ATS Member "Credit/Credibility" Score similar to a FICO Score? "ATScore" (ATS Credibility Observ

Originally posted by MDDoxs

Originally posted by YAHUWAH SAVES
reply to post by MDDoxs

 

So then given this logic you would probably say A FICO Score from Experian is probably unfair and biased also?

In essence, a credit score is biased against those who are bad with their money. Your comparison is irrelevevant as what you are proposing is a method to systematically identify active users using the ATS service, were as a credit application must be applied for before acceptance...

edit on 13-7-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)

Fico scores are biased. They are biased against people who would rather pay outright than put something on credit and pay interest. The less credit you have the lower your score.

Originally posted by YAHUWAH SAVES
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

 

so should we not then remove stars all together and flags and dates of members joining given this mindset?

If you like ;-) All I am saying however is that the weak mind will simply look at stats believing them to be truths because people are inherently lazy and will not bother to do their own research if someone gives them an opinion. That works with about 87.5% of the population that are non-critical thinkers. The remaining 12.5% will still do the research in order to separate the fly-sh*** from the pepper. As long as we give people the easy way out, the one that requires little to no thought, the general population in this prison will be dumbed-down consistently. The mind is like a muscle in some respects, without exercise it does tend to atrophy. Fortunately, it appears a lot more people these days are actually thinking, just not enough of them.

In addition, a single score would come from things like stars and flags which can be manipulated by a single user managing multiple accounts as I said before. The Applause system ATS has in place is opinion based but via moderator only. You can reach your moderators, it might be a little harder to reach fake accounts ;-) I think the system works pretty well at ATS. Of course I don't necessarily agree with the removal of "points" based on alleged errant commenting, but it's not my forum, I am just a participant and a guest here, I don't make the rules.

I like to see join dates as it gives me an idea of what was going on at the time someone joined, eg. were they compelled out of interest, personal reasons or is there an agenda? Stars and flags are a good indication that one is following the general mindset or world view in the forum, as it is with points. Applause is good because it tells you that you are contributing something in a way that is different or beneficial. Location is good because it gives an idea of the mindset of the person responding based on their culture. Mood, who cares LOL.

So to summarize, combined/produced statistics in the form of a single number score promotes a lack of critical thinking and performing your own research, IMHO. But I could be wrong ;-)

Cheers - Dave

There have been a lot of posts about the Star/Flag system for this. I personally don't think that says much for credibility beyond the fact you have some. If you had NONE, well, there is a little ~ next to your name in the places you once posted and never will again. Beyond that, I really think the P/F/S counters are more activity indicators than anything. It certainly does show how busy and how talkative each person is, particularly when the last figure of Date Joined is considered in the mix. Activity meters are about all they are though.


I think it ultimately has to just come down to experience in reading a forum and knowing what is there and who's who. By that I mean, using Phage as an example, it took me about 3 times of seeing him in different threads to learn he was considered by others to be very senior, expert in the specific areas he spoke on, and generally well respected. I don't share the opinion on anyone, that quickly, but it comes....and reading everyone else and the dynamics between them sure speeds it along.

That is the credibility meter that can't be skewed or faked, IMO. It's just the one that takes time and work... No quickie indicator for a mini-. Oh well.... Not everything is free.

Originally posted by YAHUWAH SAVES
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

 

Can you say you do not look at the Members Year Joined post? Can you say you have never looked at how many threads they have done or posts they have made? Yes we all have and do so would not a score be helpful? I think so but it looks like I might be the minority again unless others speak up.

This is not big brother or corporations..... ITs a number that utilizes all the factors already in operation here but at a glance I think right?

I always like to look at other members information, but I can't say I really agree with this whole credibility rating system. It would be condemning any new members and possibly making older members on here get banned since I have seen people on here from 2004 that have only a few hundred posts??
So no I wouldn't support it, I too most likely would be banned under that system..

I would add appluases to that.

Still, it's questionable. Alot of the members who have been around for longer or who tend to post more just post a bunch of speculative, unfounded crap and according to those credentials it seems as if they would still make it in seeing that most ATS members can't spot the crap from the well founded, evidenced material.

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


SpeachM1litant, I would say you are a fairly famous person on ATS, so why don't you make an avatar for yourself. It would help you to stand out more.

reply to post by SpeachM1litant

or who tend to post more just post a bunch of speculative, unfounded crap

I am a shining example of this. I admit it.

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
I would add appluases to that.

Still, it's questionable. Alot of the members who have been around for longer or who tend to post more just post a bunch of speculative, unfounded crap and according to those credentials it seems as if they would still make it in seeing that most ATS members can't spot the crap from the well founded, evidenced material.

Same goes for a lot of you newbies as well. That "speculative unfounded crap" you're talking about is called an opinion and we all have them. Including you. Are you right or am I right? Or do we just have a difference of opinion? I vote for the latter of the two. And just because two different posters spend a lot of time on different subject matters doesn't mean that one is more credible than the other. It just means they have different interests. Just like in real life when two people run with different crowds.

That's why the OP's system wouldn't work just as the FICO system doesn't work. You're trying to judge a persons personality on numbers and that just doesn't pan out in my opinion. The numbers you see under your avatar are what Wrabbit pointed out; your level of participation ( On a side note, Wrabbit just has a way of making sense to me every time he/she posts )

You could spend 10 million dollars in cash in ten years and your credit at the end of that time frame will be substantially lower than when you started. Forget the fact that you just pumped 10 million into the economy. That doesn't matter. What matters to FICO is that you didn't do it using credit so it therefore would not be proportionate to what the rest of society is doing, therefore, it lacks credibility ( which is, after all, a variation if the word credit).

