What do you expect? The world of ATS is not free.

reply to post by TiM3LoRd

what we DO know is that the more traffic to the site the more clicks they get and thus generate more money via Ad's. This is a fact. we DO know that the majority of users on here are very easily swayed by emotion. So emotionally charged threads that split the community in half like racism or religion or politics are used to generate heated discussion.

If clicks be revenue then they must love me! I be clicking fool! You know more about this than I do, but it seems to me more revenue would be generated by the number of IP's checking into the site.

I also disagree with the assertion that most of us are emotional, there are plenty on here who are rational, calm voices of reason and logic. I think it does not take long being here before you learn to separate the hysterical posts and answers from the good ones.

Like I said we love a heated discussion. Personally I do not, but ATS does not make it's site for me. I may be naive won't be the first time I been called it, but I still say ATS stands against censorship, more than they are for it.

reply to post by TiM3LoRd


You are right. The issue created a HUGE emotional split. I just felt the split was like... 95% ~ 5%. I'd just like some of those in the 95% take a little time to put themselves into the shoes of the owners. I'm probably right on the fence of the issue, slightly leaning towards the 5% side. I'd like to think I put myself in all the shoes on most issues as understanding is a cure for hate I believe.

Those nonsense threads are purely entertainment... and keep the cash flowing! Sad state of affairs, but the sensible threads cannot continue without the framework ATS gives them for free. There is a line drawn, lines always need to be addressed from time to time to see if they need moving. But the insta-hate in anothers thread was appalling. Well, that's how I felt anyway.

For what its worth, I think SO addressed the issue and gave their thoughts. I'd like them to address it more officially, but that's not our right to demand. Ask, don't demand, I felt if my children talked to me like that they'd be sent to their room!

We'd like to see it, but until we pay for membership I think its well within ATS's rights to set their own rules.

Originally posted by Iamschist
reply to post by TiM3LoRd

 

what we DO know is that the more traffic to the site the more clicks they get and thus generate more money via Ad's. This is a fact. we DO know that the majority of users on here are very easily swayed by emotion. So emotionally charged threads that split the community in half like racism or religion or politics are used to generate heated discussion.

If clicks be revenue then they must love me! I be clicking fool!

You know more about this than I do, but it seems to me more revenue would be generated by the number of IP's checking into the site.

I also disagree with the assertion that most of us are emotional, there are plenty on here who are rational, calm voices of reason and logic. I think it does not take long being here before you learn to separate the hysterical posts and answers from the good ones.

Like I said we love a heated discussion. Personally I do not, but ATS does not make it's site for me. I may be naive won't be the first time I been called it, but I still say ATS stands against censorship, more than they are for it.

The IP has nothing to do with the number of clicks. The durations a person spends on a site and how far into the site a person goes is what google looks at when determining the value of a site. A sites RANK as it were is determined by google and thus its popularity. The more popular a site is the more they charge people to have ads on there since they know they will be reaching a much bigger target audience. In the wise words of Superintendent Chalmers "It's just a damn popularity contest with you kids!"

Originally posted by Qumulys
reply to post by TiM3LoRd

 

I felt if my children talked to me like that they'd be sent to their room!

We'd like to see it, but until we pay for membership I think its well within ATS's rights to set their own rules.

edit on 6-2-2012 by Qumulys because: (no reason given)

We may act like kids but we DO pay the rent and help out with bills. Every time you or I log in here and link or post our ideas its helping the owners get paid. This is not a debatable issue its a fact. Thus we are PAYING for the continuation of this site by keeping it popular. If this site becomes nothing more than an offshoot of 4chan who is going to come here?? Troll's Trolling Trolls. Trust me this site wasn't always like this, ask the vet's that were here before the facbook boom. It existed back them without the moron thread it could do the same again just wont make as much money. Its an issue of quality over quantity.

You think Nike moved their factories to Vietnam because they wanted the locals to have a better life or because they could maximize profits and reduce costs? Don't be so naive. look around at the world you live in. As soon as you involve profit into a system the probability of corruption rises with the temptation of more profit. Its called human nature.

reply to post by TiM3LoRd


I honesty don't feel we are on opposing sides! I thought I was being the opposite of naive! Of course they are here to remain profitable! They can raise their baby however they see fit, using some clever google tricks to remain on top, I think that's what top SEO's do for a job. Without which, this would just be another small struggling forum asking for donations.

I'd just like to understand why so many were upset by that? You seem to understand the reasoning behind it, yet also seem upset at the same time. I'm understanding it, but am bothered by your upsetness because that upset me!! Lol, us humans are silly sometimes!

I hoped this thread could ease some tensions by finding common ground, spreading some info on how important it is to optimize a website on Google to ensure survival.

Lets face it, as we get older, the younger generation will overtake this place in droves. I have seen what the younger generations offer (in general) and the lack of knowledge and failure in education is disgraceful. It's them that will take over this site. Higher traffic is the only way ATS will survive long term, the owners are trying best to keep the site "successful" and they know its not going to be because of brilliantly researched threads anymore (edit: In general, there still are some quality threads, just not enough).

