ATS economy

There's a lot of talk about the inequality of wealth and advantages of the rich...

So it got me wondering, what is the distribution of "wealth" on ATS?

It seems that established members with good reputation and record are more likely to get a lot of flags/stars. Would you say this is similar to how a wealthy industrialist is at advantage when starting a new business?

Are the following stats available or could they be made available.

-ATS points per member.

-Percentage of total points by the top 1% members.

-Percentage of total points by the lower 20% members.


Speculating, there are probably some parallels to draw to the world economy. A high percentage of members have a few number of posts, these are maybe the third world citizens in poverty. There is a class of elite members who have many times the points of the average.

What would be the real world comparison for your membership? I guess I'd be a recent entrant into the work force with a minimum wage job looking to move upward. Slayer69 is Bill Gates (sorry to name drop).

I know this isn't a perfect analogy, just thought it was kind of interesting.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

ATS status markers differ from "wealth" in some very important respects.
One is that giving out stars and flags is cost-free, so that people can afford to "support" many other members, whereas they could not support rival businesses and would have to choose.
Another is that businesses need to make money in order to survive, whereas members can still chugg along quite happily without getting stars and flags at all. If it was necessary to maintain a minimum "K" level in order to be allowed to continue posting, the pressure would be much greater, and the analogy would be closer. If you were not far above the minumum, you would know that it would only take a few badly-judged posts to drive you "bankrupt" and off the forum.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Good points, it's a flawed analogy. But I thought it might be ironic to point out to anti 1%-ers on ATS that their forum is similarly top loaded.

The amount of ATS points any given member has is based strictly upon each individual's participation and contribution. It has nothing to do with the haves and have-nots regarding any socio-economic parallels you may attempt to draw up.

In short, everyone's membership starts at 0 and works up from there.

reply to post by maria_stardust


Good point, no new member is inheriting 100,000 points. You can close this topic if you think it's super ridiculous.

I know where you are coming from Patrick.
ATS "economy" is the wrong term for it.

You want to build up stars?
Post a funny pic here..www.abovetopsecret.com...

You want flags,well either you build a reputation and alot of friends on here,or produce a quality thread.

But my question is why would you care other than getting attention.
Isn't that what the basic need of humans is to gain attention from others?
To get praise from others to make yourself feel better.
I'm guilty of it,till I saw through it all.

Gaining respect from this community,not wealth in dollars.
That is priceless.
Through words and wisdom.
Not through who you know,much like in politics.

Hope that helps in some way.

reply to post by kdog1982


I hope I didn't come off as bitter about having lower stats. Sure, I get a sense of satisfaction when my thoughts are praised but that's not my purpose.

Overall, the point is that in any endeavor a small fraction are bound to succeed far beyond the majority.

And I thought it would be interesting to compare the share of the 1% of ATS with the global economy to illustrate this.

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
reply to post by kdog1982

 

I hope I didn't come off as bitter about having lower stats. Sure, I get a sense of satisfaction when my thoughts are praised but that's not my purpose.

Overall, the point is that in any endeavor a small fraction are bound to succeed far beyond the majority.

And I thought it would be interesting to compare the share of the 1% of ATS with the global economy to illustrate this.

edit on 6-9-2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)

You didn't come off as bitter at all.

Comparing that 1% with ATS is like comparing middle schoolers with corporate America.
No offense intended,but am I wrong?
Who has the money and who doesn't?
I don't do you?
I know who does on here ,but I won't name names.

Sorry,went off on a tangent,so back to your point.

In every group,no matter who or what it is,there will always be those that rise above others,rather it be stars or money,it will happen.
That is how humans and other social animals function.
To be a social animal,you have to have a leader,or leaders.
Otherwise the social community collapses.
The problem I have is those that become leaders because of a load of bull#.

Ok,I have to stop before I go to far.
Everything is cool.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

Dear PatrickGarrow17,

I'm pleased when I can find a reasonable conversation in which I can participate. I value the comments of the replying posters more than anything else. Are they paying attention? Understanding what I'm trying to say? Is it making any difference to the conversation?

Points can't be used for anything, and I think flags' only benefit is that you can get a colored border around your posts.

May I say that you've come up with a new and interesting topic? It made me try to remember my old economics classes. (And resort to Wiki again. en.wikipedia.org... )

The Pareto principle (also known as the 80–20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.

Business-management consultant Joseph M. Juran suggested the principle and named it after Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who observed in 1906 that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population; he developed the principle by observing that 20% of the pea pods in his garden contained 80% of the peas.

