Red line bordering my posts and a couple of others

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Where did you get this idea? It's not true. There's a formula using stars, flags and WATS (peer recognition) and applauses (staff recognition). These people aren't hand-picked. That's absurd.

Absurd??
I've asked for mods and admin to show us the formula to decide the top 100...
None have done so as yet..

Maybe YOU can enlighten me as you say there IS a formula..

So I guess you can share that formula with us or retract your "absurd" statement..

Two choices for you, I await your reply..

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Whether you admit it or not, these "pixels" are enough to give you an ego boost. However you've come up with valid points and you won our argument.

I'm out for now.

Originally posted by backinblack
Absurd??
I've asked for mods and admin to show us the formula to decide the top 100...
None have done so as yet..

Yes, absurd. Do you really think anyone on the ATS staff has the time (or desire) to pick 150 members from the thousands who post regularly (and tens-of-thousands who have posted over the years) simply for a colored border around their posts? Really? If you do think that, then it IS an absurd thought.

There is indeed a formula based on stars, flags and post-count. Applause does not factor into this ranking as we want it to be based purely on the opinion of your ATS member peers, and specifically to avoid the possible perception that ATS staff can, could, or would influence the results. We've not revealed the specifics of the calculation other than flags are weighted most, stars second-most, and post-count third-most.

I'm sure there are better topics on which to focus your attention than this.

reply to post by backinblack


I don't know the exact formula. If you need to know, perhaps you can U2U someone on staff and ask that they respond here.

Here's a thread from the last time we had this discussion.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Jepic
Whether you admit it or not, these "pixels" are enough to give you an ego boost.

If I needed an ego boost (which any member who knows me will assure you that I don't ) the pretty colors might give it to me. But you're right, when people's work gets recognized, I'm sure they could use that to stroke their egos. I've seen it happen. Approval seekers are actually insecure and are going to find it where they can. C'est la vie.

But to me this distinction feels like recognition for hard work, nothing more. It's not about me, it's about the content I've contributed to ATS and I appreciate the recognition.

However you've come up with valid points and you won our argument.

My intent was not to "win an argument". My intent was to explain a different point of view that you may not have considered. I appreciate your posting style and look forward to reading your posts on the board.

reply to post by backinblack


I told you so... Sort of...


reply to post by SkepticOverlord


What issues can be more important then getting the gold

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

There is indeed a formula based on stars, flags and post-count. Applause does not factor into this ranking as we want it to be based purely on the opinion of your ATS member peers, and specifically to avoid the possible perception that ATS staff can, could, or would influence the results. We've not revealed the specifics of the calculation other than flags are weighted most, stars second-most, and post-count third-most.

Sorry SO but if that is truly the case then please explain this member ranked at number 18 ??

WATS Index: 145 Topics: 178 posts: 18,645 flags: 174 stars: 19,113

Their flag count, according to your formula, is extremely low...
Especially when you clearly state

We've not revealed the specifics of the calculation other than flags are weighted most, stars second-most, and post-count third-most.

Please show the true formula so members can see where they should sit..

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I don't know the exact formula. If you need to know, perhaps you can U2U someone on staff and ask that they respond here.

I did that more than once..
Personally I think what we already had withe the figures in our avatar section was enough..
This new stuff just reeks of ATS intervention..
Why?? Who knows??

Originally posted by backinblack
Their flag count, according to your formula, is extremely low...

But their post-count and star-count is high. The formula factors all elements (as I said), in a weighted manner... giving a slight boost to those who initiate threads that get flags, but also providing those who spend more time creating responses that receive stars the opportunity to rise in the ranks.

Why not spend more time on creating content of value than on each other?

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by backinblack
Their flag count, according to your formula, is extremely low...

But their post-count and star-count is high. The formula factors all elements (as I said), in a weighted manner... giving a slight boost to those who initiate threads that get flags, but also providing those who spend more time creating responses that receive stars the opportunity to rise in the ranks.

Why not spend more time on creating content of value than on each other?

Why not simply tell us the formula used??
Surely that's not a hard question...

It certainly wasn't in the past where everyone knew what it took to reach Gold, Silver or Bronze..
Why have ATS become so secretive now on how these things are decided?
What has changed??

It is after all a conspiracy site..
Condemning me for asking a logical question is an odd response IMO..

Aristocracies always cause trouble. Even pixilated ones. Maybe especially pixelated ones. Ive noticed in in online games too, and any board of any kind in which status tokens or titles are handed out.

I tend to think people are more socially competitive on the internet, perhaps because the internet is heavy with people who dont do as well competitively in the more traditional social settings, and so here they see their chance to be the "star of the football team" or the "prom queen" and they pursue it with exceptional vigor.

