IMPORTANT: New (old) Standards Are Being Enforced (again) For New Threads

After a brief flirtation with relaxing our standards for opening posts of new threads, we're going back to requiring a bit more "meat" than we've been seeing in some new threads lately.

Now, when you go to start a new thread, you'll see this in the new post form-field:

NOTICE: AboveTopSecret.com management is now enforcing new standards for the opening posts of threads.

Opening posts that contain minimal content, links with little or no explanation, YouTube videos with no commentary, images with little or no commentary, and similar nominal content may be removed without warning or explanation. If your topic is important to you, make sure you explain why, with links and supporting material so that our members may offer more relevant contributions, and ultimately, better threads. In fact, if you have less to say than this simple notice, then you probably do not have enough to start a new thread. Thank you for your assistance in helping to create great threads on ATS.

When you click this form-field, this message will disappear.

What this means is that we want to see you care enough about your topic, to make us care as well. Don't simply do a "Reddit Drive By" and post a link with minimal commentary. Don't post a YouTube video without explaining your thoughts and observations.

From this point forward, new threads that begin with a minimal opening post are likely going to be deleted without warning or explanation.

The only possible exception will be rapidly-breaking news-worthy events via social media where there is little or no supporting links because it just happened and no one is reporting on it yet.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Yes, sir!
I've noticed that some threads had very little meat on the bone; maybe a pic, video, or a single line. I usually just go on to the next thing when I see it.

Well done Supreme Overlord

It was getting a but crazy with all the threads that are two lines and a block of off site content.

I like some meat with my potatoes. Mostly I just browse threads and read opinions on things.

I will PM you with a question or two I have.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I applause that decision! I do hope this will promote better-quality threads in the very near future.

I am guilty of this just now posting thread
I will go back and edit my post bearing in mind what you have said

Perhaps too much time on Twitter and it's limiting word count has contributed
But no excuses ... I am with you on this

Regards
a/p

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I think this is long overdue, just curious if it applies to replies too? Too many times replies offer very little in the way of substance either.

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I think this is long overdue, just curious if it applies to replies too? Too many times replies offer very little in the way of substance either.

+1

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

How, if it does, can this be applied to new threads in the Art forum?

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I believe there is a bandwagon of flags a'wavin' in your direction for this decision.

Will this be enforced with Jesse Ventura also? He post's video's without any description. And he never responds to threads either. That's thread abandonment right?

a reply to: proob4

He's responded quite a few times lately (three times to my posts, so I noticed). Would be nice if he'd come around more often, to other threads too, but as long as he's posting and sometimes responding he's doing things semi-well.

originally posted by: Aleister
a reply to: proob4

He's responded quite a few times lately (three times to my posts, so I noticed). Would be nice if he'd come around more often, to other threads too, but as long as he's posting and sometimes responding he's doing things semi-well.

But he loves clickbait, never emphasizes his video's.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

My god do we ever need this...im tired of the ...here is a link from mainstream media or infowars..."what say you ats"...then the op abandons the thread and checks flag and star count later.

Would there be a way to warn the potential reader if a video is included in the OP ?

I can't watch them from ATS (and sometimes they're very long) and I've looked into far too many threads only to be confronted with a video. Things might not be so bad now if there is a requirement for some explanation of the topic, or hopefully a link to an article containing relevant information BUT perhaps the OP could be required to put: (V) after the thread title to save people such as myself from looking in.

I expect there might be a more sophisticated way to tell us though?

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

It does. But it doesn't, too.

I'll attempt to explain...

Sometimes a cogent, and totally on topic reply is five words long. ...and a long meandering reply can be totally and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Longer replies are usually better, but not always.

a reply to: seagull

I would agree that windbag replies are also a problem. They will try to overshadow the OP when they could just go write their own OP. Still, I hope the same standards will apply to the video and what a reply should entail but often doesn't.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Bringing back the old standards is good

(Political subliminal message for both parties)

Just a simple very grateful Thank You.

I was hoping this would happen (again)

Old Standards. Will we have public show downs with free choice of weapons and saloons and brothels and horses and....

Thank you,

I didn't know if we were trying to form a Conspiracy reddit site or if we were all just loosing our collective minds.

I remember the standard Original story quote, link to source, a paragraph or so from the original poster and maybe a picture or video, these here's a video, what do you think?

We're the content managers, sometimes we need managed as well