It is a common rule of thumb in business; e.g., "80% of your sales come from 20% of your clients". Mathematically, where something is shared among a sufficiently large set of participants, there must be a number k between 50 and 100 such that " 'k'% is taken by (100 − k)% of the participants". The number k may vary from 50 (in the case of equal distribution, i.e. 100% of the population have equal shares) to nearly 100 (when a tiny number of participants account for almost all of the resource). There is nothing special about the number 80% mathematically, but many real systems have k somewhere around this region of intermediate imbalance in distribution.

I would think that a little number crunching from the massive ATS data banks could tell us what the "k" is for ATS, but I suspect they have other things to do.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

 

Dear PatrickGarrow17,

I'm pleased when I can find a reasonable conversation in which I can participate. I value the comments of the replying posters more than anything else. Are they paying attention? Understanding what I'm trying to say? Is it making any difference to the conversation?

Points can't be used for anything, and I think flags' only benefit is that you can get a colored border around your posts.

May I say that you've come up with a new and interesting topic?

It made me try to remember my old economics classes. (And resort to Wiki again. en.wikipedia.org... )

The Pareto principle (also known as the 80–20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.

Business-management consultant Joseph M. Juran suggested the principle and named it after Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who observed in 1906 that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population; he developed the principle by observing that 20% of the pea pods in his garden contained 80% of the peas.

It is a common rule of thumb in business; e.g., "80% of your sales come from 20% of your clients". Mathematically, where something is shared among a sufficiently large set of participants, there must be a number k between 50 and 100 such that " 'k'% is taken by (100 − k)% of the participants". The number k may vary from 50 (in the case of equal distribution, i.e. 100% of the population have equal shares) to nearly 100 (when a tiny number of participants account for almost all of the resource). There is nothing special about the number 80% mathematically, but many real systems have k somewhere around this region of intermediate imbalance in distribution.

I would think that a little number crunching from the massive ATS data banks could tell us what the "k" is for ATS, but I suspect they have other things to do.

With respect,
Charles1952

At the end of the day,does it really matter?
To some degree,a little boost in self-confidence.

And,yes,charles,I do pay attention most of the time.

As for the karma index,there is a formula they use.

K = Karma Karma is factors based heavily upon your Star to Post Ratio combined with Applause and Flags. It is a counterbalance to the WATS system of (Flags*5(Stars)).

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I could have a few more points, but you left out the Penalized Poster angle.

But when I call a D-Bag, a D-Bag, I get my knuckles rapped, and 1000 points go bye bye.

Its worth it.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
I could have a few more points, but you left out the Penalized Poster angle.

But when I call a D-Bag, a D-Bag, I get my knuckles rapped, and 1000 points go bye bye.

Its worth it.

Yeah,it's suppose to be civil,but people and they're emotions is what drives these conversations.
These conversations attract more people with they're opinions and emotions.
In my book,calling someone out is ok.If they can defend they're position ,thats ok to.
But in a mature manner,not like in some schoolyard.

I'm going to use my ATS points to make arrows if the SHTF. It pays to have ammo in stock.

reply to post by kdog1982

Dear kdog1982,

And,yes,charles,I do pay attention most of the time.

You're a thoughtful and considerate poster. That's why you're admired far and wide. You're my kind of guy, errr, "dog?"

As for the karma index,there is a formula they use.

Here I really have to apologize to you. I forgot there was a K index, or perhaps I would have noticed that the formula Pareto came up with used "k" as the variable. That's the "k" I was talking about. If that "k" is 1, then we have a distribution where only a few have all the points. At 50, then the points are equally spread.

At the end of the day,does it really matter?
To some degree,a little boost in self-confidence.

And I'm all for that, however you get it. (Some restrictions apply. See store for details. )

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by kdog1982

 

Dear kdog1982,

And,yes,charles,I do pay attention most of the time.

You're a thoughtful and considerate poster. That's why you're admired far and wide. You're my kind of guy, errr, "dog?"

As for the karma index,there is a formula they use.

Here I really have to apologize to you. I forgot there was a K index, or perhaps I would have noticed that the formula Pareto came up with used "k" as the variable. That's the "k" I was talking about. If that "k" is 1, then we have a distribution where only a few have all the points. At 50, then the points are equally spread.

At the end of the day,does it really matter?
To some degree,a little boost in self-confidence.

And I'm all for that, however you get it. (Some restrictions apply. See store for details.

)

With respect,
Charles1952

Don't know if I should thank you or call you a sarcastic S.O.B.

At any rate,thank you for your input,much appreciated.

thought id mention while its free to give a star , it does cost the doaner precious time and that is valuable so it has merit