For those upset about the borders, (because they didnt get them) they will soon begin to change hands. At least the "top 100" borders will. At least some of us who ended up in that category did so entirely incidentally, and not because we were competing. I only care about the whatever post I am writing, or whatever thread I am arguing in. My only concern with the borders is that it WILL cause people to give more weight to the arguments of those who have them, (much like some people tend to only read posts with stars) and thats just a damn shame intellectually.

Of course people who would do that in the first place, (choose status as an indicator of value) are probably not the sort of people who could do much else in any event. The wise dont value the opinions of those with status over those without it, and they dont value the opinions of the establishment over the opinion of the newcomer based solely on status or establishment alone. Even a fool can make one absolutely brilliant and ground breaking argument, and a wise person considers as much as is feasible, and uses their own judgment combined with fact checking to decide what posts or opinions have merit.

I don't wish to sound churlish or unduly critical towards this new layout, but I'm certainly not a fan of having the ''gold level/silver level contributor'' headings on posts.

Despite the fact that my mild unhappiness at this recent change is purely down to my wish for ATS to continue to be a discussion forum where the concepts of honest and egalitarian debate are to the fore, it's going to be difficult for me to post my ''grievances'' without them being misinterpreted as petty whinging.

Still, here goes:

The only reasonable outcome in having such ostentatious and conspicuous displays of members' contribution awards, is that many readers will be consciously or subconsciously prejudiced in favour of the content posted by gold/silver level contributors.

I certainly don't see any harm in acknowledging the contributions that long-standing and loyal members make, but if these awards are intended for the member's personal benefit, then it is perfectly easy to have their contribution status displayed in a discreet, inconspicuous way - such as putting it on their profile page.

The fact that it's displayed on every post, so that every man and his dog can't avoid it, means that it's put there for the reader to see. Therefore, it's only going to influence and slant some readers favourably towards the posts made by the more prolific posters. This creates an unequal playing-field in threads, whereby posts are viewed on the popularity of the member, rather than the content of the post.





But, it gets even worse when you realise that these contribution levels are based on quantity rather than quality. The more posts you make, the more stars you receive; the more threads you start, the more flags that you get.

The WATS system is based on the number of stars and flags that you receive, thereby rewarding people who make hundreds of posts and dozens of threads per month, while ignoring posters who are a little more intermittent in the regularity of their posting activity.

Once again, I don't see any problem in acknowledging long-standing posters who make regular posts and/or threads on a site. However, using the phrase ''gold/silver level contributor'' to describe the member's activity is, at best, ambiguous.

''Gold level contributor'' could easily and falsely be interpreted as an award for the content of a member's posts, rather than the actual reality that it's a status which is largely achieved through the mathematical certainly of gaining stars and flags though posting prolifically.





Personally speaking, I'd like to see all of these ratings systems ( stars, flags, WATS rankings ) discontinued with immediate effect. While arguments, in principle, can be made in support of one or more of these ''user involved'' features on ATS; in practice, none of these additions are, by and large, used as they were originally intended to.

Take stars, for example: ideally, they should be used to acknowledge a well thought out or well argued post. Instead, they are largely used in a cliquey way. Popular and longtime members receive numerous stars for what often are, in all intents and purposes, average posts. Posts displaying popular opinions will always receive ten times as many stars as equally well argued posts that are made in support of a generally unpopular point of view.

I've even noticed that my posts are starred more often than they were when I first joined ATS, about a year ago. Even allowing for an increase in the number of members on ATS, I can only assume that my posts are more likely to be starred now because I'm more of a familiar ''face'' than I was when I first joined.

Of course, if I posted 200 posts and 2 threads a day for a year, then I would not only attain ''gold contributor level'', but also, with the ''snowballing star effect'' helping me to achieve that position, I could take advantage of my status, and post on here knowing that many people would give my posts more credence just because of some ostentatious and positive attention that had been drawn to my posts by this current ATS move that puts popularity above content


If we wanted a site which was based on popularity, rather than content, then there are thousands of others that would fit that bill.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


I dont think they put it there to influence people to pay more attention to certain posters. Its probably just a carrot to inspire more people to contribute popular content, particularly in terms of starting popular threads.

ATS has lost a couple very popular thread starters lately, it could probably use a few rising stars right about now.

I would guess that the borders are simply a way to get the more competitive among the membership to really hone their thread starting skills, and bring some popular new topics to the boards. Status is your only "pay" here on ATS, and internet fame, and so bling bling borders are the "promotion" awaiting those who perform well in terms of authoring popular threads.

A lot of what I tend to find interesting is not fantastical enough for popular appeal. Which is true of a lot of the more science leaning posters here. There is a lot of quality on ATS languishing with one or two flags and maybe a handful of stars, and one or two pages in many forums.

