ATSNN: Something has to happen!

The ATSNN system is working PERFECTLY, this is a Community MEMBER DRIVEN site, if members are declining your stories (YOUR was NOT) that's the breaks. Until you do enough of them, the Members LIKE and get approved, to become an EXPERT at which time your stories automatically get upgraded.

Springer...

Originally posted by Dulcimer
I think ive only had 2 submissions, but ill add my 2 cents.

If the amount of no votes needed was increased, i think it would make everyone much happier.

If an article really is bad, its going to get the amount of no votes anyways.

The problem is not the amount of votes needed...its the fact that people just dont vote!

Ive seen submissions with 300 views, 25 replies and it still hasnt been voted 'up or down'!

Ive argued till im blue in the face with all sorts of people about this matter and the truth is until we can force voting upon people ATSNN will reamin the same!


Mic

trash in 9 seconds...

S...

Perhaps the 10 members simply disagree with what you are attempting to bring to light?

I just posted this today in this thread:

Originally posted by Jaryn
While I have only recently registered, therefore making myself a "newbie" who obviously knows nothing, I have already noticed that if you submit a news article that will by it's very nature be offensive to one political party or another (almost guaranteed), it will be voted against as biased by numerous people.

As an example, let's say that I post a submission based on a news story stating "Bush Proven to be a Nazi". In my submission, I say things like this is interesting and needs to be looked at. Now, the result of this would be the hard-core democrats voting yes, not matter the basis of the story and the hard-core republicans voting no, even if it were Bush who swore it under oath.

Those of us who are not so caught up in politics must vote on any submission that carries a relevant story simply to offset those that vote with an agenda!

I accept that I may be warned/banned for posting this, but I feel it's necessary that someone say this and therefore it's worth it.

If people that think a story is great, tend to vote less than people who think a story sucks, then why are 10 votes needed for a downgrade and 15 for an upgrade?
Shouldn't it be the other way around???

Get a CLUE, I understand we are ALL paranoids or we wouldn't be here, but if you think there enough people that would vote no for "alterior motives" (motives other than what they personally think about a subject/story) we may need to add you to the staff. You have an overactive paranoia gland... Calling them "jerks" in public won't do much for helping you get the needed approvals for expert either...

Seriously it's just an OLD worn out complaint... We are in the process of "changing ATSNN" with some "upgrades" that were suggested.

REALIZE we are also in the process of changing/adding/creating 16,000,000,000 OTHER things too, not to mention RL issues that have to be dealt with as well.

Springer...

Okay okay Springer.
You succeeded in calming my paranoid mind down.
Next time I submit news and get those "jerky" NO votes I will attempt to control myself.

Originally posted by Springer
REALIZE we are also in the process of changing/adding/creating 16,000,000,000 OTHER things too, not to mention RL issues that have to be dealt with as well.

RL?

Real life?

You mean they let you leave the site?

If I think a source is bias, or if I just don't like the story is it not my prerogative to click the No's?

[edit on 3-10-2005 by SpittinCobra]

Hiya Springer,
Ahhh, before you go adding Jakko to the staff for his overactive paranoia, any chance you'd consider putting that up to a membership vote with a view of tallies? It'd be curious to see how many no votes, and errrr, jerks there really are here.

Zank Ya,
TA

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
If I think a source is bias, or if I just don't like the story is it not my prerogative to click the No's?

[edit on 3-10-2005 by SpittinCobra]

But when people are doing it because it makes Bush look bad etc than it is a joke.

I have had Yahoo, MSN, CNN, BBC, etc, all pushed as bias before by one group or another because they disagree with what the source says. In fact I've had an Op/Ed as biased because they disliked my opinion and used the 'Bias Source' to get around the filters/protection that ATS has put up.

I hear you, I was one of the jerks that jakko is talking about. I did vote no to his post because I seen the source as bias.

Hmmm, it appears that I am paranoid and trying to tell people that they should not vote against stories they honestly feel are biased...

To clarify, let's try additional examples:

Go back in time to when President Clinton's 'indiscretion' was first reported. That story is submitted to ATSNN as a simple statement of fact and it will be voted against by hard-core supporters and voted for by the anti-Clinton mob.

