What determines if a post gets starred a lot or not?

I've been reading some threads here and looking around. I've been browsing... and there are some posts that get a lot of stars and I really don't understand why it got a lot of star because there wasn't any proof to the post (it was just speculation).

I know that's what we do at ATS- but the user was just speculating and a lot of other people starred it... so what I'm wondering is like what determines whether a post gets starred or not?

Is it if the post is good or not? Is it where the post is placed? I'm confused now. I would really like someone to either explain to me I'm not alone in this confusion or to help me out here.

To me its pretty simple to get stars if you want them.

1. Have a cool avatar.

2. Talk about something controversial like hating Israel...

3. Keep your own thread going by posting things like, " I would have figured this was more important to people".

4. Tell plucky to stop by and post in it.

It happens way to often and an awful lot you will find, I think the posts are supposed to get a star for the merits of the post, that does not seem to happen.

Speculation on the why's just seems to create an even bigger hole, what is supposed to be there for fairness and acknowledgement, and appreciation, meaning the star, is used for other reasons so far from what it is meant for sometimes, but those are the breaks, there are some excellent post's and threads on ATS, some of them get nowhere, so it's accepted, my feelings are the best threads get nothing, while most of the BS is about all some can understand, Intelligence seems to fly right over the heads of some.

But of course as usual this is just my opinion, I would love to think it's a valid one, but we never seem to find out as do a lot of others, but again we are all here for different reasons.

Some recent threads have pointed to a part of it.

In general its starred if a member agrees that its a good post, Like a "yes" thumbs up kind of deal,

Its hard to determine as everyone here has there own reasons for starring,
Many will star if they feel the thread is of great importance as well as Flagging the thread in order to gain more attention to it,

I guess its in some way a personal preference if you like it or not..
The area the thread is posted holds no real relevance to getting starred.

I think some of it is like a cult following. I've noticed certain members will receive a large amount of stars and flags no matter the subject of their thread.

Me personally, I use two reasons for flagging a thread. If the OP has put a lot of time and research into a thread I'll flag it regardless of subject matter just as a way of saying nice effort. the second is if the subject matter is important to me or to ATS.

If I give a star for a post it's because the poster made a good argument or provided a good post on the thread that contributes to the subject matter being discussed.

Call me old fashion but I liked it when we just had the WATS vote.

reply to post by Simon_Boudreaux


Yes, I've noticed that too. Some members will get a lot of stars because just of who they are. I'm troubled by this. It's like these users have attracted a large following like Glenn Beck does with people who follow him.

A star is better than a post that says, "I agree." It's the same thing but without the waste of bandwidth. That said, it's all about perception. Doesn't mean that the opinion has merit, especially in the political threads but it's cleaner.

Edit: Star this post.

[edit on 22-10-2009 by intrepid]

Generally I would star a post if they made some good points, I know that when I'm only midly interested in a topic I will skim through it. The only posts I would read would be the ones that have been starred.

Otherwise I would star a post if it agreed with my own personal opinion instead of just quoting him and saying "^this" which would add nothing to the thread.

Thing to remember is, what you (in general) deems star or flag worthy, another person may not....and vice versa....what you deem to not be star/flag worthy, another person may deem it so.

Starring and flagging is in the eye of the beholder and there is no way of knowing why a person may star or flag something.

I also do not believe there is any evidence showing that certain members get starred more than others. Pure speculation.

[edit on October 22nd 2009 by greeneyedleo]

Using my profile for data.

If I post something, odds are it will get a star.
If I post something humorous, it will get a few stars
If I start thread, maybe a 30-40% chance of a flag.
If I post something that is directly speaking my mind, it will receive 0-3 stars, but has a chance of an applause.
If I post something that is both directly speaking my mind and humorous, there is a chance of someone hitting the friend button.

I have been foe'd twice, once was an accident. The other was a mistaken belief of what my point of view was on a subject. After finding I am more than just a funny line here or there, it was changed to a friend.

In conclusion, if you are wanting flags...don't have me start the thread my thread to flag ratio is a result of writing short stories. (Writers tend to flag stories they like). If you want stars, I am usually good for a couple now and then. If you want applause, give Intrepid good beer.

