Youtube : Lots of plonkers on here recently

page: 1
50
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
+43 more 
posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Recently, there seems to have been a surge in the number of threads started here on ATS in the UFO & Aliens forum with a video unaccompanied by any real information.

More and more videos seem to be posted here with just a breathless claim (often with lots of CAPITAL LETTERS or multiple exclamation points !!!!!!!) that we must watch it NOW or that it contains the best evidence EVER, without any indication of what the video really shows.

Such videos are often accompanied by a statement that the poster is not aware of the video having been posted on ATS before.

However, in most cases it has been posted on ATS before. Usually several times. And fairly often it has to the (HOAX) forum following it having been debunked...

What can be done about people that plonk (i.e. put noisily and rather clumsily) videos into the UFO & Aliens forum on ATS?

Well, we could direct the plonkers to the Terms and Conditions here on ATS, particularly Clause 15k:



15k.) Video links/embeds: You will not embed or Post a link to a video without a reasonable description of its content and why it interests you, is germane to the topics discussed on the Websites or the topic of an existing thread should you post it in a reply to an existing thread.


However, I’m sure most members of ATS have not studied the Terms and Conditions in any detail (nor do I think it's realistic to criticise someone for failing to do so).

All too often the response by other members of ATS to such plonking of a Youtube video onto ATS for the nth time is simply that the plonker should have used the search function. However, it is relatively difficult to use the search function to see if a video or photo has been posted. All too often, the previous thread on ATS does not contain obvious keywords that can be easily found unless you happen to recall some detail of the previous discussion.

So, could we all adopt practices that we can hope that the plonkers will see and adopt?

Here are a couple of possibilities for such practices that have occurred to me. (I’d welcome any thoughts from other members on these, or other, possible actions...):


Originally posted by IsaacKoi

(1) When posting a Youtube video on ATS, if the exact title of the video as stated on Youtube is included in the accompanying description of the video then it will be MUCH easier to find the discussion of that video in the future.

(2) When posting a Youtube video on ATS, if it is accompanied by a statement that the poster has done (at least) a search of ATS for the exact title of that video then this would show that the poster has at least put a tiny bit of effort into checking to see if there has been any previous discussion of the video.



Of course, these short and easy practices would not be complete solutions – but I think they may help significantly.

So, do you think it is worth trying to set an example for plonkers by adopting either (or both) of these practices?

Are there other practices that should be adopted as well, or instead of, these two suggestions?

All the best,

Isaac

P.S. I know I probably should not bother trying to address this issue. I’d probably be better off paying more attention to the cartoon below:

edit on 22-3-2011 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
HAh best image ever, you win bro.

I agree 100%. In fact, I'd go a step further and suggest some of these "plonkers" are doing this merely to get hits on youtube. In some cases videos from years past are renamed and linked here again as new video. I guess that's the price you pay with a community driven site like this, people will always abuse it.

P.S. Take a look at the T&C and you'll see why most people skip it completely, wall of text anyone? And some of them are a little out there IMO but we all attempt to follow the big ones.

The search hasn't really been my friend and I've avoided linking videos specifically because of that.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Some rather Excellent points made throughout, Isaac.


When posting or starting threads relating to videos as the source content or subject matter material...

- A brief description
- A link to or embedded video

Third, and Most Importantly...

- YOUR comments, opinion, questions or concerns regarding such.

Otherwise it runs the risk of being removed from the boards due to 'a minimal thread start'

My thoughts on the matter...

If it is 'important' enough to create a discussion thread over ... then it's Certainly worthy that Member providing Their Thoughts on the topic, video, subject, etc.


Thanks for bringing this to the attention of others and All members on the boards.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
This thread has already been done countless times.

You should be used to ATS by now!



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by NumberEight
This thread has already been done countless times.


Really?

Can you point me to a thread that had either of the two concrete proposals that I've included in my OP, or any others that you think are worth considering (rather than just threads which rant about the problem)?

For ease of reference, the two proposals upon which I sought feedback from other members were:


Originally posted by IsaacKoi

(1) When posting a Youtube video on ATS, if the exact title of the video as stated on Youtube is included in the accompanying description of the video then it will be MUCH easier to find the discussion of that video in the future.

(2) When posting a Youtube video on ATS, if it is accompanied by a statement that the poster has done (at least) a search of ATS for the exact title of that video then this would show that the poster has at least put a tiny bit of effort into checking to see if there has been any previous discussion of the video.



edit on 22-3-2011 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by IsaacKoi

Originally posted by NumberEight
This thread has already been done countless times.


