posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 12:27 AM
I've tried experimenting with titles... words like KILL and other more sensationalized titles do seem to pull more views.
I'm old, I don't like sensational - I like smart and proof of thesis. Most folks settle for less. Good threads are an absolute treat!
There are folks who do post "good stuff"... sometimes, I almost don't read the titles but rather the OP's name. Quality folks do quality stuff and
layout their thread with class and distinction by being authentic.
I've given some thought about whether a site layout could be achieved that would "know" my tastes and standards and "get me what I want". Yeah,
it's doable. Some of the financial sites I deal with "know my preferences" as I develop a history with them. I find that encouraging.
Could such stuff work for the ATS membership?
Maybe, but the UGC and lack of rigorous pre-post review by staff would seem to some (other than myself) to allow a lower threshold of quality as time
passes. There aren't any checks to keep the quality up so it's run-whatcha-brung, which in many cases is empty calories. It is what it is.
Can users voluntarily improve the post/thread quality without some penalty for "junk"? Not without exclusion. Exclusivity isn't exactly desirable
either. Over and over the same "stuff" said by a different person is still the same stuff.
Perhaps after "the revolution" if users have a greater stake and pride in not so much "what" but "how good" the quality of data is then this
onslaught of absolutely worthless mindless brain-bilge spew could change.
Remember, remember the 5th of November.
Cheers,
Vic
[edit on 15-10-2007 by V Kaminski]