The New And Improved "Way Above Top Secret"

I was hoping for something a little larger, maybe in a D.

But thanks for the attempt.

In addtition to the WATS, can we not have an unlimited credit system which we can give to someone who starts a good thread, or a credit for somone who makes a valid or commendable post-reply?

Perhaps there could be two awards, those who set up the threads, and contributory credits which can be bestowed by members?

That would even give us starters a chance?

[edit on 10/5/2007 by deaman88]

I want to respect the process, I really do.

But this new calculation method is biased against people like me.

When I originate a thread, I often research it for hours, making sure of my facts and at least finding solid basis for my hypothesis. I post like, one new thread a month. I'm quite proud of some of mine, and have come back to ATS looking for info I posted here, and then needed for something I was publishing, or merely arguing.

See, this new system is baised against me and my "fans."

Most of the people who appreciate my threads are liberal arts types, and cannot figure out how to flag a thread, or what it does to flag one.

So, no flags for me.

I think the emphasis on flags could lead to a rise in Jingoism as well.

.

See, this new system is baised against me and my "fans."

I though it would be the opposite, where your fans flag only your articles, or their friends, whilst ignoring others' by not flagging them.

I don't have a problem with it, because I don't think I will ever be King of the New Threads - ever. I would like some more smileys though

[edit on 10/5/2007 by deaman88]

I was thinking there should still be the WATS vote awards. You can give them to people anywhere for any posts they make. Often the good analysis is added to a thread in progress. In effect, now, the person has to start a new thread entirely to get any sort of credit for their 'posts', no matter how enlightening or in depth. I've seen given, recieved and myself given several votes mid-thread.

Now it's a system of who can make the most sensational thread title and so on. Items like "Alien evidence found on google earth" are what makes you "Way Above Top Secret".

firstly sorry if this has been asked

who gets the WATS?
the poster on the topic who makes it what it is or the auther who just created the topic?

this system kind of sucks, Flags used to show the ranking of the topic was a great idea but to use it to give WATS thats just plain not a good idea

since most of the times its posters that make the topic what it is not the auther

Originally posted by bodrul but to use it to give WATS thats just plain not a good idea

since most of the times its posters that make the topic what it is not the auther

I second that motion.

Many times it is a single post buried within a thread that stands out, and deserves special merit.

With the current system, if that particular thread were to be "flagged", the thread author would would reap the benefit, and not the possibly outstanding post by another member posting within that thread.

2 cents

Even though I appreciate the energy and effort that SO puts into trying to make ATS more balanced, more interesting and more engaging, I think this WATS change does not do what it is supposed to; spotlighting the qualityposts and the members that create them.

A "perfect" WATS system in my mind should not care whether a post is a topicstarter or a reply, it should only care about the content in the post.

I think a postrating system like explained here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Would lead to WATS awards that truly reflect quality and denying ignorance, rather than WATS awards that highlight the topicstarters of subjects that people think are interesting.

Also the system described is relatively simple and plain.

[edit on 11-5-2007 by Jakko]

Votes for individual posts would possibly encourage better content. The flag thing is way broad, general, and vague. I've had my share of WATS for a single post made in somebody else's thread.

There will be no perfect system. The "Best Picture" frequently isn't. The "Best Novel" almost never is.

In this case, I'd still maintain that without thread starters, we're all just staring at the ads. Even the greatest subsequent posts to an existing thread wouldn't be there if someone hadn't started the thread in the first place.

So, click on the Flag button when you see something you think ought to have attention called to it.

And as a "fan" of Dr Strangecraft, yes I've flagged many of his threads. I don't flag them because I'm a fan, I'm a fan because he offers up Flagworthy contributions.

Hey, whatever stimulates quality participation is all good. Let the recognition, whatever that may be, come as part of the flow. Quality contributions are their own reward.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Most of the people who appreciate my threads are liberal arts types, and cannot figure out how to flag a thread, or what it does to flag one.

Honestly, I don't see how we could think that someone was more privy on the "How To" for WATS and not Flagging. I mean, the WATS voting link was quite small, and a lot of members were not even aware of it. Those that noticed the link, some were not even aware of what it did. And those that did understand it's function, they rarely used it.

Flagging is right out in the open, and is tough to miss when coming to any thread.

I just find it hard to believe that this new system is going to work against you and prevent you from garnering any "votes".

The link is much larger, easy accessible, and nine out of ten members know exactly it's function and it's purpose.

I think those that deserve the recognition, will begin to see more of it with this new system.

Originally posted by chissler
I think those that deserve the recognition, will begin to see more of it with this new system.

I don't understand that at all.

