Basic stats shouldn't be on public display.

People are influenced by a poster's basic stats which basically say, "This poster is performing well/badly/not too well/not too badly."

I'm sure that's the case because I certainly have been influenced and I can't believe I'm alone in that.

I have been negatively influenced by the less popular posters inasmuch as I don't take their posts/threads as seriously as the popular ones, and sometimes don't even bother to read their contributions; likewise, I tend to positively appraise the contributions of popular members just because they're popular (albeit on a subconscious level).

Why do we need to know how well/badly any given member is doing?

I believe it is wrong and creates a climate of favouritism.

We all know who the popular ones are, and it's revealed in their stats - in particular, their star tally.

It's quite ridiculous, when you think about it, that there should be favourites and black sheep on an internet debating forum of random anonymous people from all over the world who post stuff.

We should be attending only to the quality of the posts/threads themselves, not the person writing them.

Of course people will like a particular member's posts more than others, and so everyone will have their favourites and black sheep - that's human nature.

And friendships will be formed using private messaging...and the popular ones will prosper at the expense of the less popular ones.

There's nothing wrong with any of that; it's just it should be private.

This is a debating forum, not a popularity contest.

reply to post by CJCrawley


I think the stat's are a great idea as its allows me to see if someone posts for quantity rather than quality. There are quite a few members on here that have high "Karma" scores, I seem to respect their posts a lot more over someone who has a very low karma score. I have noted in one particular forum that the contributors all seem to have very low karma scores and the stars awarded seem to be less or just about the same as the posts. Again I try to avoid these members, as they seem to be the members that are either trolling or are just a tad mad.

reply to post by CJCrawley


And everyone gets a medal too right?






PS. If you didn't know, that was heavy on the sarcasm...

There are popular folks and black sheep in every facet of life. School, work, etc. all have them, so the internet would be no exception.

That being said, the starring system and flagging systems here has it's lovers and haters. I could not care less either way if it stays or goes, but it has never affected the way I view a person's post or thread. If ANYTHING the newer posters would grab my attention first, simply because they may have view points, ideas, and information that I may not have seen yet.

Getting rid of the system will not change who "The Favored Ones" are. Just like IRL, they will still have cheerleaders regardless of stats. It is what it is. People will pander and ego stroke who they wish to get whatever they think they can get. It happens EVERYWHERE.

reply to post by flammadraco

There are quite a few members on here that have high "Karma" scores, I seem to respect their posts a lot more over someone who has a very low karma score.

You're agreeing with me, yet you think it's a good thing to be positively/negatively influenced by a member's post before reading a word of it?

How so?

In my world, that's a little unfair.

flammadraco
reply to post by CJCrawley

 

I think the stat's are a great idea as its allows me to see if someone posts for quantity rather than quality. There are quite a few members on here that have high "Karma" scores, I seem to respect their posts a lot more over someone who has a very low karma score. I have noted in one particular forum that the contributors all seem to have very low karma scores and the stars awarded seem to be less or just about the same as the posts. Again I try to avoid these members, as they seem to be the members that are either trolling or are just a tad mad.

If "Karma" is an indication of being a troll, or a tad mad...
Throw me under a bridge, cause I'm certifiable!!!

reply to post by OpinionatedB


Congrats to OpinionatedB who is the most popular member of this thread (so far).

Please, humour me with an explanation...

There is some people that would just star a post just because it was by a poster(which might have same political affiliation), in a thread which is completely off topic.

That is something you cant stop, sad but true.

"hey look its that poster"

"he will probably say something i like"

"star!"

reply to post by CJCrawley

I lurked here for over ten years. I knew before I created an account I'd be less popular than a Beez, or a Wrabbit, or a Slayer. They say, "A tiger can't change its stripes." In that light I embrace who I am, who you are, and who I resonate with ... I'm good with that.

People are not equal. The guy who said we were was full of 'fancy words' that fooled a lot of folks into taking the wrong path. You're good peeps Crawley. Did I have to tell you that?

-Cheers

I have watched blank posts get a star, so I get what you are saying. The thing that I find most irritating is seeing a guy make a point and get two stars, then a popular guy on the next post just agree with him and get four stars. Nothing added, wth?
So I don't put much stock in the stars and flag system.

reply to post by CJCrawley


Being popular on the internet is like sitting at the cool table in a cafeteria of a mental hospital.
Ignore it...I do.

I tend to look at the stats to determine someone's "trolling" level when they are posting. I use it a lot when I can't determine whether it's sarcasm or just someone being rude. It's actually helpful to me in that light. (sarcasm and tone mostly go unnoticed in written communication) Usually the people that are just out posting rude comments have a very low post to star ratio, etc.

However, if it's a subject that I'm interested in and it's just about good dialogue, I never even bother to look. Some people that I have had the biggest disagreements or arguments of sorts with on one subject completely enlighten me and surprise me on others.

I use the flags to find people who generate great threads. The most flags usually indicate someone who posts well thought out, researched threads that include a common interest for all of us.

I wonder what would be different if the stats were invisible. Certainly I wouldn't be wondering every so often how it's possible for someone to have 2,000 posts and only 2 stars. The laws of physics are surely warped.
One thing is for sure, the audience here loves their popcorn. Smart-arsed or outright acerbic responses get lots of stars. The reason why is as much a mystery to me as the 2-star veterans I mentioned.

Flags and stars are merely the virtual carrots dangling in front of our mouths as we run along on this ATS treadmill. They're encouragement to bring quality content to the page (and a form of implicit shaming for those who don't). But ultimately they're meaningless.

Open a thread if you think the information needs to be shared. Make a comment if you think your voice needs to be heard. But don't get caught up in the premise of chasing flags and stars, bringing endless streams of content to ATS simply because you're chasing down a virtual pat on the head and a thumbs up for doing good "work."

Because, in the end, the only people who really benefit from flags are stars are the owners of ATS, who make (very real!) advertising revenue off the backs of our free labor. So what I'm saying is--use ATS as a tool to leverage your viewpoints and affect public opinion. But don't let ATS use you as a tool to make itself more money.

CJCrawley
reply to post by flammadraco

 

There are quite a few members on here that have high "Karma" scores, I seem to respect their posts a lot more over someone who has a very low karma score.

You're agreeing with me, yet you think it's a good thing to be positively/negatively influenced by a member's post before reading a word of it?

How so?

In my world, that's a little unfair.

Yes I agree with you that the stats do have an effect on my own views on some members posts. That is however my opinion, whether that is correct or wrong is another matter.

AccessDenied

flammadraco
reply to post by CJCrawley

 

I think the stat's are a great idea as its allows me to see if someone posts for quantity rather than quality. There are quite a few members on here that have high "Karma" scores, I seem to respect their posts a lot more over someone who has a very low karma score. I have noted in one particular forum that the contributors all seem to have very low karma scores and the stars awarded seem to be less or just about the same as the posts. Again I try to avoid these members, as they seem to be the members that are either trolling or are just a tad mad.

If "Karma" is an indication of being a troll, or a tad mad...
Throw me under a bridge, cause I'm certifiable!!!

I don't want to throw you under the bridge But IMO when someone has more comments than stars on their stats I am a little more cautious when reading their posts.

I think that it's mostly just a guideline. I think that it helps you spot ones who have or have not been tried and tested. But, as with anything, there are exceptions.

Hello everyone!
I understand what you're saying OP, but I don't think the stats matter to everybody.
They don't matter to me.

I don't judge any member by their stats or their avatar. I always ONLY base anything on the content.
I will S&F posts that I don't even agree with, if they were well presented.
I read threads by strangers, antagonists, etc. because I'm interested in the topic.

I don't even keep track of my own stats, to be honest.
Sometimes I will go back to one of my posts, and see a bunch of stars. I'm always pleasantly surprised, lol.
I have 'friends' on here now...but there are many people who don't know me yet I consider them a 'friend'.

I remember years ago in a chatroom...someone asked me for my 'stats'. I laughed, and replied, 'I don't have stats, I'm not a baseball player!'
Here, have a star and flag from me!
jacy

CJCrawley
People are influenced by a poster's basic stats which basically say, "This poster is performing well/badly/not too well/not too badly."

The 'stats' by the avatars are meaningless right now .... The stars and karma are not working.
Don't even waste time looking at them at this point. It's broken.

I tend to positively appraise the contributions of popular members just because they're popular (albeit on a subconscious level).

It would be hard to figure out who is 'popular' and who isn't. I don't know if that's even possible.
Different people like and dislike different posters.
Some of those I like probably aren't the same posters that others like .... etc

flammadraco
when someone has more comments than stars on their stats I am a little more cautious when reading their posts.

That doesn't really work either. Stars are relatively new compared to how long some folks have been here. A lot of the folks who have been here a long while have tons of posts that were made before stars were available. So it looks like they have less stars than they should compared to their post counts. The whole 'star' system should be gotten rid of, IMHO. It's skewed and it encourages 'group think'.