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

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join


posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Attention ATS and Members. After reading much recently about disinformation and Troll tactics that are occurring more and more often these days here on ATS I had a thought pop into my mind that might help make the experience perhaps more fulfilling here on ATS and humbly submit it for your approval:

Discussion please on development of an ATS MEMBER CREDIBILITY SCORE. Just like your own financial credit which is the only thing that Financial institutions really use to lend credibility for loans we should consider a credit rating based on several factors also. This will help all of us in realizing who the newer less credibility worthy are and will help to expose those who come and go.

Id like to submit some credibility factors for your review and encourage everyone to also post there own credibility factors that ATS could possibly factor into the Credibility score:

*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

How about calling it "ATScore" (Above Top Secret Credibility Observation Rating Enumerator)
Have it from 0001 to 1000

I covet your thoughts and please reply with any comments/Stars so OPS can possibly look into with Management.
edit on 7/13/2012 by YAHUWAH SAVES because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by YAHUWAH SAVES
 


No

No



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by skepticconwatcher
 


Yes


Yes


+4 more 
posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Based on the determining factors you have listed, i can already tell that your scoring system is incredibily biased.

Assuming we implimented this kind of scoring, next thing you know we might have internment camps for those of us who are relatively new.


The truth of the matter is, you will never truely know your neighbour. You will have to trust your own judge of character and your ability to think rationally and critically.
edit on 13-7-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
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?



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Umm... In a word? No.


I actually like your idea. I've thought of similar things myself to solve an obvious problem. I'll bet most of us have at one time or another. The very reason it's needed is the very reason it cannot work though.

Any scoring that is set or influenced by members can be skewed and blown by members and in short order. Either the whole system is blown to pieces or the imbalance between who has accurate (likely the bad ones) and those who have totally blown (the best) scores will develop to the point of creating far more inter-member problems than ever solving.

Now I've noticed something over my time at ATS and it bears strongly on this. Not every troll comes on a brandie new account still shiny from the new account maker. Some of these...seem deliberately created, used very lightly and then just archived on a list to become active again later by someone else. So, even blocking newbies from participating in scoring would likely only limit the skew damage, not block it enough to save the system.

Just my opinion.
If a working system is devised, I'd be all for it.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by YAHUWAH SAVES
 


I find it quite interesting how some members have hundreds or thousands of posts, and hundreds or thousands of stars, yet sometimes no or few flags.

In my experience, for the most part, people either have something to say, or they just like to observe and listen, which is more often the wiser course. Anyway, following that theory, you would think people would just be lurkers on here, as I was for two years, or take the effort to sign up and if they have the guts to get involved with threads, especially with thousands of posts - that they would also start their own threads.

Yet, as some high post users show - they haven't started a single thread. Do people come on here just to only respond to others posts?

Myself, and I think it is human nature - you are drawn to the threads you are interested in and like - and avoid the topics you disagree with - why would you purposely introduce negative energy into your life? Sure, you make the ocassional rebuttal/argument on topics you disagree with - but to show up minutes after a post was made? Is that obsessive or something else?



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   

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)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
I don't substitute my judgement for stats... So, credibility (for me) is defined by how I perceive a member's post history.

ETA: and Yes, I would agree that credit scoring does not provide a whole picture.
edit on 13-7-2012 by LadySkadi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 

A quick observation.... Some may have no issues at all here, and for those, this doesn't apply. I salute you.

For the rest of us.... ATS is among the highest tempo, diverse and unforgiving environments anywhere on the net. Feedback is instant, few mistakes are ever missed and the response can range from constructive to cruel beyond measure. We've all seen both extremes. Into this, we wonder why people are hesitant about starting threads?

Hmm.... I have respect for those who DO...I don't look down at those who do not.

I still have a heck of a time myself..and I can't say why exactly. Other sites? Nooo problem.... Here? Well, it's hard to forget the sheer size of the audience of critics and the viciousness it will be peer reviewed. I imagine MANY people with great things to say don't even try....because the abuse likely to come just isn't worth whatever gain the effort brings.


psst.... I'll even note that a large number of us noted this..months ago....as the great posters started really dropping off and vanishing. Perhaps if every new thread weren't seen by some as a new opportunity to crush the ideas and hopes of another member BEFORE viewing it as a possible resource of new information...we'd have a different scene to view.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by YAHUWAH SAVES
 


Do think it through carefully.