Originally posted by Qumulys
reply to post by TiM3LoRd

 

You seem to understand the reasoning behind it, yet also seem upset at the same time. I'm understanding it, but am bothered by your upsetness because that upset me!! Lol, us humans are silly sometimes!

It irks me because i do love this forum and what it used to offer and i can see the path its heading down and i dont like it. Its the same path as humanity and thats nor surprising since ATS is a microcosm of the macro world we live in. I feel they are selling out. Again this is only my opinion and i cant help the way i feel. It feels like just another lie perpetrated to keep us dumb consumers and not educate us in the true sense of the word.

Lets face it, as we get older, the younger generation will overtake this place in droves. I have seen what the younger generations offer (in general) and the lack of knowledge and failure in education is disgraceful. It's them that will take over this site. Higher traffic is the only way ATS will survive long term, the owners are trying best to keep the site "successful" and they know its not going to be because of brilliantly researched threads anymore (edit: In general, there still are some quality threads, just not enough).

edit on 6-2-2012 by Qumulys because: (no reason given)

Agree with you 100% they are the future and it does not look good given the way kids act today, im only 34. up until 4 years ago i didnt consider myself old. Now all i feel is old.

reply to post by TiM3LoRd


I'm a 77 model as well! We must be destined to whinge now and be shuffled off to the home!

Originally posted by Qumulys
reply to post by TiM3LoRd

 

I'm a 77 model as well! We must be destined to whinge now and be shuffled off to the home!

A bloody good year from what i hear

yeah mate we are getting too old for this shhhh..

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd

Originally posted by Qumulys
reply to post by TiM3LoRd

 

I'm a 77 model as well! We must be destined to whinge now and be shuffled off to the home!

A bloody good year from what i hear

yeah mate we are getting too old for this shhhh..

I believe you are as old as you feel. I’m a 68 model (good year I might add), and build sand castles with my 3 y/o daughter.

Originally posted by rexusdiablos
If another website is making false accusations then why not publicly debate it and quash it once and for all?

We did. Years ago. Old news.

The lies were based on an April fools joke (clearly labeled as such) posted in 2004. The joke aspect was ignored so as to drum-up attention, and the lies where piled on top after that.

Originally posted by Qumulys
I agree, the censorship is a bit silly.

We don't allow links to a site known for fabricating UFO hoaxes. Why should we link to a site known for fabricating lies and deception about the members of ATS?

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd
Over the years I have seen this site choose quantity over quality

"This site" makes no editorial decisions at all, ever.

The content that gets "pushed" to the site home, other aggregating pages, the email newsletter, even selected for ATS Recap and discussion on ATS Live is completely up to our members. We cannot and will not influence the editorial directions dictated by our members.

Excellent evidence for this is proven by this "issue." The "jade object" thread with the ensuing drama eventually became the top-most promoted topic on the site home, and was featured in the daily email newsletter. What other possible proof could there be that we do not influence editorial priority?

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd
The IP has nothing to do with the number of clicks. The durations a person spends on a site and how far into the site a person goes is what google looks at when determining the value of a site. A sites RANK as it were is determined by google and thus its popularity. The more popular a site is the more they charge people to have ads on there since they know they will be reaching a much bigger target audience. In the wise words of Superintendent Chalmers "It's just a damn popularity contest with you kids!"

That's not quite how it works. While some of that is a factor, at best, it's 25% of the total attributes that determine the ad value for any given site... which is another topic for another thread if needed.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Maybe you missed my point. I guess I'm on both sides a bit here though. I think your well within your rights to block a lie's site. On a personal level, I find that silly, cause to censor just sends one's mind racing and searching. I've countered my own argument though in the fact this is a site that has to maintain a functional business model, and therefore I respect and understand your position on it. And I believe you have done so, without which there would be no place for us to whinge in!

I was taken aback though how many were going to jump ship! So I felt the need to rant and hope to convince others to reflect a bit more. Also, to give the Jade thread back to its author who I felt was badly done by.

Glad to hear it was hashed out though at one stage! That should ease some minds!


EDIT:
Perhaps I can suggest a half shaded large question mark under a post linking to known hoax sites. By allowing the link to stay, BUT also including a "Questionable Sources" remark under it, could also serve to help inform others which sites in the past have posted garbage?

Originally posted by Qumulys
On a personal level, I find that silly, cause to censor just sends one's mind racing and searching.

On a functional level, I find it necessary.

We get huge traffic. Recent quantified and audited analytics from our new source (Chartbeat) places our average concurrent users at just under 4,000. That's huge.

Google reports nearly 2 million ATS pages in their index. That's huge.

We get nearly 8 million visitors a month. That's huge.

As a result, links from ATS are highly valuable. We've had reports of mid-sized and smallish websites crashing because of a link from ATS.

We've seen several prior attempts by other websites to try and capitalize off a strategy of spamming links on ATS. When noticed, we shut that down.

