.
To me, flags are the answer. They are really good at sizing the quality of a thread. Stars are more headed towards the ego.
So I ask you, should ATS withdraw the star rating system in order to enhance the level of discussion in the threads? Do you think it would stop
egomaniacal and stop some of the users who come here to troll, create a controverse, and argue for the sake of arguing? I think people don't get the
idea of this rating system right. It is supposed to rate the quality of the post, the effort put in it! Not to show how many people are sided with the
Please note this is a purely hypothetical question. It applies more in the situation of a believer vs debunker war, and I know that some use the
rating very well, as it is intended!
This is purely my opinion and I wanted to share it with you and get to know your point of view.
Have a nice day!