ATS - What Went Wrong?

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by SLaPPiE
On the flip side, there is some good stuff in here if you search and are skeptical of every thread.

"Speaking of weak."

You believe it would be better to have a staff that is encouraged to make arbitrary decisions on the value of content based on subject matter and perceived veracity?

Really?

You speak for yourself when you speak of weak.

And how would this be so different than moving a post to [HOAX]?

reply to post by Smokersroom
I skimmed through your post, and I agree with most of it. I too am a long time ATS reader, and have been visiting ATS since the days before it was based on user generated content. The things discussed in your original post, especially regarding the blatant inanity and stupidity, have caused me to leave ATS on more than one occasion.

I have returned, with a more open mind. I have returned with the intent to never enter or participate in the threads that I personally deem as "stupid" and "ignorant". Those type of threads are definitely still here, but my attitude towards them has changed.

I also left ATS because before this most recent change, the forum software was bloated and completely inefficient, not to mention aesthetically hideous.

I was surprised when I returned to ATS to find the forum software is not only nice to look at, but seems to run 300% better than it did before

Unless things go back to how they were before, I am probably here to stay.

ATS is probably still giving out the secret back end link to the prime folks. They are probably backed up with all the changes going on. I'm sure you'll get yours in your in-box soon.

reply to post by strangleholder1


i find your post to be ignorant and a bit hateful, especially coming from someone so new your self. are you tired and grumpy or just pretensious? i am a new person not only to this forum but also to the internet, and completely uninitiated to almost every one of the subjects here at ATS and am here to learn not to be called diseased.

reply to post by strangleholder1


please have a look at your profile, what have you contributed other than nonsence, i believe their is another forum more apporiate for pretenious nonsence. forgive me for being so ercked about your post.

I have loved ATS since I first found it and never left. I love that we have people from all over the world, of different ages and backgrounds. Though English may not be everyone's first language, I give them kudos for trying. Many people may have problems with spelling and punctuation, but still have much to contribute. I can appreciate that we are all different in some ways. Even in the wildest of threads, those that are really 'out there', I can appreciate them for their entertainment value if nothing else. It is very easy to ignore the threads that don't interest me and continue on to something that does.

Sorry that you are disenchanted with ATS. I for one, have found a second home.

I've been off line here for some time, but see the points for the comment.

ATS is many times bigger than it began. The bigger you get, the more demands on every aspect of managing, maintenance, stewarding users, bandwidth and all the other aspects of a social networking and media site such that ATS is.

Unless you have tons of money, you have to generate that money to afford all the services and personnel, as well as the material aspects of a business. Advertising is what pays. But they pay a price for advertising in the form of loss of real estate, association with advertisers that might be construed as counter to their philosophic character, and the all too present design destroying advertiser with pedantic badly smithed graphic ads.

It is the price paid for keeping this site free for us to use without a membership fee.

Several years ago I was a creative director for an on-line offer that was what Google would have been without the commercialization. Everyone thought what we where doing was wonderful and amazing. We had a true scientific taxonomy driven encyclopedia of the universe with lots of beautiful linked visuals animations and interactive portals covering all subjects, stewarded by PhD and experts in every field from subatomic sciences to astronomy, biology to ecology, sociology to politics, and even anomalies to mysteries. But one thing we avoided at all cost was advertising that would compromise our beauty and functional pure informational environment. Not to mention the bad associations we would inherit. That killed us.

Our CEO called us the PBS of the web. That was the death blow to funding. We died, even though we had a Google Earth before Google. Social networking before Facebook and MySpace, so Google, NASA and many other sites took cues from our technology and beautiful way of making humanities best knowledge available to all, young and old, but used advertising and other associative means to fund themselves. We could not get out from under the funding limit for altruistic and "service to man" lack of opportunities.

Everyone wants to make money. Lots of money. We did this for people, not for fat corporate profit. With profit, we had started a foundation to channel funds to doing even more good things like developing free technology for educational needs for schools, applications for different needs for bringing data from several sciences into a composite understanding (something we need badly). We where the opposite of Google, Yahoo and the other big entities. But we where about 100 years ahead in our expectation of support for a beautiful and powerful internet for all. People loved it, but business ignored it in favor of huge profit taking like Google.

Maybe some day there will be a PBS of the web. But now you cannot survive on line unless you have more money than god, or you sell advertising and the like as ATS has to do.

Fact of life for now. We need deal with it or give ATS money. What will you do?

ZG

ZeroGhost,
This post of yours above...
is a masterpiece, congradulations.

That is the best summary of the past
twenty years of the internet that I have ever read.

the web used to be free, all the stuff that hasn't monetized died.


David Grouchy

Hello again all,

Just though I'd pop back and check the responses on here. I guess I've polarised opinion a bit here.