I don't know if this recent thread was an attempt at that. But if it was, it wouldn't be the first time. We'll not allow someone who fabricates lies about the founder, owners, and members of ATS to profit from inbound links from ATS. Make sense?

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Yup, makes sense to me! I felt that message was not getting out to others!

Expanding then on my above edit. Lets say a poster does link to a hoax site, can it not be made to
1. Leave Ops post intact, but
2. Remove offending link
3. Add the "Liar" logo but then also giving the option to "click" to
4. Reveal the offending link.

Would that work in the countering of sending traffic to the offending site (to some degree), but also letting it be known to those who want to see it? Best of both worlds?

If that's not a possibility, at the very least, the "Quote" button should not have revealed the offending site at all. Perhaps that could be addressed?

Thanks for your input by the way!

I went to the offending site and read the article on ATS, first off I dont think any members of ATS would take the negative stuff about the site seriously.
The example that comes to mind is the way it portrayed the S&F system as being for children wanting the teachers approval, we know its not the Mods or owners who do the S&Fs but other members when they appreciate either the comment or the post.

It did say some stuff about the owners but nothing I thought was really that bad, we all acknowledge this is a business and I doubt anyone on here has any issues with good SEO but the line I keep hearing from SO is that it also says bad things about members, I must have missed that part and have any members complained? do you all really believe we are that thin skinned that we care or will be upset/offended by what another site says about us?

The way it now looks to most members is that the allegations of the way ATS does SEO is true (I dont have an issue with it BTW) and that for whatever reason you dont want members to know whats going on.

I personally dont care either way but I did find it kinda of ridiculous that a conspiracy site whos motto is deny igorance would censor something that lets face it was harmless and the claims about the offending site being full of lies and libelous material, have you read most of the cr@p on this site? I would say at least 40% of this sites content fits under one of those 2 categories.

Anyway love the site, keep up the good work but in future pls let whatever anyone says about you be water off a ducks back, the only reason I think a site should be censored is if it has kiddy porn the rest I think we can handle and make up our own minds.

Cheers

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


Thanks for the response!

The essence of the site was indeed very attacking on a personal level. With names. Its certainly a tricky one, I'm swayed from side to side on this! But its great SkepticOverlord has linked where ATS dealt with it anyway, its not hidden, I don't agree 100% with the decision (I'm still getting the 'liar liar pants on fire vibe from it all'), but then again, I don't run a successful forum. Nor pay for it! I'm just saying that that gives the owners rights to deal with these things as they see fit.

I just think until we put up hard dollars, demanding change is unwarranted in this instance.

Great to see this has remained so level headed in here!

Originally posted by Qumulys
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

 

Great to see this has remained so level headed in here!

That's the way all debates, topics and ideologies should be conducted in here.

People should have their say based on what they believe and not what they think is the "popular" opinion.

As long as people dont take the opinions of others as an attack on their own there is nothing stopping everybody from having a civilized discussion about opposing ideas.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by rexusdiablos
If another website is making false accusations then why not publicly debate it and quash it once and for all?

We did. Years ago. Old news.

The lies were based on an April fools joke (clearly labeled as such) posted in 2004. The joke aspect was ignored so as to drum-up attention, and the lies where piled on top after that.

"Old news" doesn't mean "universally known news".

Why not sub-categorize the lies filter message by appending a link that leads to a thread that clarifies the basis for each website that warrants the lies filter? All it takes is a little conditional logic to detect the problematic link which in turn would determine which link is appended.

I'm telling you this your own benefit. The filter as it stands arouses suspicion.

Yes, in hindsight, use of the search function would have clarified this but you've seen exactly what happened and what will continue to happen: Members will search the censored website sooner/rather than ATS.

Surely you'd prefer to present your version of the truth rather than censored website's version.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Qumulys
I agree, the censorship is a bit silly.

We don't allow links to a site known for fabricating UFO hoaxes. Why should we link to a site known for fabricating lies and deception about the members of ATS?

Would I be correct to assume that you're drawing the line where deliberate deception can proven?

Why aren't you blocking infowars or the myriad of prophetic websites?

Why aren't you blocking links to the CDC or White House websites?

Why not block all link to Scientology?

You seem perfectly content in allowing us to filter the deception for ourselves.

The drawing of the line is inconsistent. The only real difference I see here is that it's personal.

Yes, it's your right. That doesn't mean it is right.

At the very least, the filter should allow the link to be clicked through.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
We'll not allow someone who fabricates lies about the founder, owners, and members of ATS to profit from inbound links from ATS. Make sense?

Yet you will allow websites who fabricate lies that are of detriment to the ATS member base (by way of proven disinformation). It just seems a little selective.

I understand the logic.

Have you ever actually tried inviting the accuser to a one on one debate? You could break the debate down into two parts. Each part to be hosted on each website to allow mutual opportunity for traffic. Should the accuser refuse and ATS can clearly corroborate the refusal then it's pretty much case closed isn't it?

As it stands, you're running the risk of the censorship being misconstrued. It's not as clear cut as you might think for casual and new members.