Really?

Can you point me to a thread that had either of the two concrete proposals that I've included in my OP, or any others that you think are worth considering (rather than just threads which rant about the problem)?



No I can not.

Because im talking about in general. I do not disagree with your thread.

Im only pointing out that close variations the of these threads are posted quite frequently.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
(2) When posting a Youtube video on ATS, if it is accompanied by a statement that the poster has done (at least) a search of ATS for the exact title of that video then this would show that the poster has at least put a tiny bit of effort into checking to see if there has been any previous discussion of the video.

I agree with almost everything you are saying, except for this. Personally, I think that should be a given, and everyone should just do it, and not have to come out and state that they did it. Too often I have seen a version of that statement as the 1st sentence of an OP; only to do a quick search myself immediately after and find 3 other threads started that same day on the subject. So basically, just because someone says they did a complete and thorough search, doesn't actually mean they did.


Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
Third, and Most Importantly...

- YOUR comments, opinion, questions or concerns regarding such.

This one apparently cannot be stressed enough, as many people seem to "forget" to do this. I will often instantly close a thread in which the OP is nothing more than the title of the video accompanied by a link. Regardless of the content of the video.
 


One suggestion I would like to share is something that is a part of the search engines on many sites. Such as Youtube for example.

Sort By: Relevance or Upload Date

I can't speak for anyone else, but it seems to happen quite a bit, that I will try to search for something that I know is new, but the top search results are from 2009. Then I have to look through a few pages to find the newest results. I have tried to add a date or year into the search. Sometimes that helps, but not always. IF there is some sort of function such as this, then maybe it needs to be more easily accessible because I haven't been able to find it.
edit on 3/22/11 by BrokenCircles because: accessed to accessible...nitpicking



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
"Star Deduction"

I would really love to see that happen

The amount of times i see a post and sit there to my self thinking wow "that really is a load of utter nonsensical gibberish" if i have ever heard it, and then i look and think to my self WTF and you got a star for saying it as well?, i want to be able to go ohhhh no no no no no i'm taking that away from you sir your talking {SNIP}
edit on 22-3-2011 by BRITWARRIOR because: missed a word



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by BRITWARRIOR
 


In my opinion, star deduction would only be appropriate if EVERYONE, and i mean EVERYONE, would use sensible judgment while doing it. Most likely, that would only cause problems and many would do it more out of spite and not only use the function on the posts that are complete and utter nonsense.

Plus, nonsense is a matter of opinion.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Good post,

All the Plonker threads are a symptom of stupidness and there is no easy cure for it.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
This forum is not of the best due to the plonkers but due to the crawling
participants. I very so often go to GLP to grab some genius idea from the
fools there. One never knows how the thoughts are crossing in the universe.
Let us not be petty. Here are different people, even maybe childs, for what we
have to pretend. Be what you are.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by IsaacKoi
 


Preach on brother Isaac!!


Unfortunately, I'm afraid all who will listen though are already in the choir.... :shk:



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
DON'T BE A PLONKER! Issac's words of wisdom are the law of the land here to be honest.

Thanks for the great reminder against the potentially life on Earth ending practice of YouTube Video Plonking Isaac!


I know I am having a little fun, please don't miscontrue that for any sort of tolerance for Plonking, there isn't any. The staff has been directed to remove Plonks and, if the membership will report them, they will be REMOVED.


Springer...
edit on 3-22-2011 by Springer because: add clarity



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
while I totally agree with the sentiment I'm not 100% sure there's a workable solution to the problem... It is an issue thats caused me to look in on the Aliens area less and less





Originally posted by IsaacKoi
(1) When posting a Youtube video on ATS, if the exact title of the video as stated on Youtube is included in the accompanying description of the video then it will be MUCH easier to find the discussion of that video in the future.


As someone else said the titles are changed and the dates change with it but yes I agree that this is a rule that should be enforced, at least it would cut down on some of the posts.....


(2) When posting a Youtube video on ATS, if it is accompanied by a statement that the poster has done (at least) a search of ATS for the exact title of that video then this would show that the poster has at least put a tiny bit of effort into checking to see if there has been any previous discussion of the video.


Personally I'd like to see mods close these threads quicker and remove stars and flags from the poster.

There should be a stringent requirement that all Youtube UFO video threads come with an explanation from the poster as to why they believe this particular video is deserving of a closer look by the ATS community and if that requirement is not met then the thread should be removed and all flags and stars removed with it. The poster can then re-post with the explanation rather than just posting


WOW!!! Look at this guys!



