All Internet Forums have a design that foster ignorance. I post this in an attempt to deny that ign

Ok this is a big claim, let me explain.

Lets look at what happens when people post. If a person sees a thread and reads it then post a very good well thought out conclusion, and that conclusion contains no errors, and is well sourced, it will receive stars. It will not receive replies, the rule 'No Good Job, or I agree post" eliminates this possibility.

If a post contains judgemental bad arguments, if it is inaccurate, it will produce responses, until a response matches the paragraph above this will continue.

Here is my point. The threads that pop up with the most posts, and appear on the most recent post list are the ones that contain the most challenged thought, and with the caliber of people here, who often challenge ignorant posts, we see most often, the most ignorant post, that is why they were replied to. For if they have a logical well formed post, it would have been starred and not replied to.

The last post ending the thread will fall away from visibility of the members. They will be stored in the Abyss of good ideas, the place where post had reached the pinnacle of agreed truth, and so must not be seen. Yet the ones that continue to inspire responses, ignorant half truths, inspiring more posts, will be rolled out over and over to keep us misinformed...

If you see this post as correct, I would get a star(not that it matters, I am not trolling for stars) and no replies, This post will fade away, another casualty of not being ignorant enough... (now I am trolling for posts, see what I mean)

Just a thought.

By the way I love ATS and my comment is on all forums not just here, I might suggest ATS address this issue with some format to allow a list of the completed thoughts, reversing above condition. I don't know what form that would take but it could be a good marketing point. You could be the first forum that is even structured to deny ignorance, Maybe sorting by stars, or being able to search for stared posts, or a list of highly stared post just like their is one of recent post.


[edit on 24-9-2007 by Redge777]

[edit on 24-9-2007 by Redge777]

Nah, I've seen plenty of well-made posts that still got zillions of replies.

reply to post by uberarcanist


I agree there are plenty, but I am talking statistically. You are more likely to be exposed to ignorant post, since they continue to generate new posts.

Yes their are replies to good post, but their are far more replies to bad post, and the number of replies is what dictates what is listed and most easily accessed by members.

I see your point, but that is what the search function is for. They don't just roll away as you imply. There are these little clickable numbers at the top of each sub forum on here for example, by clicking these you can review past threads.

Posts roll away when they have reached the end of people posting on it, not necessarily because it was a well thought out, informed post. It's either not interesting enough to inspire new thought or it has reached a conclusion.

The posts we see most often on here are the ones that are very debatable. Ones with no clear outcome, where two sides form, make posts explaining and trying to prove their beliefs, and try to reach a conclusion, the purported truth.

reply to post by Redge777


Yeah, well if you get too trigger-happy about protecting people from low-quality content, you're likely to get some of the good stuff unintentionally, as well. The best solution is to not make the decision for the individual about what information to take in, except perhaps in the cases of hardcore hoaxers.

reply to post by keymaster


Yet when that conclusion is reached they slide out of the view of others. I do agree you can search, I only speak of what is easiest to access. Sort of the big display at the front of the forum vs the good conclusion hidden in a back corner.

yes thoughts that inspire discussion get more post, but what is discussion two people with different points of view, if those views do not converge with a well thought out conclusion they continue to be seen.

A view and H view posts: 30 post supporting A view without logic, 30 post with H view without an understanding of A view. It gets seen really easy, it says in front view.

Other example
A view and H view posts: Over a few post the ideas move to B and F, then C and E, till finally D is found. A well thought out synthesis occurs, taking elements from both sides and boiling down an D view, people go "oh yea I get it, makes sense." This type of action is relegated to the back corner of the database. Because it gets no more posts.

The most available thread is the one where nobody offered that synthesis.

[edit on 24-9-2007 by Redge777]

Well I do agree with you that well done posts that do not infringe on too many extreme views get shuffled very fast even though they are very good posts. Have you actually looked to see what percentage this happens too?

What would be interesting is to post three posts.

One to be a zany totally false idea, but you defend it to the death, never admitting you are wrong.

The next is a well thought out truly verifiable factual post.

The last would be an extreme view post that you defend to the death, never bending from your view.

Then you could see which one has the longest life.



[edit on 24-9-2007 by Xtrozero]

reply to post by uberarcanist


I am not advocating protection from low content post, I am saying currently low content post (not uninteresting, but ignorant) currently are getting advocated.

I am only asking for a neutral viewing system where post availability and potential viewership is not defined by the post count alone. two sorting systems should be available, one on post, one on stars. Then the market will show where the interest is. We could see which one people use more.

No post should be edited or given more value then another, however 'more post threads' get that status.... I only claim they get more post not by being interesting as much as having post that inspire a response because they are less accurate and contain errors.

Error and illogical lead to more post and more visibility.

reply to post by Xtrozero


Please, oh, please don't do that!!! We don't need any more junk on these forums...

reply to post by Xtrozero


I have not looked, I only purpose this from feel and try to offer an arguement that backs that up. Hopefully my arguement is clear enough that people would agree without statistical proof

If proof is needed, I don't know how it would be done. You would have to look at a ratio of stars to views and posts count and think up an accurate judgement system.

Your test could give empiracle data to support conclusion and would like to see a test done. Go for it! I suggest making a new account to eliminate any predjudice you may have created with people liking your name on a post. Also time your responces in each thread, one every 10 min or something then watch which one falls. Rinse and repeat.

I thought of a problem since amount of views feeds back into amount of stars. This feed back makes my sorting also flawed, I need to correct this...... the 'value of the thread' for sorting would have to be a ratio of stars to views, this eliminates this feedback loop. otherwise high star threads get more views and more stars. A new thread would never break into the high viewership area.

Hey I started this thread as a muse, but I think my last paragraph is a solid marketable Idea, I should have just coded it and sold it.


[edit on 24-9-2007 by Redge777]

reply to post by Redge777


Great idea, it has my total endorsement. Put this in "board business & questions" and it might actually get somewhere!

I personally think the ATS motto sucks.I mean every person in the world is ignorant,no one knows everything.I know what they mean with the motto,but it just sounds dumb to me.There is not a single person in the world who is not ignorant.

Also if you always deny ignorance then poeple would not learn a thing,because your simply denying them or ignoring them.Also no inventions would ever be made because poeple would deny that dumbass idea.Humans can't fly silly,your a ignorant sob.Yet today we have jets,and go to space.

That sounded harsh I know,but this is how it came out.But I must say ATS is one of if not the best site on the net.You can come here and get the truth,the absured,the interesting,and the impossible.



[edit on 25-9-2007 by Project_Silo]

reply to post by Project_Silo


I think what the founders were getting at was to stop the spread of bad information, not to leave humanity at the state of knowledge it is currently at.

reply to post by uberarcanist


Ya that's what I was thinking.I don't know why I just have hated that specific slogan since I started coming here,but you gotta love ATS.

Back on topic.

OP I would be willing to try something like that out.Send the message to the mods.I forget how but there is a way to send it to everyone important at once.

I use it to remind me of my own limitations, I know I deny my own ignorance way to often. I see it that way, it is actually a fun spin on it. Go ahead post away, then say at the bottom, remember I deny my own ignorance, an act that, well, is simply ignorant.
It is a phrase that is self contradicting deny means to either not allow or refuse. Ignorance is not allowing or refusing new information. That's how I see it and like its duality.

Idea on sorting by stats still would fail. people would star every post to move a thread up on the search, this would remove the current function of a post that is good being flagged. every post in every thread would suddenly be loaded with stars. ("My God, it is full of stars" OK off topic)

So there would have to be a new icon that is a Thread Star. this would rate the sort, and a user could star or unstar the entire thread, then posts in the thread would still have stars when they are good.

Also views would have to be counted only once per member, not once per view. otherwise every time a single member views a thread he lowers thread star/view ratio. You could walk a thread off the sort just by viewing it over and over.

reply to post by uberarcanist


I U2U'd the owner I will let them take it from there.

Originally posted by Redge777
Lets look at what happens when people post. If a person sees a thread and reads it then post a very good well thought out conclusion, and that conclusion contains no errors, and is well sourced, it will receive stars. It will not receive replies, the rule 'No Good Job, or I agree post" eliminates this possibility.

Actually, you've done an excellent analysis.

Here is my point. The threads that pop up with the most posts, and appear on the most recent post list are the ones that contain the most challenged thought...

Well reasoned, but I'd suggest that the "most challenged thought" is the correct concept, because it applies across all examples of boards. A rather typical example would be an athiest posting about evolution on a Christian board. The athiest might have the latest scientific evidence, but their "denial of ignorance" in their world scheme means that they may repeat or argue with incorrect information that they find personally convincing.

Yet the ones that continue to inspire responses, ignorant half truths, inspiring more posts, will be rolled out over and over to keep us misinformed...

There's a little more to the dynamic, here (I know about this because I'm doing a paper for the Society for Applied Anthropology meeting for 2008 on a very similar topic). Topics also have to be a known "thing of interest" to the board. If an anonymous person put up something about the Underground Railroad Quilt controversy (a real one) or whether a certain winery is dilluting its Chardonnays with cheap Peruvian wines here, it's not going to get a lot of response.

There's also the anticipation factor. You just hammered someone for being an ignorant twitterhead and you can't WAIT to see how they try to deal with it because you've got such a comeback. You'll check the threads more frequently and when they do show up, you're ready with a reply. You'll see a sequence of these kinds of battles going on between several combatants in the threads.

Other factors include how well known the original poster is (if well known, then friends will hop in to support and applaud and their detractors may hop on to try and do battle against them.) Unknowns don't get the "there's that idiot again" factor for themselves. The "that idiot again" factor can also apply if someone posts and then vanishes for a bit but a well-known board member steps in to support the original post.

Other threads that get a lot of attention include current shocking events, where there's a kind of crowd effect -- posting a "I have opinions about this, too." The "Ron Paul straw poll voters turned away from voting" had the same sort of feel to it.

All in all, a very nice set of observations. Bravo!

Originally posted by Xtrozero
What would be interesting is to post three posts. ... Then you could see which one has the longest life.

Not necessary, actually. You can do the same sort of thing looking at similar posts on Usenet and elsewhere (his pattern is pretty consistant). You can also do mathematical modeling of the patterns (I did this for an old paper that I presented to the Society for Applied Anthropology back in 2004 or thereabouts). You can also use some methods from the science of Applied Behavior Analysis (I'm doing this for a current paper) to check the results.

Check the "top threads" from previous years for interesting examples.

Excellent points Redge! I agee to a large extent. I think people may be too intimidated to participate or debate a well-thought/well-written post. The ridiculous posts allow people to participate with confidence, because, whatever they are, they are at least smarter than the idiot who wrote it!

They is also a lot of hype and manipulation of thread titles in an effort to draw attention, this has been discussed before.

Ultimately, unless a better mechanism is found, I will just continue to dismiss half the stuff on the board at any given time and keeping looking through the back pages. Also, when I run across a member with interesting posts or provocative ideas, I go to their profile and review the threads they have written or flagged. I have found some old gems this way.

...and that is exactly the reason why the media is forced to focus on dumb stories. Because these are the stories that get the most response. When someone therefore cries "media conspiracy!" it must also be pointed out that the media are only serving what most people want to consume.

One thing that is very true is the following: When there is an overall AGREEMENT on something, there is not much reason to discuss. The more in agreement I am with someone, the less talking is required.

I guess thats why enlightened people are so silent.