I'd just like to clarify some points:

- People are asking for empirical evidence to prove that the quality of posting has got worse. I have no such evidence, but we mustn't underestimate anecdotal evidence, of which there is plenty. And sure, there is a psychological aspect to this too - perhaps we perceive a deterioration where there isn't one? A fatigue from having to deal with some of the nonsense, maybe

- The ratings system as it stands can still be abused, with groups swarming around the star and flag functions depending on the post's bias. I feel a 'vote down' function could actually act as a counter balance to this.

- On the point of advertising, the site may only have 5% of real estate given over to banner advertising, but the design is very heavy on calls to action, with poor signposting. This exacerbates the problem and leads to user confusion. Everything on the site wants my attention.

- Oh, and another point - yes I would pay a small sub for a better moderated, simpler system, with a more select band of enthusiasts, rather than journeymen posters.

S.

Originally posted by Smokersroom
People are asking for empirical evidence to prove that the quality of posting has got worse. I have no such evidence, but we mustn't underestimate anecdotal evidence, of which there is plenty.

From that point of view, there's anecdotal evidence to support that quality of content is increasing. Daily new deep links to our content -- quantified through our Google Webmaster console and Google alerts on new links -- have increased dramatically during the past two years.

The ratings system as it stands can still be abused

Can you point to any examples that show how the system was abused to get topics onto these pages that otherwise should not be there?
Top Topics
30-Day Overview
90-Day Overview
Or members that should not be here?
Way Above Top Secret

On the point of advertising, the site may only have 5% of real estate given over to banner advertising, but the design is very heavy on calls to action, with poor signposting.

I'm not sure I follow. Can you clairfy?

First you said it was too heavy with ads... then I showed how it's actually very light. Other than the ads, I'm not seeing "calls to action."

yes I would pay a small sub for a better moderated, simpler system, with a more select band of enthusiasts, rather than journeymen posters.

That's never been our focus, and never will be. Our mission has always been to provide users with an outlet that enables them to make their thoughts known to as broad an audience as possible.

This site is very well run, considering the size of the community...

But that is exactly the problem it is too big, but this is really only personal preference.

I prefer smaller, more well-knit, internet communities.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Smokersroom
People are asking for empirical evidence to prove that the quality of posting has got worse. I have no such evidence, but we mustn't underestimate anecdotal evidence, of which there is plenty.

From that point of view, there's anecdotal evidence to support that quality of content is increasing. Daily new deep links to our content -- quantified through our Google Webmaster console and Google alerts on new links -- have increased dramatically during the past two years.

The ratings system as it stands can still be abused

Can you point to any examples that show how the system was abused to get topics onto these pages that otherwise should not be there?
Top Topics
30-Day Overview
90-Day Overview
Or members that should not be here?
Way Above Top Secret

On the point of advertising, the site may only have 5% of real estate given over to banner advertising, but the design is very heavy on calls to action, with poor signposting.

I'm not sure I follow. Can you clairfy?

First you said it was too heavy with ads... then I showed how it's actually very light. Other than the ads, I'm not seeing "calls to action."

yes I would pay a small sub for a better moderated, simpler system, with a more select band of enthusiasts, rather than journeymen posters.

That's never been our focus, and never will be. Our mission has always been to provide users with an outlet that enables them to make their thoughts known to as broad an audience as possible.

edit on 1-10-2010 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)

I'm not going back over this, you understand my points perfectly well

It's constructive criticism and gives you an insight into how some of your clientele think. I don't expect you to agree with every criticism you read, but I expect you to recognize that business intelligence is important for your company to develop.

Feel free to add me to the discard pile.

reply to post by Smokersroom

So on that note - What alternative boards are there, preferably based in the UK, where someone can have a proper, rational and logical discussion with like minded individuals?

Please do not ask members to violate ATS Terms and Conditions of Use

iii) You will not Post, use the chat feature, use videos, or use the private message system to solicit members of the Websites on behalf of another message board, online community or competitor. You will not attempt to use your membership to encourage or lure other members in any way to other websites or discussion boards in competition with TAN. Doing so will result in removal of your Post(s) and immediate termination of your account.

And with that said....if you do not like what you see....be the change you wish to see

reply to post by nick_napalm


Nick napalm.....

This site is very well run, considering the size of the community...

That's how I see it.

I've looked at other sites.....it's a zoo out there!

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

I have two questions to bring up to the OP:

First...what ads?! I get one at the top, that's it. That's WAY better then ANY site I have EVER been on. And that is no exaggeration.

Second, why don't you change things around here yourself? I made a post a while back when I noticed an increase in "trolling" it was along the lines of "they are after your attention, leave them alone and they will go away"

If you think content is lacking, post some that you would find more "intellectual"

If you think someone is trolling, maybe point it out in the thread, or U2U some people who are engaging them and go "hey take a second to realize he may be trolling you"

We are user generated around these parts...so we kind of have to police ourselves.

And like someone else had set, you deal with it or you get out. Obviously you care enough to complain, care enough to change it too.