ETA as Springer noted above it would help if more members reported the offending threads so that they could be shut down with more rapidity.
edit on 22/3/11 by Versa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
There is a restriction to posting new threads that requires users to acquaint themselves with the ATS forum more and comment at least 20 times first. There can be a problem with that sometimes as well, if obsessive compulsive people who just want to share random videos here and just add lots of one-liners and clutter other threads so they can post their miracle videos. We don't want to discriminate against age or intellect - because ATS can be an educational resource to help increase awareness and intelligence. But it would be nice if there were a rule for starting threads that involved filtering the amount of people that can do so - by passing an IQ test or test on the type of information that they should know to post here in the first place.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
I think we need to increase the new member post count of 20 to 100 before they can post a thread. Another idea i had would be before any noob or Youtube video threads are created they must be looked over and allowed by a mod before being seen by members of the forum.

Not to mention people arent trying to truly identify what they are seeing and looking over all options before posting many videos. I authored a thread about misidentification of UFO's that I think would be a great tool to send to new forum members who post often in the A/UFO forum...


*ETA - I love the word 'plonkers' Issac -
edit on 3/22/11 by ziggyproductions05 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Agreed!
picture
edit on 3/22/2011 by mblahnikluver because: spelling



OMG...I did it again...again I hit the track pad with my hand and delete my entire post


Well in short, great thread....


edit on 3/22/2011 by mblahnikluver because: im an idiot



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   
I agree with everything you said. What is especially annoying is this:

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!BREAKING VIDEO!!!!!!!!!!!

MUST SEE NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!URGENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You get what I mean.

Hate it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My suggestion is for ATS to disable the ! key, at least for the front page.

Good Post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...lol

Thanks.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by IsaacKoi
 


Perhaps some negative reinforcement. You Plonk, you get an " I am a Plonker" graphic attached to your avatar for the rest of the day.


Good point Isaac, but as already pointed out, those who agree the most don't Plonk. Sigh


Perhaps a Plonker rating below our avatars?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   
I could not agree with you more. I have also notice a vast amount of members signing up lately and have been introducing themselves with quite a detailed background. I also found threads that claiming their beliefs with conviction with a long statement without any form of references or attach links. With that, few that reply (new members) have praised the thread and the ones that ask the questions was not been replied to. Furthermore, if you copy and paste some of the statement in your search engine, there are 5 or more forums that has the same statement and same reply. In my opinion, the HBgary software is under operation and it is attacking ATS and other social media . I for one felt that the information was a disinformation tactics and the Youtube videos that are being posted are another tactics to flood this forum with misleading information and to aquire S&F for credibility. If ATS does not do anything about this, we will be bombarded with even more disinformation.



The latest in the long line of revelations from the HBGary Federal email leak, is that HBGary Federal wanted to create software that could make it easy for staffers to create and maintain a massive number of fake online social network personas, allowing them to control virtual armies of totally fake people, whose only mission is to spy on others and spew paid-for propaganda. But, what's even more amazing is that not only did the emails reveal HBGary Federal employees talking about building a platform for letting people more easily manage an army of fake personas, but that the US government put out a request for exactly that kind of software last June, with its request for "Persona Management Software."


Here is what it can do.


Software will allow 10 personas per user, replete with background , history, supporting details, and cyber presences that are technically, culturally and geographacilly consistent. Individual applications will enable an operator to exercise a number of different online persons from the same workstation and without fear of being discovered by sophisticated adversaries. Personas must be able to appear to originate in nearly any part of the world and can interact through conventional online services and social media platforms. The service includes a user friendly application environment to maximize the user's situational awareness by displaying real-time local information.


The government might have used this in Egypt and Libya and now in our soil.
I would like to do a thread on this, but I am press for time. If someone has the time, I would provide you with the other threads that I think is a government "persona management software"





new topics
top topics
 
50
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join



 
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread678425/pg1
www.abovetopsecret.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2014-41
69844
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:PN65YZEYVXI5BV6F3SVTGR54GMESAFRJ
<urn:uuid:dc06ab11-f6ec-483a-bf0a-8cc2888de533>
2014-09-16T15:40:16Z
173.193.40.5
sha1:YHM55ZFP5K5P4UU7YN36V7OKFGLJU2WH
<urn:uuid:c0b73310-0ce6-4f70-adfe-a409ce9faca0>
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread678425/pg1
length
response
<urn:uuid:8198ed99-7f0d-4b57-8830-6d404f6c289c>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-196-40-205.us-west-1.compute.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2014-41
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web with URLs provided by Blekko for September 2014
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf