It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why cant forums be sorted by Flag count?

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
I know lately there has been a lot of work done to give us flashy graphics below our name and such. As well as the contributor level stuff, but why hasn't the ability to sort a forum by flags been implemented yet?

Just imagine, someone new comes to the forum, they're interested in 911 but aren't really sure where their opinion stands. So they sort the forum by flags, the entire front page is 50+ flagged threads, they can read through intelligently formatted and properly sourced threads from the differing opinions and formulate their perspective from there.

At the current moment, we deal with the exact same pointless threads on a daily basis, with 100's of argumentative replies and 2 flags. Why is the forum and it's man power being wasted in such fashion. The ability to sort the topics by flags would eliminate this, so we don't have to see a weekly "So what is the 911 truth?" and have less than one paragraph that just incites arguments, clogging up yet another thread and removing time and energy from new topics, or topics that matter.

The issue could also be solved by pinning more topics, but this has it's own set of cons, so I would rather not see this stance taken. The ability to sort by flags has more pros and less cons than this, and after all if you don't like it, sort by date. In fact, if this ability is added, make it so that default is sort by date, and you have to choose sort by flag.

I can't be the only one who sees the benefits of this feature, and it's easy to forecast a decline in the same senseless threads being created over and over. Hopefully we can discuss this here and maybe have it implemented.


Threads that could face extinction...
911 Truth - Somebody give it to me

Why is it the forum members job to "give it" it's already been given in 100's of threads. This one thread has 281 responses, all circular attacks, and all regurgitating things that have been stated many times before. And after all the attention it got, only 6 flags showing its uselessness. This is just one example, in one forum.

It's also worth noting that threads like that never get anything accomplished, and the OP is always a short, opinion based message where they ask the forum for the world, but don't want to look up a god damn thing, or use the search function.

[edit on 16-6-2009 by king9072]




posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Quit flagging start replying.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
The short and sweet version.....

The more time spent on the site by members and onlookers searching and poking around for information, is more revenue generated for the site.

It may not be the answer you are looking for.. but everything takes money to run and continue "up-keep".

Your idea is not a bad one, I just highly doubt it would be implemented.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
I like some of the threads that have only a few responses and no flags or even many responses and no flags. Many of the threads I really like arent highly ranked. A highly flagged thread doesnt always mean it;s a good one IMO.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TwiTcHomatic
The short and sweet version.....

The more time spent on the site by members and onlookers searching and poking around for information, is more revenue generated for the site.

It may not be the answer you are looking for.. but everything takes money to run and continue "up-keep".

Your idea is not a bad one, I just highly doubt it would be implemented.


I understand your point, and recognize it as a valid one.

But the thought process that goes into formulating that opinion (which is likely held by the admins as well) is flawed. Cause it won't result in overall less traffic, it will result in a transfer of traffic. Less poking, more time posting about real content.

The point you've made could be listed as a Con, but it's additionally marginalized by the fact that default will still be by date, and sort by flag will only be an option. The list of possible benefits far exceeds this one point, and will result in an overall better forum.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
I like some of the threads that have only a few responses and no flags or even many responses and no flags. Many of the threads I really like arent highly ranked. A highly flagged thread doesnt always mean it;s a good one IMO.



That's why it's great that it would only an option, if you wanna see the daily bread then simply log on. If you are seriously looking into the topic a forum presents, it may be wise to simply sort by flags and go through some well recommended reading.

I use the 911 forum cause personally I think it's the best example for the success of such a feature. I know there are threads that support the official story that received tons of flags, as well as the thermite threads, so if all those were at the top a new member, or someone new to the topic could read through those threads, learn from the sources, and create unique, original questions to arrive at original answers when they start their thread.

Rather than the same ol' same ol' being repeated over and over. Thus, if you want to read low flagged threads thats default, otherwise if you actually want to learn from better formulated threads then sort by that. Your right, not all highly flagged threads are great, but if we compared 100 threads with 100 flags, to 100 threads with 2 flags, it's easy to see that they are for the most part - better threads.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by king9072
 


Well if it was implemented (which I doubt it will be for many reasons) you would have to lower that count to say plus 30 flags, 50 is a lot. A lot of threads that are well put and researched end up with under 50 flags for a multitude of reasons, so with that being said I feel the count should be 30 or more. Maybe add a star count minimum of plus category as well. I do not think this will happen though, and I am not pushing it, just offering my take on it.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by king9072
 


Well if it was implemented (which I doubt it will be for many reasons) you would have to lower that count to say plus 30 flags, 50 is a lot. A lot of threads that are well put and researched end up with under 50 flags for a multitude of reasons, so with that being said I feel the count should be 30 or more. Maybe add a star count minimum of plus category as well. I do not think this will happen though, and I am not pushing it, just offering my take on it.



No no, you missed what I was saying, if it sorts by flags, every forum will vary what makes the front page. My estimate, was that most forums would have at minimum 50flags to make first page.

It would simply be in order of largest amount of flags, to smallest. Theres no predetermined magic number that makes the front page of that forum. And it's an optional feature, why is it such a long shot to get implemented??



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 05:54 AM
link   
What about the stupid threads that get a lot of flags? And don't say there aren't any.

Anyways, I'll bet the answer to your "why not" is database queries.

[edit on 17-6-2009 by TheComte]



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by king9072
 


Okay, that would be a good idea then. But with the staff so busy on other things I doubt this is at the top of their list, that is why I am saying it is a long shot.

PS: You need to stop getting those warnings friend,lol.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by king9072
 


Okay, that would be a good idea then. But with the staff so busy on other things I doubt this is at the top of their list, that is why I am saying it is a long shot.

PS: You need to stop getting those warnings friend,lol.



Lol go look at it, I thought I remember the forum automatically censoring 1 word... then an admin came along and cut the censored word out and now I get a warning. I am pretty sure I recollect seeing a single post that had like 6 words removed manually by an admin and no warning. It's like getting pulled over, you get a happy cop, your sailin. You get a cop that is grumpy, he's throwin the book at you, even if it is completely ridiculous.

And yes, there's no doubt that there are many threads that get an absolutely ridiculous amount of flags, such as "You are all actually aliens". It's worth nothing I never even posted in that thread once, it was pretty silly. But to the example I used earlier, if you compare 100 threads with 100 flags to 100 threads with no flags, the quality in the latter will be way down. So if you sort by flags, sure some of the high flagged stuff will be crap, but then you just go to the next one instead.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join



 
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread473608/pg1
www.abovetopsecret.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-39
52527
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:CO4UR2FU34LC5IRAAMIJFGXBNPZS36XP
<urn:uuid:50e6d5de-ab7f-423e-a061-a1d8e18f8c9d>
2017-09-24T05:06:15Z
198.15.108.202
text/html
sha1:XENOI5VVY3ULEHUFUZIFW4FISJWM3G66
<urn:uuid:aee9bc79-0f48-457f-b2a7-5f76affc17e2>
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread473608/pg1
length
response
<urn:uuid:6f374b95-0216-4e92-a5e8-61ea2ad51d35>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-216-233-55.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-39
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for September 2017
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf