It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What Happened to the old commitment for high quality, high level posters to not see ads?

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 07:20 PM
a reply to: thesaneone
Not sure how it works here, but the sites I modded at, mods were told little to nothing about the inner workings and changes to the sites, it was not really part of the job description. Mods jobs was just to keep spam off the boards, and make sure members didn't eat each other's faces too hard. It would be more the owner and admin that would know the inner workings of the webpage. Perhaps a mod hasn't given an answer, because it is beyond their knowledge base. Again, only an educated guess on my part, from experience on other sites.

posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 07:48 PM

originally posted by: Argyll
maybe....just maybe......your not quite as prolific and important at ATS as you think you are?

There is some of that, though not in the condescension intended.

The advertising-negation/limits for members are based on the "Way Above Top Secret" formula where scores are relative to the entire membership, not absolute.

So some member's relative score may decline if others overtake them.

posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 08:23 PM
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Ahhhhhhhh. That would alter things more dynamically. LOL.

Thanks for the info. MUCH appreciate hearing from you.

That is a bit of a change from how I recall it being stated initially.

Nevertheless, that's certainly your turf.

I do think that you'd get far more bang for the buck in terms of the INCENTIVE aspect . . . if the troops had more of at least a rough idea of where the boundaries tended to swing . . .

or . . . failing that . . .

perhaps the 2-4 KEY measures that were incorporated in the ABOVE TOP SECRET formula.

posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 10:28 PM
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Ah ha!, what may be happening then is as more and more users get caught up in the millions-of-stars game (and it's quite easy to get zapped with that) then it is screwing up the numbers and giving someone with five edits five million stars and upping their WATS score to Wilt Chamberlin numbers (and I don't mean his baskets scored). So many past users who aren't even around anymore leap-frog others who would rather not see giant flashing ads rippling across the top of the page and then working their way down.

posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 10:37 PM
a reply to: BO XIAN

I'm sorry, I still don't get it. What happened recently to make you and I no longer worthy of the status which removes ads?

I feel slighted, IMO.

posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 10:54 PM
a reply to: Wookiep

If I understand the msg accurately . . . no guarantee of that . . .

it evidently has to do with

Posters, members . . . out performing us . . . and leaving our surpassing the old criteria . . . in the dust.

It appears that the criteria is not an absolute bar one reaches and/or surpasses once and for all.

It seems to be a relative thing . . . and if sufficient members out perform us . . . then they can effectively shove us below the criteria necessary to avoid the ads.


They clearly changed the rules in the middle of the stream . . . without saying anything to us, in the process.

Evidently that was where their priorities were, else they'd have done it differently.


edit on 1/6/2014 by BO XIAN because: spelling typo

posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 11:02 PM
a reply to: BO XIAN

You illustrated pretty much what I got out of the message as well. I call hogwash.

There's no way that one day there were suddenly an influx of users who suddenly surpassed our "special no ad status". With their flood of high quality posts!

A change was made, but I don't believe it was as subtle as that..

Either way, we got hosed. Thanks ATS, I feel so special.

edit on 1-6-2014 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 11:12 PM
Thanks to SkepticOverlord for commenting in this thread. I could easily be wrong, but I think he will have a follow-up comment.

BO XIAN, your WATS score shown on your mini-profile is 99. It is 55 if you look at the list of members. Mine is 117 on the mini-profile, and 87 on the members' list. I don't know which is used in calculating "Ad-less-ness."

I do see a positive sign, however tentative it may be. In the membership roster pages there is a column for WATS scores. Currently the numbers are completely unrelated to reality (if the first 4 pages are representative). If ATS can fill the column with real WATS scores, then make it possible to sort by that column (as they have for stars, flags, and posts), we'll be a long way towards answering your question.

Dear SkepticOverlord, you can see that this thread is something unusual in the amount and quality of comments posted. Of course you can do whatever you choose to, but my opinion is that some follow up information would be appreciated here.
edit on 2-6-2014 by charles1952 because: Spelling

posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 11:21 PM
a reply to: Wookiep

I think you make some worthy points.

I am just quite inadequate for discerning and reading the minds and intrigues involved. LOL.

I still have a bias that more transparency would lead to more people contributing higher amounts and qualities of posts and threads. However, who am I to even have an opinion? My PhD training in behavioral reinforcement was more than 30 years ago . . . though I don't really think that human nature has changed all that much.

I am somewhat curious about how the issues of ads and related income have factored into the jiggered more dynamic criteria.

And, I would PREFER TO THINK that the ATS PTB still have a high regard for their better contributing members.

Anyway--thanks for your passion and your candor.

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 01:22 AM
The ads are now unbearable.
I'm getting videos that block my whole page and play automatically. *Vexed*

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 07:16 PM

edit on 3-6-2014 by zazzafrazz because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 10:35 PM
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Bill please read here in regards to member status calculations. U2U was sent a couple of weeks ago on this issue now coming to light .

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in