I could be the most prolific poster this site has ever known but, according to the OP's system, if I, among other things, didn't start threads that were proportionate to the rest of what I or other posters did, I wouldn't have a lot of credibility and that wouldn't be fair because I'm not a good conversation starter. Never have been, but that doesn't mean I don't have other skills that could offset that one weakness and, from what I saw, the OP's method of judgement doesn't take that into consideration.

In short, credibility is like love; it's in the eyes of the beholder.

Originally posted by beezzer
The ratings are arbitrary. Now if we were all required to post X amount of times per week, per thread, then your idea would have merit. I'm a mouthy little bastage, though. Others ponder and may post once in a blue moon.


On the lighter side. . . . . .

I think we should all judge people by how well they do this

Dear Mr/Mrs Beezer,

I regret to inform you that do to posting questionable "fart sound" videos your ATS score has dropped by 5 Points. Please respond Immediately or interest will be accrued do to the offending videos posted...




Edit: to add, I cant believe I watched the entire 13 second video, or even clicked on it in the first place.

If they do that they need to make an exchange where we can loan, trade, buy and sell our credibility ratings, just like real life credit.

I bet it could be taken over and monopolized within a month.
That would be a fun mini-game to play.

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by SpeachM1litant

 

or who tend to post more just post a bunch of speculative, unfounded crap

I am a shining example of this. I admit it.

I wouldn't know, I'm too freaked out by some cat with a bow tie and lipstick staring at me all crazy.

reply to post by muzzleflash


I'm just pissed that people starred my post

Also, I'm right behind you... MEOW!

ETA, I think OP is probably attempting to monetize our stars and flags. I'm a little worried that my abysmal record with starting threads may come in to play, along with the amount of applause I've received (I don't know what applause is...). Can I borrow some stars Sir? I'm good for it.

Originally posted by mileysubet


Edit: to add, I cant believe I watched the entire 13 second video, or even clicked on it in the first place.

edit on 14-7-2012 by mileysubet because: (no reason given)

That's 13 seconds you'll never get back!

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

I'm just pissed that people starred my post

Also, I'm right behind you... MEOW!

ETA, I think OP is probably attempting to monetize our stars and flags. I'm a little worried that my abysmal record with starting threads may come in to play, along with the amount of applause I've received (I don't know what applause is...). Can I borrow some stars Sir? I'm good for it.

edit on 14-7-2012 by Domo1 because: (no reason given)

Haha, I'll trade you 10 stars per 1 of your flags.
I am willing to haggle however.

Originally posted by YAHUWAH SAVES
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

 

so should we not then remove stars all together and flags and dates of members joining given this mindset?

No. Stars and flags are user driven. If you like what a person says, or agree or whatever the reason you give a star or flag, is your perogative. ATS users should understand that these flags and stars are opinion based. Have an ATScore, would give an 'authoritative' type number generated by an equation to give 'credibility' based on variables that DO NOT necessarily reflect true 'credibility'.

Individual threads and posts should be evaluated on a per post/thread basis..
I also think that the longer you spend here, the easier it is to spot a troll or shill or disinfo agent, whatever the term may be. By interacting within the threads and forums on ATS, you determine your own credibility.
Relying on a system to tell you who is credible or not defeats the purpose of the site motto, 'deny ignorance'... discover the truth for yourself... Use your intuition, experience and knowledge to determine credibility, don't have some equation with a 'credibility' number decide for you!

Originally posted by YAHUWAH SAVES
reply to post by MDDoxs

 

So then given this logic you would probably say A FICO Score from Experian is probably unfair and biased also?

Yes, I would. It is currently very biased against those who refuse to use banks and credit but need to rent an apartment or get a job. How can you have a "bad" credit score when you have zero debt and do not use the credit system? Yet, it can stop you from getting a job.

reply to post by YAHUWAH SAVES


Ok, this made me laugh.

Which one of items below on your list doesn't belong with the others. This is a 2nd grade school question:

*Years with ATS (Longevity)
*New Threads Created (Involvement)
*Posts Created (Interaction)
*Logging in/accessing (Informative)
*Deleted Threads
*Posts Deleted/Censored/Removed
*Flags
*Stars Given
*Subscribers to Threads
*Favorites to Threads
*Reply Count to Created Thread
*Bankruptcy's

If you guessed "Bankruptcy's" move to the front of the line.

Are you serious? And how would you verify that? We all give you our Social Security numbers?

If Bankruptcy's is directed to fact or common sense then it might be valid.

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

I'm just pissed that people starred my post

Also, I'm right behind you... MEOW!

ETA, I think OP is probably attempting to monetize our stars and flags. I'm a little worried that my abysmal record with starting threads may come in to play, along with the amount of applause I've received (I don't know what applause is...). Can I borrow some stars Sir? I'm good for it.

edit on 14-7-2012 by Domo1 because: (no reason given)

i have been a member since 2007, i start very few threads, because i use the search button. i don't have an avatar, because i don't think i need or desire that type of recognition, i really don't care about stars, flags, and points, i do care about the words i write. i do know that the words written on ATS or any other blog, will always be accessible at any future time. i have violated the T&C's, because i have let others manipulate my emotions. i realize my limited experience and knowledge challanges my critical-thinking skills...thus, my "credibility score" by the OP's definition, would be low.

reply to post by phantomjack


Easy there fellow... This is just to create some thinking on this topic and nothing more... Thinking outside the box is still allowed in some parts of the world... :O