Originally posted by Rising Against
reply to post by bknapple32
WATS is influenced most by a flag-to-post ratio, with a minor influence from stars and post-count.
Long term members with a high number of well-flagged threads will achieve a high WATS number -- or -- mid-term members with highly-flagged threads
will also receive a high WATS number. It reflects a ranking of those who start quality threads (mostly).
actually, no. That's a misleading statement. The formula was given to you all at the beginning of this thread:
It's (number of posts ÷ 600) + (number of flags ÷ 80) + (number of stars ÷ 170).
SO would like us to believe it's all about flags, but it is not. Flags have the most influence here; they are factored by 80 where stars are worth
just less than half a flag at 170, but someone who starts very few threads but contributes mostly via posts can have a very high WATS score. In other
words, 2.125 stars = 1 flag. Flags DO count more, it is true. It's just that their influence on the score has been highly exaggerated.
Also notice that unlike the K score, there is no "correction" factor for superfulous posts. The Karma formula is divided by number of posts, so if you
make a lot of no-count posts, ones that earn no stars, no flags, and no applause, the K score goes DOWN. With the WATS score, it always goes up, no
matter what. It's just a matter of time. All things being equal, your W score will notch up a digit about every hundred stars or so. Your W score will
NEVER go down and will ALWAYS go up. It's kind of a measure of longevity more than anything.
The Karma score, however, is a measure of quality. Once you establish a pattern, it's VERY difficult to raise your Karma score. My K score of 33 is
probably where I will sit, since my pattern is established. Is this a great score? well, it's passably OK, but not great. The formula is: ((stars *
15) + (flags + applause) * 10)) / posts. Here stars are worth half again as much as flags or applause, BUT the whole thing is divided by number of
posts. This means that if you make a lot of posts WITHOUT earning any stars, your score goes down. So if you see someone with a high Karma: 50 or
above, you can know pretty easily that his posts are valued by other members.
** Note ** Mods have their own forums and often have low karma scores because their posts earn no stars in those forums. You also get no stars here,
in introductions, or in Freshman's forum. There may be others.
Now, y'all can call this GroupThink if you want. It's a very popular attitude to have, but this really is a criticism of your fellow members and
yourself. You are saying members cannot be trusted with being discerning with their awards of stars and flags, that they have some gut-like reaction
to award a star. You may as well say, "My fellow ATS members are too stupid to understand what a great post or thread looks like. They are all
** Further Note ** I have never claimed these formulas are the EXACT formulas used. I claim they are "predictive," which is a quite different claim.
There could be other factors, and the formulas could be changed without notice.
edit on 1/5/2013 by schuyler because: (no reason