ATS Member "Credit/Credibility" Score similar to a FICO Score? "ATScore" (ATS Credibility Observ

Don't all of those things listed in the OP add up to your K (for Karma)? Lol.

Not practical OP.

You essentially already have what you want. It's just dispersed. You have your longevity in the join date. You have activity in posts. You have threads started in flags and "useful" posts as judged by others in stars. The Karma and Wats scores are heavily influenced by flags and stars respectively. It's up to you to put these indices together the way you want to. Some people disavow the relevance of such statistics. Some people don't.

The point is that it is your choice what credibility you give such things. If you think stars represent a herd mentality and are useless, okay. If you believe users must start threads to be considered useful, you'll pay attention to flags. Okay. I may disagree with you. Is it because I have few flags and start few threads? Might I not be biased because of that? You are in charge right now. You can pay attention to what interests you. If you insist on a 'single number' score you are putting everyone on ATS in the same basket. That's not a recipe for diversity.

reply to post by YAHUWAH SAVES


I see what your saying. At the heart of the matter i believe you want to make sure your fellow members are better informed.

However, i dont suggest visibly marking/labeling people asthe best way. I believe we can all recall a time in our history when such attempt at identification and labeling of certain peoples lead to a sinister conclusion...

I would like to applaud you though, as threads like these spur people to re-examine how the read and understand certain posts.

reply to post by YAHUWAH SAVES


I think we should all donate to the income of a "Super Judge". Perhaps Dick Cheney. Whoever Dick Cheney thought deserved credit, they would instantly be banned from the Internet altogether.

reply to post by MDDoxs


Thank you for "getting" what I'm doing my best to get at here. There is so many who come and go, so many who create new memberships over and over for a host of different reasons, some for true anonymity but most who do this repetitively do so for nefarious reasons. At any rate maybe this discussion will lead to some options available to fight these trolls of disinformation and propaganda techniques.

Thanks for your thoughts.

I've posted this before, but you may be interested, OP:

A Guide to the ATS Award System

POINTS
You get one point for every post. You get two points for every reply to a thread you have started. You get “applause” points if a moderator thinks highly of a post you made, usually one that makes a significant contribution to a thread. “Applause” comes in the form of 250 or 500 points. You can also win a tremendous amount of points for participating in ATS games, debates, contests, and the like. Points do not appear with your posts and are only shown on your profile page.

You can get negative points if you post something that violates Terms & Conditions in the form of content or manners & decorum. Sometimes this can be because you are extremely nasty in a response, calling names, for example, or if you solicit business or violate T&C in some other way. Going off-topic can get your post erased, though it does not always result in a points deduction. Deductions, at least in my experience, are 1,000 points at a time.

What do points get you? Right now, nothing special. In the distant past you could spend points by “buying” a background color for your avatar or access to the REALLY Above Top Secret Forum. Today points aren’t really used for anything substantive. If you look at someone’s point total, you can get kind of an idea of where they are at. Someone with minus 2,000 posts is probably a new member who isn’t settling in well at ATS and is probably a candidate for being banned next time they transgress. Someone with tens of thousands of points has probably been here awhile and made steady contributions.

FLAGS (F)
You earn flags based on threads you start. You are flagged by other users, who can remove a flag if they grow disaffected with your thread. Flags feed into the Karma and Wats scores.

STARS (S)
You earn stars based on posts. You are starred by other users if they like your post, but they cannot remove a star once they give it to you. Stars also feed into the Karma and Wats scores.

POSTS (P)
Simply a tally of how many posts you have made. Posts feed into the Karma and Wats scores, but not always in a positive manner. See why below.

KARMA (K)
I’m indebted to member Sherlock Holmes for figuring out these formulas. As far as I know, ATS management has never been explicit about the scores. I believe Sherlock may have back engineered the formulas mathematically. I’m not really sure. In any case,

It's ((stars * 15) + (flags + applause) * 10)) / posts. So if you take the following, which was my scoring when I wrote this, you get:

7466 stars 3979 posts 524 flags 87 applauses
((7466 stars * 15) + ((524 flags +87 applauses) * 10)) / 3979 posts
(111990 + 6110)/3979
118100 / 3979 = 29.68, rounds to 30

So my K score is 30. Note that the overwhelming variable here is stars, which are multiplied by 15. You get much less for flags (starting threads) or ‘exceptional’ posts that earned applause, both of which are multiplied by ten. Applause, which can earn you 500 points a whack, are counted the same as a single flag here. So right off the bat flags and applause are worth two-thirds of what stars are. But the whole thing is divided by number of posts, which means the more posts you have, the lower your Karma Score. If you had 5,000 posts instead of 3979, your Karma Score would be 24. If you only had 2000 posts your Karma Score would be 59, twice what it is. Therefore, making posts that do not earn stars is to your detriment. It is better to make one pithy post than two throw-away comments that don’t add to the conversation.

