The current FLAG system is seriously flawed !

Hi all,

I believe that the current system in place within ATS by which threads topics are, shall we say, "rewarded", is inherently flawed and badly skewed in favour of the thread originator. Currently, threads gain flags which are displayed as a rough indication of that threads "interest level".

However, in my opinion the flag system as it stands seriously skews the "information quality" of the thread in the creators favour and when judging a thread by the number of flags received, gives a false indication that the thread contains information of value and therefore, worth a members time in reading.

A perfect example of this skewness clearly at work can be seen in a current thread whose premise is that a significant scientific breakthrough in biological communication has been achieved. Unfortunately, not a shred of corroborating evidence is produced beyond a Youtube clip and 3 or 4 links to suspect new age/pseudo science sites. Even when multiple requests are made for such evidence to be produced, non is forthcoming.
And despite this glaring lack of supportive evidence, many members take it as gospel that the information being presented in this thread is the result of genuine and legitimate research ... of which it apparently is not. As a result, flags are being thrown at this thread which leads members to assume that the high flag count MUST mean that there's information of value being delivered within the thread.

However, buried amongst the many posts are numerous posters (myself included) who feel that the thread topic is shall we say politely, "not valid or genuine" but have NO means by which to make their personal judgments known through the existing flag system, which ONLY allows assenting views/opinions on the thread quality to be recorded.

As an example, lets say we have a thread topic that 100 members agree with and flag thereby generating 100 positive flags against the thread. But then we also have say 50 members who disagree and post. Sure, those 50 members can make those 50 "negative opinion" posts but that does not change the overall 100 flag count already assigned.
Ideally, the 100 positive flags should be modified by the 50 negative flags giving a lower, and much more realistic total thread flag count of 50 flags, which is then displayed for all to see as they peruse the thread pages.

An even more extreme example ... what if the thread generated 100 positive posts with 100 flags but also generated 300 negative posts. The flag summary of 100 flags would indicate that the thread has "value" whereas in actuality there would be twice as many posters denying the threads "value" but unable to indicate such because the flag system only accepts "positive" votes.

The above is why I believe the flag system is flawed and skews the "information quality" of a thread significantly AWAY from any actual realistic indication.

No it's not seriously flawed. You can Unflag a thread too. Although it seems this rarely happens. EDIT: You used to be able to unflag, but now it appears you can't...

The alternative of allowing negative flags is the worse of two evils, I believe, because of its potential for abuse. And from what I remember, ATS admins and staff have been opposed to any such negative flagging system for a long time- but the idea has been considered.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
No it's not seriously flawed. You can Unflag a thread too. Although it seems this rarely happens. EDIT: You used to be able to unflag, but now it appears you can't...

The alternative of allowing negative flags is the worse of two evils, I believe, because of its potential for abuse. And from what I remember, ATS admins and staff have been opposed to any such negative flagging system for a long time- but the idea has been considered.

edit on Wed Jan 11th 2012 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)

Which is unfortunate as the present system gives a clearly unrealistic "value" to a threads "quality".

Anyway, how exactly would it be abused ? Sure, I could give a "negative flag" rating and reduce the overall flag tally for a thread, but for even minor abuse, you would have to have many ATS members acting in collusion to seriously impact a threads overall flag tally ... which I really can't see happening.
Besides member collusion, what other types of "flag abuse" could possibly happen ? None, that I can see.

I suppose it depends a bit on what you use the flags for. I don't use them as a measure of the validity of thread. (And it doesn't sound like you will either.) Often I pay no attention to them and rely on the headline combined with the forum to help me decide whether to look.

Of course, once you spend a minute in a thread you've got a pretty good idea if it's worthwhile. Since I don't rely on the flags for much, any system they put in place is fine with me. (Does that make me a flag sheeple?)

Originally posted by charles1952
I suppose it depends a bit on what you use the flags for. I don't use them as a measure of the validity of thread. (And it doesn't sound like you will either.) Often I pay no attention to them and rely on the headline combined with the forum to help me decide whether to look.

Of course, once you spend a minute in a thread you've got a pretty good idea if it's worthwhile. Since I don't rely on the flags for much, any system they put in place is fine with me. (Does that make me a flag sheeple?)

I fully understand your point but for myself (and perhaps others), I use the visual indication of how many flags a thread has as a rough indicator of the threads popularity and whether I should take time to check it out. Obviously, you would tend to think that a high flag count indicates a "quality" thread ... unfortunately quite often, such is not the case ... as in the thread example that I used earlier of a currently "popular" thread.

I tend to disagree here.

I do not usually judge a threads validity by the amount of flags it gets, I am sure there are some on here that do, but then they are missing out on some great threads.