Now, let's use a hypothetical story that Monica has just been caught visiting with Bush Jr. in the oval office (in the exact same manner as she did with his predecessor)...that story is now submitted to ATSNN and the anti-Bush mob automatically votes supporting it, while the pro-Bush crowd votes against.

I'm sure that I will be ridiculed again, but who cares...maybe someone will get the point.

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
If I think a source is bias, or if I just don't like the story is it not my prerogative to click the No's?

So, if you don't like a story, whether or not it's news, you'll vote against it? Maybe that's our problem here.

When I voted on the story It had to links on dutch one English.

And the text in the link was this no more.




Smoking mothers 'increase chance of lesbian baby'

9 September 2005

AMSTERDAM — Women who smoke during pregnancy have a higher chance of having a lesbian daughter, neurologist and brain researcher Dick Swab has claimed.

Swaab wrote about his theory this week in a University of Amsterdam magazine for graduates, newspaper 'De Telegraaf' reported.

In a study on the hypothalamus, Swaab said a person's sexual preference is decided in this region of the brain. It also influences a person's predisposition to aggression, depression and symptoms associated with schizophrenia.

The development of an unborn child can be influenced by external substances such as nicotine and amphetamines and the chemicals in diet pills.



If the story was presented the way it is now, I would have voted yes, more than likely.

[edit on 3-10-2005 by SpittinCobra]

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
If I think a source is bias, or if I just don't like the story is it not my prerogative to click the No's?

So, if you don't like a story, whether or not it's news, you'll vote against it? Maybe that's our problem here.

Yes, the way it was presented, NOSTORY, was for if you didn't like the story period.

[edit on 3-10-2005 by SpittinCobra]

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
I hear you, I was one of the jerks that jakko is talking about. I did vote no to his post because I seen the source as bias.

Really?
When I said, in theory 10 [insert unkind name here]'s *could* screw it up, was I talking about my own article? Was I talking about you?

Don't make a personal drama out of a statement that was clearly not directed at you like that.

Besides this, the source was really not biased, the source was merely saying that the famous neurologist said this and this.
Now how can that be biased?

The "no source" vote that I got made me suspect someone thought the source to be too short, which I would have agreed with, but I really didn't expect someone to find the source biased.

Originally posted by SpittinCobra

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
If I think a source is bias, or if I just don't like the story is it not my prerogative to click the No's?

So, if you don't like a story, whether or not it's news, you'll vote against it? Maybe that's our problem here.

Yes, the way it was presented, NOSTORY, was for if you didn't like the story period.

[edit on 3-10-2005 by SpittinCobra]

I thought 'No Story' was there if there was no story, not if we didn't like the story or not...

Originally posted by Jaryn
...That story is submitted to ATSNN as a simple statement of fact and it will be voted against by hard-core supporters and voted for by the anti-Clinton mob.

....I'm sure that I will be ridiculed again, but who cares...maybe someone will get the point.

Oh I got your point loud and clear alright. And I must say, apparently I have a little more faith in the ATS membership than you not to do things like that. In fact, that's rather insulting, and I don't appreciate it.

If a story is worthy of being upgraded, IMO it should be done so on the basis of whether or not it:
1) Emulates the ATSNN submitting guidelines
2) Is a story that fits within a context of the available ATSNN catagories
3) Has been written in a manner that is representative of the high quality of this great site
4) Has at least somewhat credible sources
5) Denies Bias

and a few other things I could think of.

That you would come on here and suggest that I would vote a story up or down based on partisan agenda is ludicrous and insults what little intelligence I do have.

[edit on 3-10-2005 by TrueAmerican]

Originally posted by Jakko

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
I hear you, I was one of the jerks that jakko is talking about. I did vote no to his post because I seen the source as bias.

Really?
When I said, in theory 10 [insert unkind name here]'s *could* screw it up, was I talking about my own article? Was I talking about you?

Don't make a personal drama out of a statement that was clearly not directed at you like that.

So far I have:

NO: writing
FIX: introduction
FIX: introduction
NO: not right
FIX: source
NO: bias
NO: source

Why oh why oh why, can't we know who voted what???
It's becoming frustrating, and I have no clue what to change or edit anymore, seems like everything's wrong

I was one of these, and this thread is about that.

You just didn't know I was one.