Never judge a book by its cover, but only by its content - a truism any book reader would tell you.

Similarly, here on ATS, never judge a person by your set criterias, for it only encourage misplaced trust on the older members. Some are truly wise, and I was priviledged to have read their posts, which could change lives for the better. Unfortunately, there were others too, with many flags, stars, age and citations, that were irrational minds, and misled others.

Let each post be judged upon its own merits. and not the messenger, regardless if old or just 1 day old member. We are no longer as uneducated or gullible as we humanity once were, to not recognise trolls, lunatics and misdirections from discussions.

Furthermore, not all, but majority of the moderators are truly noble folks who really spent the time to ensure and encourage the freedom of speech here, so long as it does not contravene the 'rule of law' on the private enterprise but inclusive site for all everywhere in the world.

FICO serves a commercial enterprise, where everything can be verified, with sole aim for economic purpose, and nothing to do with social issue. ATS is vastly different, and serve on many levels of civilisation, once you get to know it well.

Cheers. :-)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


I agree with you. Sometimes our viewpoints are not very popular. Many members are here because they have outside of the box type of thinking and others are here to pick apart the thoughts of others and never have anything to really offer.

This thread is really an experiment in itself really for reasons some may understand.

Does not each factor or a set of factors help to give us an idea of a persons credibility? Certainly not every person is strictly what the score would show but would not the score help us with a base as opposed to lets say... NOTHING AT ALL?

It was stated by a member that she goes off of the posts of others as she observes its credibility based on the content. I agree! Is that not why we star? Lets use the system folks! Am I the only one that would like to see a score for lets say 7 different rating factors? It be a nice base at any rate I think...



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
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?



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
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



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   

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?


In my mind, that is almost like saying, you trust a person with a nice haircut, clean clothes, big smile and a lollipop in hand asking you to go for a ride in his van. Appearances are deceiving.
edit on 13-7-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by YAHUWAH SAVES
 


No, I don't think so as the defacto "FICO" score would become a standard that could be skewed. Standards/scoring can be easily manipulated to give anyone including disinformation agents scores that are fraudulently increased through fake users to produce a disadvantageous weighing factor. Best to use your own judgment. I tend to look at spelling and grammar, of course we all make mistakes but rushed posts, as in the ***necessity*** to produce many because of agenda and information steering, tend to incur a higher percentage of spelling and grammatical errors.

A little extra time and a spell checker seems to give a little more weight from my vantage point.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
No thanks. I prefer to take each individual post, and weigh the merits of the post. Another "statistic" number that may add or take away "credibility" is not needed. Since I turned off avatars, and enlarged my browser so that it cuts off members names completely from the screen, I find this place much more enjoyable. Sometimes it's easy to have a disagreement with a member on a specific topic, then every time you see that member post anywhere, you put up a defensive mental wall and it impedes the possibility of open and honest discussion.
edit on Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:31:44 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by MDDoxs
 


I agree but it is not one thing that we would every want to judge another by but it would be several factors. A score would only be one general factor along with the content of our posts. For instance this thread, no stars so far so that means it is unpopular and that most do not agree with me however at the very least I have put forth some thoughts that have cause interaction and have led to some group discussion which in future times may produce something related but completely different that would not have occurred were there not this interaction or topic?

[[Shrug]]



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
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?



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
It doesn't take long to find out who is and isn't credible to your personal outlook on things. But that
s just it, some people think 2012 Nibiru fans are "credible" because they talk about an issue that is dear to them. On the other side of the fence some of us believe those people have no credibility because they are talking about something with no evidence to back, primarily based on fear and internet fads.

We have enough useless categorizing scores in life that keep us from going to school, getting jobs, getting loans.. Let's leave this one be.

We still have stars and flags to throw around so that should be sufficient.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join



 
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread860441/pg1
www.abovetopsecret.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2016-07
67036
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:VI6RW7PLVJTKEMO5QF4NRH3SVXXTOONN
<urn:uuid:d3fb9c83-3e35-4d7d-b019-8bd0197912ef>
2016-02-06T20:58:46Z
198.15.108.202
sha1:C46336UBBSD3NGPTVHPEJXDSYWXWWNRW
<urn:uuid:e5a6700d-fb8b-4629-9c52-e65bb5a52efa>
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread860441/pg1
length
response
<urn:uuid:f16ba0b7-aa6b-4fcb-84aa-e8478530898f>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-236-182-209.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2016-07
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for February 2016
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf