How many WATS points do you need to get one of those shiny silver borders?

reply to post by Partygirl


You mean this border *looks around at his border*...you like that huh???

Anyway...not sure if this still applies...but this is what SO said about it right after it came out.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your posts now have a subtle but noticeable indicator for those who have achieve a high-level of member-recognition on ATS.

Those 50 members who have achieved the "Way Above Top Secret" status are now indicated as "GOLD CONTRIBUTORS" in their posts (which will soon also show for non-logged-in guests).

Members in the top-100 rankings, just below the "Way Above Top Secret" group, have a "SILVER CONTRIBUTOR" indication.

reply to post by Partygirl


It's ALL just based on the WATS score now as Outkast Searcher pointed out.


Personally I think flags should play a bigger part in the score but some argue that "silly" threads gain too many flags..

reply to post by Partygirl



Explanation: Current Silver level contributors

Gazrok 95w
MemoryShock 95w
antar 95w
budski 92w
jam321 91w
ladyskadi 88w
dgtempe 87w
LiveForever8 86w
Rising Against 86w
jude11 86w

Kandinsky 86w
FortAnthem 83w
InfaRedMan 82w
TheRedNeck 78w
undo 77w
Aggie Man 76w
mblahnikluver 75w
kozmo 75w
RUSSO 75w
Hellmutt 74w

_BoneZ_ 74w
Xcathdra 74w
Unity_99 72w
woodwardjnr 72w
hawkiye 71w
Jean Paul Zodeaux 70w
Exuberant1 69w
BlackOps719 69w
impressme 68w
filosophia 67w

MikeboydUS 67w
tezzajw 67w
Arken 66w
Mr Mask 66w
PuterMan 65w
randyvs 65w
ugie1028 65w
zazzafrazz 63w
Outkast Searcher 63w
ladyinwaiting 63w

IsaacKoi 62w
easynow 62w
Dr Love 61w
Southern Guardian 61w
davespanners 60w
hotbakedtater 59w
TupacShakur 59w
network dude 58w
kosmicjack 58w
Alxandro 58w

burdman30ott6 57w
Amaterasu 56w
gimme_some_truth 56w
boncho 56w
Mirthful Me 54w
Alaskan Man 52w

Hefficide 83w is not silver status?
ProfEmeritus 62w is also not silver status?
nixie_nox 51w is not silver status! [for comparison ONLY]

Please NOTE that the list is not fully comprehensive and I apologise to all silver contributors who I have missed including in the list.

ATS members search page was not up to date and I had to trawl for hours to just get the members I have already listed.

Quote from 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.

And ...

Your posts now have a subtle but noticeable indicator for those who have achieve a high-level of member-recognition on ATS.

Those 50 members who have achieved the "Way Above Top Secret" status are now indicated as "GOLD CONTRIBUTORS" in their posts (which will soon also show for non-logged-in guests).

Members in the top-100 rankings, just below the "Way Above Top Secret" group, have a "SILVER CONTRIBUTOR" indication.

Personal Disclosure: Lets test that shall we ...

OmegaLogos Wats Index Score = P 2,748 : F 387 : S 2,418 : W 24 : K 15

So 24 x 1,000,000 = 24,000,000

Divided by No# of Stars = 24,000,000/2,418 = 9925 [rnded off by rnding down]

Divide by 5 = 1985 ... Which is not my Flag count amount!

To get my Flag count amount correct I must divide by 25 ... NOT 5!!!

So the Wats Index Score is = ((Flags x 25) x Stars)) / 1,000,000

Cross-referencing to make sure of my maths ...

partygirl Wats Index Score = P 609 : F 584 : S 1,588 : W 18 : K 49

So 18 x 1,000,000 = 18,000,000

Divided by No# of Stars = 18,000,000/1,588 = 11335 [rnded off by rnding down]

Divide by 5 = 2267 which is not partygirls Flag count amount. :\

Divide instead by 25 = 453.4 .... That is not right either

There is also more than 50 silver contributors and therefor neither the 'top-100 rankings" nor the Wats Index score algorythym are accurate anymore.

What is accurate is that one needs to have more than 52 Wats to gain the silver trim.

For partygirl to get the extra 34 Wats required to do that, one would need to get about 1200 Flags and 6000 Stars [under SO's old and currently incorrect x 5 algorythym].

OR ... 240 Flags and 6000 stars [using my guestimate at what the actual algorythym is i.e. x 25 and not x 5]

Either way, ultimately, it is a long way off, unless one is willing to put in the hard yards to that effect!

P.S. I hope this helped.

reply to post by OmegaLogos


From what I remember from the thread discussing the WATS formula, they tried tweaking it several times and each time some members would find flaws in the calculations (such as when you do (flagsx5)stars/100000, the stars and flags would weigh evenly because, in the end everything gets multiplied together.

Eventually, they got tired of the criticism and came up with a newer formula which they did not disclose. It is a state held secret, known only by the highest ranking owners at ATS so probably all that cool math you did there was a waste of time.

reply to post by OmegaLogos


Hmm. Seems like start should carry more weight as they are people's individual ratings of the content of a post whereas flags are are just to direct more attention to a topic.

reply to post by Partygirl


Just remember if you want the board to be nice and give you shinny things then you must be a nice well behaved obedient little member.
But remember this...above all else never ever question the actions or intentions of the all encompassing and even omniscient if not omnipotent mods because the one thing they cannot and willnot stand for is being shown they are far from infalible.

Suffice to say DO NOT DARE TO QUESTION.