New colored tags to replace the mystery colored bar...

The thread where I originally posted this was closed with the a notation that it belongs in this thread. So here is...


From a long while back...

From Thread: New Concept... ATS Clans
Posted by William, on November 9, 2003 at 09:05 GMT

ARGH!!!


Old concept!


There will be no clans!

We'll there is now.

These color tags for content submission are grouping members and giving a perception of some variable level of value to a member. People can speculate the exactness of the value but many will perceive a member's value and post worthiness based on this scale.

May be this will actually be a good thing.

Originally posted by Vector J
You've created a sytem that rewards peoples jerk reactions to OP's and rewards humourous posts that people star up the wazoo.

...

It's nice to reward people with badges, as long as they mean something. It's pointless when that meaning can be usurped so easily by shock posters...

There are several problems here. One is with giving titles to people who don't necessarily have "real ATS chops." This problem is then compounded by what people see when they first come to ATS. I think one part of the solution is this.

For What It May Be Worth...

...I recommend not getting too wrapped up with the way things are right now.

It may come as a shock to some people, but even us mods aren't privy to everything the admins are up to. Bill, (aka SkepticOverlord) is prone to trying out new ideas and seeing how they work out. Based on how things go, he's definitely not shy about changing things.

So it is with things like this.

I'm seeing a lot of different responses to this latest initiative in this thread. As always, it's educational. I'm sure people who are listed as "gold" are flattered, as well they should be. Whatever the controversy may be, members who've been flagged as "gold" have accomplished something worth noting. Right on!

Meanwhile, I'm seeing more than a few old-timers who are less than satisfied to be labeled "Novices". And let's face it: you have a point. You've been here all this time, contributed so much and you're being branded a freakin' "Novice". WTF?!?

Opinions naturally vary, but I think you have a point.

That said, I do recommend patience as things shake out. Speak your mind, of course, but please try not to get too bent out of shape. It's not for me to predict how things will shake out, but as a veteran of many, many initiatives like this, I can say with some confidence that things tend to work out well in the end.

So for anyone who may be feeling a bit put off right now, I can't promise anything. I can only say that I know for a fact that the "Powers That Be" on ATS are truly sensitive to what you think, and that it tends to be reflected in how things work around here.

Is what I'm saying.

Ahem...WITH ALL DUE RESPECT....

I want it to be known, that this method of measuring ones' contributions here are nothing but a guage for butt kissing and buddying up and brownnosing.

I consider my "label" a slap in the face for many reasons. I have not posted much lately, but i have posted and started many interesting posts for all the years i've been here.

It is a "Label", thats all it is...and BRONZE is not such a good place to be nor speaks very well of me since i have given this place many years of my life.

AFTERTHOUGHT: But really what does it matter? I just realized i am giving waaay too much importance to something that is so insignificant in the food chain of my life...What the heck. I'll wear the badge. One thing i will NOT do is brownnose.

Thank you.

[edit on 15-5-2009 by dgtempe]

[edit on 15-5-2009 by dgtempe]

Originally posted by Ahabstar


No, I think I shall enjoy my novice status and continue on with what I feel I do best: speak my mind when a subject moves me to do so. Star and/or flag what meets my criteria of mostly being either a quality post/thread/thought provoking expression of an idea...and sometimes the post that causes me to actually laugh or smile by the humor contained.

Just think there wouldn't be all those gold "members" if it weren't for us novices flagging and starring them. And if no one posted in them they would be novices like us. I like my novice status... actually surprise I even "qualified" for that.

Originally posted by Xtraeme
So you'd agree with this as a solution to the problem (using Solid, Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum as the new convention)?

Hi,

Edit: Just discovered ( because i didn't open the link) that you were refferring to your original amended point system; my bad.

Your idea edit , well the second one does almost nothing ( beside giving the REAL novices recognition) to change the fact that flag's are being given a disproportionately large recognition in this system when you need even less brains to create a controversial thread than you need one to make thousands of posts without adding much to the conversation. The few members that are complaining are trying to figure out why the ATS staff put this system into action without considering how those who don't create many threads would be 'rated' under it. In fact flagging is pretty new so what about the older members? Why didn't they consider making the applause and flags at least comparably important, if not somehow equivalent in this system?

It's just a interesting development and choice of how to 'grade' members that was always bound to create some level of controversy amongst older members.

Either way i have no doubt that the system will evolve just like ATS is and always have been.

/me sniff , it just hurts, you know? ( )

Stellar

[edit on 15-5-2009 by StellarX]

reply to post by Majic

My dear friend, you certainly are a LOT more than SOLID.


:shk:

I think I was happier for the few minutes I was a Novice.

Solid......somehow solid waste comes to mind

dg....bronze....you are solid gold in my eyes...shiney and beautiful.

[edit on 15-5-2009 by whaaa]

Maybe a star to post ratio might work in this "equation"...

Sure starting threads is important, but, quality of posts *with-in* threads is what keeps them going...

*mumbles under his breath, as he staggers off to closing time at Joe's Bar and Grill*

Originally posted by AccessDenied
I cannot believe people are complaining yet again.

Really? Your surprised?

How much weight do you put on a members posts judging by their stars or flags?

Non, and how could i given the system as currently implemented? Don't you think that's why some are asking why it's being given such a disproportionate ranking? Hell if you want to reward thread creators/flag gatherers why not give them a special tag below or above the current 'content contributor' one to express the owners approval of?

Does it matter any less that a new member has less than an older member or vice versa?
Stop worrying about what is on the damn avatar, and concentrate on the reason why we are all here..CONTENT.

Agreed but then we will probably have to get rid of all the 'measurement' tools until they measure more specific things? Perhaps i am a bit hung up on the 'content contributor' tag thing and i would probably mind a bit less if it reads ' Thanks for drawing internet traffic to ATS', ' Your doing a great job of creating controversy', 'OMG ,we love you'? At least we would then all know what we should be doing?

Damn it all, I come here because the breaking news hits ATS days before I read it anywhere else.

The probably being that half of what is claimed to break never does; the world hasn't ended yet?

I come here because I have friends, I feel at home, I feel a part of something great.
I truly couldn't care less what the frig is on my avatar.It won't buy me darn thing...and as for respect..I'll earn it no points required.
Simple priorities....

Fantastic. I just envision the possibility that we probably could create a system whereby 'points' and various other means can serve as a legitimate means of guaging how and in which ways various members chooses to contribute.

As i stands my 'paranoia' must be getting to me as i just see that all the measurement systems rewarding the commercialization of ATS with those who are trying to ensure quality being swamped by the tidal wave of nonsense threads/posts encouraged by it.

But then i really am biased as i could not possibly create new threads when there is so much unresolved issues in all the thousands of existing threads. If it were up to me you would probably need a license, of sorts, to create a new thread so i probably can't be trusted to have unbiased views about flags and the like!

Stellar

Thank you ATS and Mr. SO for continuing to work so hard for the members to better our experience here.

I read the OP and immediately thought "Wow, no one will be upset over this system - it is fair and balanced".

Well, when I got a few pages in to the thread, I was laughing and shaking my head. My first thought was "dang, no matter what is done - you can't please everyone".

So, I will just say THANK YOU again for constantly thinking of ways to improve ATS, though not everyone may agree with it.

Originally posted by Hx3_1963
Maybe a star to post ratio might work in this "equation"...

Sure starting threads is important, but, quality of posts *with-in* threads is what keeps them going...

Agreed. If I had full control over the algorithm. I would likely change it from:

x posts, y stars, and z flags.

To:

x posts, (y stars / x posts ), and (z flags + (a applause * b multiplier)).

Where:

SOLID:
Our brand-new thread starters who are just getting their feet wet, the indicator requires at least:
20 posts, >=.5 stars/posts, and 10 flags+applause /w mult.

BRONZE:
The core of our contributing members who may not be able to spend lots of time authoring threads, the indicator requires at least:
50 posts, >=1 stars/posts, and 50 flags+applause /w mult.

SILVER:
The first of our elite levels also triggers the code that removes ads from the discussion board*, the indicator requires at least:
300 posts, >=1 stars/posts, and 300 flags+applause /w mult.

GOLD:
The second of our elite levels who see no ads on the board, the indicator requires at least:
400 posts, >=1.25 stars/posts, and 600 flags+applause /w mult.

PLATINUM:
The highest of our elite levels who see no ads on the board, the indicator requires at least:
500 posts, >=1.5 stars/posts, and 1,000 flags+applause /w mult.

I think this is preferable because it requires the person to continue to produce good posts. Otherwise if their star to post ratio dips they might find themselves demoted to a previous tier.

Originally posted by dgtempe
reply to post by Majic

 

My dear friend, you certainly are a LOT more than SOLID.

That I concur with.

That's why I'm thinking of starting a MILF list. (Members I'd Like to Flag)

Majic, you're tops on my list, we'll get you to Bauxite yet.