Edit to add,

I also would never choose popularity over quality, but, in a money conscious world, ATS makes more money from popularity than it does from quality. There is a relationship that should be maintained between the two, but when money talks, quality always loses ground to popularity, look at television programming.

I look at the popularity issue, and its resulting degradation of quality as the price we have to pay here on ATS so that the owners can meet their goals and needs, and the forum is at least OPEN for quality content, even if the majority of the readers choose not to visit it.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

I dont think they put it there to influence people to pay more attention to certain posters. Its probably just a carrot to inspire more people to contribute popular content, particularly in terms of starting popular threads.

On that basis I would 100% agree..
Members that start GOOD threads are what makes ATS what it is..
But when a Top 20 member has only 174 flags then that theory is thrown out the door and longevity appears to be the main criteria..

reply to post by backinblack


Even if in one or two cases, (theoretically) it is unmerited nepotism, Im sure for the most part there IS a formula that will advance people through the rankings or these kinds of carrots would be worthless as such.

And "good" is subjective in terms of thread content. Which is why I chose the word "popular." Its about popular content. Which is why we have a gazillion threads on creationism vs evolution and prophecies that never come true, and wild tales of time traveling people and the every popular, "we are all going to die from x" type threads.

The majority of people in the world really arent intellectuals. And they really just want to have fun, and thinking too hard hurts their head. They want an easy to read, easy to understand OP, preferably one that triggers some emotional response, so they can post some emotional venting of some kind and there isnt too much effort involved. Or social threads are also simple and easy, and anything that strokes the ego of the reader is also a sure bet. (Anything that indicates that because of their blood type, personality type, eye color, etc., they are special and perhaps descended from Gods or Aliens, for instance)

Popular thread, one in which there is not really an objective right or wrong, and opinion rules. Less popular thread, any thread in which facts and knowledge matter significantly, and people feel shut out or afraid to comment for fear of looking foolish.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

One Persons Trash Is Another Persons Treasure

I think all too often people are too focused on what "They perceive" as quality posts and replies. There is a wide variety of forums now available to any ATS reader to participate in. I personally avoid some forums because quite frankly I am not interested in the topics for a wide variety of reasons. However, This does not mean that those who are very active in those forums/topics are not worthy of certain recognitions.

I understand that even though I personally have no interests in those forums/topics doesn't mean that some of the other members numbering around 240,000 + don't as well. Some medal standing members are very well liked in the forums/topics they participate in which I respectfully avoid...

Which brings it all back to ones perceptions of what "Quality" contributed content is vs. those who see it differently on a wide spectrum of interests.



reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

Take stars, for example: ideally, they should be used to acknowledge a well thought out or well argued post. Instead, they are largely used in a cliquey way. Popular and longtime members receive numerous stars for what often are, in all intents and purposes, average posts. Posts displaying popular opinions will always receive ten times as many stars as equally well argued posts that are made in support of a generally unpopular point of view.

I'll respectfully disagree.

If that were the case I would have hardly gotten any stars and or flags. ATS is very liberal. Yes?
I've been writing and posting many very "Unpopular" Conservativish opinions/replies and have been swimming against the tide of popular ATS public opinion for years. Yes, I'll agree some forums/boards are very Cliquish. But again. If it were strictly up to cliques which decided who is or isn't in "Medal standing" I wouldn't have ranked at all.

Thems the facts Jack

Me too I've got a red border and I've no idea what it means. To save me from reading through 11 pages, if anyone could tell me what it's about or send me a link, I'd really appreciate that. Thanks. Oh, and what's this about the top 100?

The borders are hideous and serve no purpose.

They remind me of the "I am a mod, but I am writing this as a member" outlines.

They are very noticeable and quite annoying to be honest.

Every post should be treated equally no matter who is writing it.

I am very annoyed with the borders. I don't care if the person making a post is a gold content contributor, I care about their actual post.

reply to post by SLAYER69


You are preaching to the choir on the "one mans trash is another mans treasure" issue with me. Im well aware that there is a significant difference with what people consider "treasure." Its why I am clear when I say "popular" threads, rather than "good" threads, or "quality" threads, which are more value laden terms. Much like your choice of "trash" and "treasure."

A lot of people dont come to ATS looking for "treasure," regardless how someone might define it. They come here to have fun, escape reality, kill time, gossip, troll, start a thread they themselves dont believe and see how many people take the bait, set themselves up as a messiah, expert, CIA operative, alien emissary, channeler, win the interwebz popularity contest, whatever.

reply to post by wcitizen


It means you are a God, wc, and that you should demand sacrifices of fatted calf and incense. Unless of course you are vegetarian, in which case you might prefer fatted tofu.

ok to solve the problem why dont whoever does the coding put an option in the users profile, to turn them on and off? wouldnt that be easier, and it keep everyone happy.

personally i like it