Say, for example, your post, is the best I've ever seen in my life. I flag this thread, and the credit goes to the OP, not you. How is that making sure the credit goes to the guy most deserving?

Originally posted by Implosion
Say, for example, your post, is the best I've ever seen in my life. I flag this thread, and the credit goes to the OP, not you. How is that making sure the credit goes to the guy most deserving?

Strong point. I guess the only alternative would be to find a thread of mine and flag it. Even if it is not a direct tribute to the post in question, it is still a pat on the back nonetheless.

I do hear what your saying though, and you do raise a valid point.

But I guess my response is that, when you voted WATS for a member, they were not aware of it unless you told them, and if you did, they may not of been aware of what post it was. It was an anonymous process. Nothing changed on that front. It is still a pat on the back, just in a different form. It has also opened you up to voting for the same member more than once.

With the old system, if I made the best two posts that you've ever seen, but they both came in the same month, you were cuffed. You can only vote for a member once in a month. With the new system, you can flag any and all of their threads.

More of an option to applaud those that deserve it.

Sorry chissler I don't see how either. Plain and simple it only rewards the thread starter not the one who did the best well though out post.

I don't want to seem ungrateful for the amigo's trying to make ATS better but this is one change In MY Opinion that will not help under the current system, because its only good for the thread starters.

Originally posted by angryamerican
I don't want to seem ungrateful for the amigo's trying to make ATS better but this is one change In MY Opinion that will not help under the current system, because its only good for the thread starters.

It seems I need to keep saying this... the "old" system wasn't working because it didn't work for anyone. Despite the fact that more votes were recorded in April than any other previous month, yet we had a 14-way tie for first place at 12 votes each. Typically, in nearly every other month where we had a winner, the "Way Above" winner received an excess of 50 votes, and won by a very clear margin.

This tells me we have such a diverse range of quality posts that inspire you to vote, there is no hope that a system of post-voting can define a quality leader. A change was needed... either alter the voting metrics, or remove the reward system.

So then... the whole point of ATS and thread flagging is the agnostic editorial stance. We have no editor-in-chief. We have no editorial staff. You, the members, are collectively our Editor In Chief through the flagging system. Since the system started and was used to automatically generate top-story headlines and the site home page, I can say I've agreed with 99% of the threads that receive a high number of flags.

The flagging system works, and works well. It brings interesting, timely, or important topics to the surface so that they can receive more attention. If it works for that, why shouldn't we reward members that generate a high number of highly-flagged threads? They bring us important topics the community agrees are important.

The thing that's been irritating me lately, is the number of times really bad threads, unrepresentative of the particular area of the board they come from, end up in the sidebar as active topics - most often because so many people respond to the initial poster's idiocy - and then once it hits the active topics bar it stays there. It's most rampant in the 9/11 area, but I've seen it occur a couple of times in other sections too.. I'm guessing that active topics works on a reply/flags per time period calculation.. Not sure that there's much to be done to fix this, perhaps change it solely to be based on flags, which would hopefully indicate merit, rather than simply activity?, but I figured I'd whine anyway

As an aside, my better posts often tend to be replies also, not new threads, because I'm better at answering questions and responding to other people, for the most part. Not that I particularly care about accolades..

Here's an exampleof flagging gone bad. In the example thread I've linked to, the poster says, "I implore people to flag this." This guy might truely believe in his issue, but that's pandering.

Ok SO, how about this:

Why don't we put a flag button, just like the ones at the top of every thread, in every member's post, where the old WATS vote link was. When a member clicks that flag button, it works as it does now, but what it also does is flag both the member's post, as well as the OP of the thread. This way, lets say I make a stellar point, and so do 3 others in response to me. Two of them disagree with me. Lets now say 20 other members vote for each of us, 5 votes each. Now, with the system I've just outlined, each of us that made a great post gets 5 votes for some recognition, and the OP gets 20 votes for a good thread starter.

This is just one way that I think the flagging idea could be made to be what everyone wants it to be. From there, we could even go so far as to create an overall vote for the month based on thread starters and individual submissions. The stats would be clear there I'd think. Lemme know what ya think man.

As always, you're the man!! Keep it up!!

TheBorg

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
the poster says, "I implore people to flag this." This guy might truely believe in his issue, but that's pandering.

At least it's not the thread author... and we do respond to such when we notice.

However, there seems to be nothing wrong with the subject of the thread, it sparked interesting discussion, and certainly deserves to receive notice.

Maybe there should be a postrating system besides the flagsystem then Sceptic, or are you done exploring options that highlight quality posts that are not topicstarters?


I think postrating is even more important than threadrating. The first post in a thread gets read anyway, but very good posts within the threat often get missed by people.

Again, why not something like described here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...