Originally posted by questioningall
Well, when I got a few pages in to the thread, I was laughing and shaking my head. My first thought was "dang, no matter what is done - you can't please everyone".

That is true for sure. BTW, congratulations on Cosmic level, QA! So far I've only noticed that on SkepticOverlord, Skyfloating, and you

I think there's good reason to reward people who do an extraordinary job of opening and nurturing threads here at ATS, and I think the Bronze-Silver-Gold-Cosmic badges are a good way of doing that.

The trouble I think that people are having is twofold: first, the terms "solid" and "novice" were probably poor choices for the lower tiers since they are not uniformly seen as complimentary. Second, calling these levels "Contribution" levels seems to suggest that posting excellent responses is not a valued means of contributing. I'm sure that was not intended, but the implications is there.

The other issue that I personally am having is that I think it's weird that someone like me is included in a system to reward thread-starters at all. I'm not a thread-starter; I think that giving me the title takes away the value of the system as a whole. If the first tier started at 100 flags instead of 20, I think it would do a better job of rewarding what it should reward: bringing interesting new content to ATS. And as a bonus, it would be harder to get the reward by posting one or two hot-button issues with inflammatory titles.

Another idea? make it a flag-to-threads-started ratio, instead of a raw number.

And what I completely don't understand is why there are any levels for posts and stars included in the criteria. How many people would actually be added to each category if you just removed those criteria? I doubt that there are too many members, for instance, with 600 flags but fewer than 500 stars or 400 posts. That would also make it clearer that this is about bringing new content, not an overall rating of your value as an ATS contributor.

Originally posted by Majic
For What It May Be Worth...

...I recommend not getting too wrapped up with the way things are right now.

...That said, I do recommend patience as things shake out. Speak your mind, of course, but please try not to get too bent out of shape. It's not for me to predict how things will shake out, but as a veteran of many, many initiatives like this, I can say with some confidence that things tend to work out well in the end.

So for anyone who may be feeling a bit put off right now, I can't promise anything. I can only say that I know for a fact that the "Powers That Be" on ATS are truly sensitive to what you think, and that it tends to be reflected in how things work around here.

Is what I'm saying.

Oh majic, you do go on.

Good advice though.

Me - I'm thinkin' I should be platinum, at least, and all things considered, or maybe cosmic (considering my normal mental state).

But IMO - it's always good to shake things up, change them around and tweak away.

You go guys!

There are no mistakes - just projects in process.

reply to post by Ant4AU


I very much agree with that. It seems like theres too much focus on titles on here.

Originally posted by Vector J
You're going to give the impression that flags and stars equates to a weighty opinion and a worthy poster.

Clearly, you've either misunderstood my rather detailed explanation, or refuse to acknowledge it for the purpose of generating fodder for argument.

Have a look at the current top-flagged topics. Can you point out which of those threads are not worthy for discussion here on ATS? Or we could even look back six months to see if there are any highly-flagged topics that shouldn't be there.

Certainly, we may find a small handful, but on the whole, the system works, and has been working well for quite some time.

Originally posted by soficrow
Me - I'm thinkin' I should be platinum, at least, and all things considered, or maybe cosmic (considering my normal mental state).

I'm thinking you should be "plutonium", or maybe "prion" grade, but then again, what would I know?

reply to post by soficrow
Hon, i dont know what you have to do to be Cosmic here, but you certainly qualify.
I dont know of anyone who has contributed in the Sciences like you have.
YOU ARE THE BEST!

It also looks like applauses have been taken out of the mix. I was always told that they were a better system because they were awarded by staff, and not by just buddy members like stars or flags might.

*shruuuuug*

I hope it's temporary. I think we should just stick all the counts up there with no labels or bars. That way you can just see how many times they've contributed, been flagged, been starred, been applauded. So then you can judge what means the most to you when you look at someone's mini profile. You can discern it for yourself.

I dislike these labels. I never thought ... well, whatever.

And okay, wait. The thing is you can find any article first, post it first, and be flagged a hundred times for the ensuing discussion. It has less to do with what you say as much as what articles you post. I always thought stars were more discussion because they are based on individual posts. If you don't feel like posting a hundred repeat-threads, you're not going to get a ton of flags, unless you're lucky and post something first, or bring up a pretty good topic. But like, the Yellowstone thread had a ton of flags... I just... then I think everyone participating should get flags, not just the original poster.

Just saying.

[edit on 5/15/2009 by ravenshadow13]

[edit on 5/15/2009 by ravenshadow13]