Sometimes threads with little 'validity' do get to the front page but not a majority of the time, and even if they do it is up to the reader to read through posts and see what the information is like. Listening to other posters is equivalent as listening to the flag system, it should not be seen as the depth of the thread.

IMO, anyways.

Pred...

Ok, I may as well drop it as nobody else feels there's a flag issue that needs addressing.

Now, why isn't there a facility to "lock" your own thread from further comments ?

I kind of agree with what you're saying. ATS seems like more of a popularity contest these days.

Please allow me to add a rather obvious little comment. If you're looking for an indicator of popularity, wouldn't the number of replies do better than flags? (Although I tend to stay away from threads that have much more than 30 replies.)

replies and flags go hand in hand.

reply to post by tauristercus


Take heart... eventually it becomes about username recognition and determining who is worth investing time in and who is not. Flags and Stars become less important then Content, as it should be.

Personally, I like the idea of having a true rating/voting system.

There are too many threads that get people to flag through clever headlines and a sensationalist OP. I guess most people give the topic a quick look and flag away. I've been guilty of it myself but lately I read through a page or so and try to find out whether the topic is really worthy of a flag or not. A flag SHOULD be a sign that the topic is interesting and important but I've seen some pretty bizarre threads getting a lot of flags.

The up vote/ down vote method seems to work OK on another popular site I frequent.
www.reddit.com...
Topics compete for attention and in most cases those that reach the Front Page have plenty of votes. Some vote up and some vote down. It's all about the percentages. Thousands of votes can lead to only several hundred up votes towards the positive which can be enough to rise to the top.

Unfortunately, the reality of having a down vote does present an abusable situation. It would be fine if it were truly a 1 member 1 vote system. It doesn't take much for someone to have multiple accounts. A motivated abuser could have a large number of accounts and attack threads or individuals. Sure, it would be time consuming and boring logging in and down voting hundreds of times but I'd lay money on it that someone would be willing to do it.

Besides, rewriting the coding to allow what you ask, OP, is completely out of the question. Changes can be gradually introduced, but any major re-writes of the ATS propitiatory coding system would be catastrophic to the other aspects of ATS.

Best to enjoy what we have. It works well, it evolves (slowly).

The government is flawed. ATS is flawed. I myself, have flaws. Life teaches us to adapt. You learn to accept reality. It's all good.

Flag for you!

reply to post by TrueAmerican
er no the unflagging works , just did it on this thread, [I will give it a flag just for the content, that is the right to say what you want to say] i like the flag system the way it is, there are enough changes with out more.

Remember - this is a user generated site. If the members feel that a thread should be flagged, then they will flag it. That said, "Flags" have different meanings to different people. (And the same goes for stars as well.) For some folks a Flag is a very important indication of a thread that should be read. For others it's merely a way of saying "I have read your thread". A flag shouldn't be considered an indication of "validity of content" - it should (in my opinion) be considered an indication of "member interest".

The chances of Negative flagging being implemented are very, very slim. The reasons have been mentioned above. I.e. you can only take what you gave thus the ability to unflag.

All that said – you shouldn’t pay much attention to things like flags and stars. You should approach and read each thread and post without being influenced by the stars. Well, that’s my opinion anyway.

I think you are confusing flags with stars. The way I perceive it, if a post is agreeable with me or makes me think and/or happy, I will star it. However, stars to not bump a thread up to the "Recently Flagged Threads" section. Generally I will flag a thread if I star it as well.

Knowing that these flags bump the thread up to this section, I will usually flag a thread that I am currently in debate with someone, even if I do not agree with the OP. This is so I can help the thread get as much exposure as possible and have more people put their take on the subjects and debates to try and get some closure.

Hmmmmm, too bad that the current flag system is essentially "carved in rock" and not open to change.

Personally, I think I'd prefer something along the lines of a thumbs up/down system of thread content rating such as
35 12

reply to post by tauristercus


I don't flag by quality but by interest and need for attention, even if the OP is crap (that is what stars are for), i star only comment that are valid contributions to the discussion especially if I agree with them (without excluding staring a person that makes a good contribution but on the opposing view point).

I think that a counter with the number of all stars (or a 10 base multiple, lets starting with 100 stars) given during the lifetime of a thread would serve as a good quality indicator...

Originally posted by tauristercus
Hmmmmm, too bad that the current flag system is essentially "carved in rock" and not open to change.

Personally, I think I'd prefer something along the lines of a thumbs up/down system of thread content rating such as
35

12

edit on 12/1/12 by tauristercus because: (no reason given)

This isn't YouTube.

reply to post by tauristercus


Sorry but your on a conspiracy site so if you create a thread that in anyway supports the so called PTB,NASA or any official body even if you had evidence that nobody could prove was wrong you would end up with a negative number of flags because of the can't think won't think brigade on here!