More exposure to important threads

How do we classify 'important'? I realise we cannot force people to discuss issues which we feel are important, so how can we flag a thread as needing more and wider attention? The flag system is one way, but maybe there should also be a method of submitting a thread which we feel is important to the ATS staff so that it can be considered for wider ATS media coverage such as special feature or video. If a thread topic is interesting or has been argued well then it does not always follow that it will get the exposure it deserves.

For example, I feel that my thread about the possibility of fungi on Mars
Possible new classification opportunity for concretion spherules (blueberries) on Mars
has not been resolved and a concensus has not yet been reached. I feel that a wider discussion would probably find the concensus of opinion what is going on in the image posted in the OP.

OK, it may be just me who thinks this is an important thread and everyone else has decided that there is nothing to discuss. In a forum setting, that's fair enough and what you would expect sometimes. However, this fungi issue is a fairly 'hot potato' and as such is important if it is considered to be a valid possibility of life on Mars. In this case, the science forum is not as popular as other forums, but there are still important threads in this forum which, from time to time, need greater exposure to thrash out the issues and encourage more people to join the discussion.

Deny ignorange is the tag line of this site and so we should give every opportunity to discuss and expose the issues which are either assumed to be stable scientific theories or perhaps swept under the carpet by mainstream science or government. It is these nibblings at the edges of science which keeps it alive and vibrant rather than sinking into an old boys network of cliques and closed thinking.

From the ATS point of view, bringing more exposure to important threads would give ATS a larger presence on the internet, attract more people and more advertising revenue, so any way we can broadcast important threads would benefit everyone.

Who gets to decide what's "important"? The last thing we need is for ATS content to be driven by the personal motivations of its staff (or anyone/group, for that matter).

That's what an "editor-in-chief" does. This ain't the New York Times, you know.

They already have an above and below top secret.
Ostensibly, the above portion being about the site specific goal of conspiracy discourse is more important.

reply to post by NthOther

I think he means "my threads".

This is a "Member Driven" Forum Board..

As such

The Members determine which thread is important and which are not

If a thread is important to the Members, they reply to it and the thread continues, if not..... It does not..

No one Member, no one Staffer or even group of the aforementioned, can determine the value of a thread and that is how it should be.

I'm sorry if anyone has a thread "they" consider important that the Members do not, but that is the way it is.