--Note-- Actually, Intrepid has never applauded anything I have posted, but then again I haven't actually gave him any beer so there you go.

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
I also do not believe there is any evidence showing that certain members get starred more than others. Pure speculation.

While I agree with the rest of your post... I don't agree with this quote. I have seen a handful of members that get a large amount of flags on their threads regardless of topic, and I'm far from the only one that has noticed this so I believe it's more than just speculation.

You can usually tell those threads because they have far far more flags than responses to the topic, or it'll be a huge opening post with lots of information to go through but yet the flags will start adding up shortly after the thread was started..sometimes you can look at the times and you know damn good and well that those doing the flagging didn't have time to read all the info provided before they flag it. When you see threads like that pay attention to who started it. After awhile it becomes obvious that people are flagging threads solely on who started the thread rather than the subject matter of the thread. Still believe it's speculation? Sit back and watch for it and I'm sure you'll see it as well.

[edit on 22-10-2009 by Simon_Boudreaux]

It is most obvious when said person/s reply to existing threads and get 10+ stars for a 1 or 2 liner

But there are flaws/loopholes in everything and I'm not here to worry about points the info. is what its about, not popularity.

reply to post by Simon_Boudreaux


Are you saying "forum gang" or just people of likemindedness? I'm not disagreeing with you, just want your opinion.

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by Simon_Boudreaux

 

Are you saying "forum gang" or just people of likemindedness? I'm not disagreeing with you, just want your opinion.

To be honest, I believe it's both. I'm not griping about it, just expressing an observation. I've seen some members that have contributed many good threads and have brought quite a bit of good information to us here at ATS, and now it seems that when ever they start a thread they have a "following" you might say that automatically will flag the thread simply because of the OP.

It's like some ATS members have their own fan base. Not that I have a problem with that, I think some of them have earned it with the work they have put into their threads, just that if a flag is given then give it for the information brought to us and not for who brought it to us.

alot of it is force off habit and guilt for not following through with an action you're accustomed to only because the masses do so... though we'd all like to think of ourselves as impervious to influence and independent in opiinon 1000%% of the time...

one can't help but feel an obligation to star a Dimensional Detective post.



-

Originally posted by prevenge
one can't help but feel an obligation to star a Dimensional Detective post.

-

While I don't feel an obligation to do so, I have flagged several of DD's threads, just not because it was DD that started it. It was the information that DD brought to us. I do see a fan base for DD and he is one of those I believe has earned it. He is definitely a great contributor to ATS.

I haven't seen a lot of out right Israel hating threads here, but I have seen threads that attempt to wake people up to the fact that the Israeli government is something to question. You won't have to worry about seeing many more of those threads because the writers have been "dealt" with and silenced.

And as for the issue of a few posters that have almost a Glenn Beck type following, did it ever occur to you that they must be writing posts that people find important or they wouldn't have reached that status? Again, we'll not have to worry about many of them as they've been "dealt" with also and have since found a new venue.

I thought ATS was supposed to be a place where everyone had a voice and the ability to get stars and flags, not just those we agree with. I seem to have been wrong and fortunately for many of you, those with opposing views have been removed, never to see a star or flag again.

Star and flag for the Op.

Originally posted by Simon_Boudreaux

To be honest, I believe it's both. I'm not griping about it, just expressing an observation. I've seen some members that have contributed many good threads and have brought quite a bit of good information to us here at ATS, and now it seems that when ever they start a thread they have a "following" you might say that automatically will flag the thread simply because of the OP.

It's like some ATS members have their own fan base.

I'm guilty of that. I'm a fan of some members who I flag and star to show my support for their efforts in a new thread. Although to be honest I'm very generous with flagging and starring others threads. Anybody who is willing to post a new thread with their views however controversial is worthy of a flag. Simply by contributing to the forums they have increased traffic and content for ATS.

[edit on 22-10-2009 by SLAYER69]

reply to post by Frankidealist35


Political philosphy is what gets the most stars, despite the relevance of the content. The reason is that there are probably just as many paid propaganda posters on this site as regular memebers. Social media is the new means of spreading propaganda.

Beware what you believe.

I will star someone if they have a ......... and talk about............ sometimes I will star if they............. but what really makes me star is posters that know how to tell it like it is.