WATS (W)
It's (number of posts ÷ 600) + (number of flags ÷ 80) + (number of stars ÷ 170). My score is:

(3979 posts / 600) + (524 flags / 80) + (7466 stars / 170)
6.63 + 6.55 + 43.91 = 57.09, rounds to 57

So my Wats score is (was!) 57. Here you see an opposite (and far simpler) sort of formula. Here stars are worth half of what flags are and posts themselves are worth about an eighth of what flags are. Flags are dominant. Here my nearly 4,000 posts earn me 6.63 points and my mere 524 flags earn me almost as much at 6.55 points. But since there are so many stars, even though they are worth half of what flags are, it still gives a boost. But clearly, flags, earned for starting threads, is the dominant theme here. Also, in this score posts don’t hurt you because they are added in, not a part of a ratio. In the previous formula, lowering your post count raised your score. In this formula, lowering your post count lowers your score.

Not enough room to discuss borders here. Perhaps someone else will...

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

Yet, as some high post users show - they haven't started a single thread. Do people come on here just to only respond to others posts?

Some of us aren't worth a crap at starting threads. I'm one of those. I'm really better off sticking to posting, even though I've created many threads. So yes, I've come to a point where responding to other members threads is going to be about the extent of my contributions from now on.

Can i ask who would do all this work in implementing this system?
Sounds like alot of work......

And plus things like these can be abused and manipulated disinfo agents would just come up with a set of rules to get trick the system.
And then you'd be back were you began. It would really be a game of cat and mouse

OT: WTH isthe point of points anymore anyway. I doubt there are people looking at profile pages and going ' wow this guy is the #!' lol

reply to post by schuyler


Now this is the type of information I think could really take ATS to just another level and ahead of all the rest.

I like where your head is at... Not into the god Karma as you can see by my member name however...

more stars then posts = credible

Originally posted by LadySkadi
I don't substitute my judgement for stats... So, credibility (for me) is defined by how I perceive a member's post history.

ETA: and Yes, I would agree that credit scoring does not provide a whole picture.

edit on 13-7-2012 by LadySkadi because: (no reason given)

i agree....and am probably repeating myself based on a similar thread made the other day...

but judge a post by its CONTENT not by the user or the stars or the flags. period.

reply to post by Klassified


I am in the same boat. Maybe if I had a bit more time, I would in fact start more threads of my own though. Usually I pop on here when I am letting my computer calculate physics or render or whatever, and have some time to kill so to speak. That means I pop on for anywhere between 10 to 45 minutes at a time. Not really sufficient time to start a great thread on anything.

Originally posted by YAHUWAH SAVES
Attention ATS and Members. After reading much recently about disinformation and Troll tactics that are occurring more and more often these days here on ATS I had a thought pop into my mind that might help make the experience perhaps more fulfilling here on ATS and humbly submit it for your approval:

Discussion please on development of an ATS MEMBER CREDIBILITY SCORE. Just like your own financial credit which is the only thing that Financial institutions really use to lend credibility for loans we should consider a credit rating based on several factors also. This will help all of us in realizing who the newer less credibility worthy are and will help to expose those who come and go.

Id like to submit some credibility factors for your review and encourage everyone to also post there own credibility factors that ATS could possibly factor into the Credibility score:

*Years with ATS (Longevity)
*New Threads Created (Involvement)
*Posts Created (Interaction)
*Logging in/accessing (Informative)
*Deleted Threads
*Posts Deleted/Censored/Removed
*Flags
*Stars Given
*Subscribers to Threads
*Favorites to Threads
*Reply Count to Created Thread

How about calling it "ATScore" (Above Top Secret Credibility Observation Rating Enumerator)
Have it from 0001 to 1000

I covet your thoughts and please reply with any comments/Stars so OPS can possibly look into with Management.

edit on 7/13/2012 by YAHUWAH SAVES because: (no reason given)

You must work for Facebook. What's next, what is our blood type? Our pets name? How many times have we been pulled over?

reply to post by Bixxi3


Actually the system is already in play it would require the programmer to connect the dots that are already there...

Good Question though because I have wondered the same thing and really think that the programmer could have the program handle it pretty easily I should think. I could be greatly naive here however

reply to post by yourmaker


When you see how many substanceless, oneliner insults get lots of stars on some threads, that theory gets blown out of the water don't ya think?

reply to post by AlienAgendah


again, all the information is here already and I am not promoting anything beyond what is here already...

Far from Facebook... YUCK...

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

 

I still have a heck of a time myself..and I can't say why exactly. Other sites? Nooo problem.... Here? Well, it's hard to forget the sheer size of the audience of critics and the viciousness it will be peer reviewed. I imagine MANY people with great things to say don't even try....because the abuse likely to come just isn't worth whatever gain the effort brings.

Don't let anyone stop you from posting something informative or thought provoking. Remember as a member of ATS you become the judge and peers and critics yourself too.

Any system that incorporates competition usually gets corrupted in the long run. People posting will try to glorify things so they can get stars or points to make themselves look better to others. This is part of the world we live in. We are conditioned for competition throughout our lives and not complying makes a person sort of an outcast of society many times.

reply to post by yourmaker


No that doesn't seem to be true.
A member can just make a bunch of ignorant sensationalist posts and threads and he will get a fat load of stars, flags and points.

Something to note though....

Not everyone follows the same procedure for staring and flagging threads/posts. In my time on ATS i have been surprised at how much starring/flagging varies..

Some people may star a post because it is funny, sad, intelligent or constructive. I fear that the base values for any future calculation would be inheritably flawed as their is no formal procedure is place for the aforementioned starring/flagging