Changing the star system

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by ArMaP

 

and star and flsag isnt abused too - flaging everying thier freinds post - regardless of quality ?

case in point:



up to 40 points now

reply to post by edmc^2


You need to link to the thread so we can see the context of that post... That way we can decide if that short reply was worthy of those stars Without the context it is a pointless example


Ah I see it that was in reply to this

"One word i can say is, The Human Brain. "

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yup that IS 3 I can see why people starred the irony

That isn't abuse of the star system, it is merely an indication of the thought processes in that thread


OH and I would call those negative stars for the OP

Originally posted by zorgon
reply to post by edmc^2


You need to link to the thread so we can see the context of that post... That way we can decide if that short reply was worthy of those stars

Without the context it is a pointless example

www.abovetopsecret.com...

2nd post started it all - i dunno about 2nd posts - but i've seen it many times already. As soon as I someone creates a thread - 2nd post gets most of the stars.

One of the benefits of a negative star system would be to make it clear to visitors that an extremely negative viewpoint isn't reflective of the ATS community as a whole.

How about this system. You don't add negative stars to a post, you take away existing ones. The minimum is zero so that we don't get runaway negative reviews. That way we aren't seen as condoning the ideas in an extremely questionable post, by the starring of the few that agree with it. AND members wont automatically dismiss posts that have been negatively starred to zero, because at a glance they won't be able to tell the difference between a negatively reviewed post and one that has been simply neglected.

Furthermore, because the difference will be smaller between the number of stars given to the most starred and the least starred posts, I think fewer posts will be unfairly ignored simply because they haven't got the stars they may deserve. That's just a hunch though.

reply to post by edmc^2


Well here is another example... from this thread

Mars Concepcion' Crater - A Martian Horse "Statue"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now most people can see that the object clearly looks like a horse Whether it is or isn't is a mute point... but a guy named trolls says he can't see it and look at the stars



So what does that tell me? It tells me that 81 people have Prosopagnosia and yet still lurk in that thread

Now also if you notice in that thread the OP got only 10 stars so only 10 people agree while the troll got 81 stars. I would call that 'negative stars'

Interesting statistical analysis of the current membership of ATS. It used to be the other way around here

By the way, is there a technical term for either the positive or negative feedback system on discussion forums? If so, it might be helpful to research if there is any scientific work that says anything about the potential benefits of such systems.

There's another thing I'd like to bring up about the star system. I think you should be able to hover your mouse cursor over a star to see who gave it. I don't really like that you can give them away anonymously. People would probably take more time thinking before handing out stars if it could come back to haunt them. Heck, you could even provide the opportunity for members to provide a rationale for giving a star, that would become visible to anyone who wants to know.

Expample: Hover over a star --> * [awarded by: anATSmember45, reason: agree +1]
or: [awarded by cooldude127,reason: well thought-out, written]
or: [awarded by StarGuy95, reason: no reason given.]

This would also provide a place for members to give very short replies to a post without cluttering up the main body of a thread. The downside might be that it could be confusing to respond to one of those short replies.

If you combine this idea with my idea above for taking away stars, you might see some hollowed-out 'ghost' stars, that when you hover your cursor over them could tell you both why someone awarded it and why someone else took it away.

Example: Hovering over a ghost star --> * [awarded by by: MysteryMan, reason: well written, challenged by: DrContrary, reason: the heck it was.]


It would also probably be convenient if you could click on a member's name and get a list of the posts they starred in a thread.. That functionality could be added to the little "member" dropdown box on each post.
[e

Originally posted by edmc^2
2nd post started it all - i dunno about 2nd posts - but i've seen it many times already. As soon as I someone creates a thread - 2nd post gets most of the stars.

That's the same mentality behind the "shower" of negative stars (when the system existed) before the threads even had a second post.

In this case we may look at it and wonder why did that post get all those stars, but the thread creator is not directly affected, as they were with the negative system.

Originally posted by zorgon
Now also if you notice in that thread the OP got only 10 stars so only 10 people agree while the troll got 81 stars. I would call that 'negative stars'

The difference is that what we see with the present system is that more people preferred the answer than the opening post, while with the negative stars system it would be more or less the same as the members moving the thread to the HOAX forum.

edit on 10-12-2011 by zorgon because: I dunno who done it

Maybe it was ArMaP

It wasn't.

Originally posted by ArMaP
while with the negative stars system it would be more or less the same as the members moving the thread to the HOAX forum.

or to skunk works... even when the thread has official documents (yeah still a thorn in my side )

So listen... about all these stars...

Can we set up something so we can cash them in? I mean they can get a bit heavy dragging them around