Poster Filtering (IGNORE)

[test-shelly/dan/edward]

testing

[RVNut]

I have become very unhappy with IHUB over the lastmonths. It at one time was my favorite site. You have let the bashers and other fools take over the site while eliminating features. I now only stop by once in a while and that frequency is getting smaller.

[Reptos]

Hey,Bob,are you aware that most of the ads feature beautiful young women? Maybe i'm shallow but I really like looking at them while perusing the posts.Have you ever thought of maybe charging for individual features,as an option.I don't need all the bells and whistles,but i do kinda miss the ignore feature.Just a thought.Have a great day!

[Reptos]

While i miss the IGNORE feature it's not worth $90 a year to me.I don't pay for message boards.Isn't that what you have advertisers for?I doubt if anyone has been coerced into subscribing because of this,but hey it's your decision.I just spend less time on the boards and less time being exposed to your ads when idiots fill them.You still have the best msg boards and i will continue to recommend IHUB to my friends.

[glta-who-try]

test

[glta-who-try]

TEST

[wallabe_short]

[0nceinalifetime]

Now that really tickled my funny bone!

"If you are not over the hump yet and your business model is in doubt, then I would be glad to become a subscriber, not because I need (or want) the power features at this time, but because I want I-Hub to succeed and if my membership would make a difference to you, just let me know."

Please don't fool yourself, your money not going to make a difference either way in the bigger picture, either the business will work or it won't, my money won't matter one way or another either, it's the synergy of everything coming together.

If you are not a subscriber but you have the money and like the service the way it is now, then you are the most compelling argument against giving free filtering away. I think that's pretty ironic.

Once

[Corp_Buyer]

Bob, I stand corrected ...

* IDCC is BY FAR [ONE OF] your most prolific board[S] - I didn't look at every one, but from the many I surveyed, IDCC was by far larger than the others. So, there a handful with several times the posts. I stand corrected am I am glad about it.

* "renewals; not new subscribers; vast majority of the people ... will never subscribe" - the fact is most subscribers start as non-subcribers. Everybody does. You may be underestimating the value of your free population. Also, ad revenue and other (tbd?) sources of revenue that derive from the free population must continue to be an important part of your business model.

* "The "experience" here for free members is already quite rich" - Agreed, however, you are hearing from me and some others that on some popular boards, without intrinsic self-directed CONTENT management tools, the experience is RUINED by the 10% or more of non-investing agenda posts. Again, you must be careful to not underestimate the significance of a few complaints to the owners. I have expended much more time on this issue with you than most others would care to provide to you for feedback.

* "The money for our new $8k database server isn't growing on a tree" - Bob, I want I-Hub to succeed. You have the best board I have seen and the best value-added features. If you are not over the hump yet and your business model is in doubt, then I would be glad to become a subscriber, not because I need (or want) the power features at this time, but because I want I-Hub to succeed and if my membership would make a difference to you, just let me know. I would still want filtering to be a free feature for all, even if I did become a subscriber, because I believe intrinsic filtering is in the long term best interest of the boards and the site.

* the Ford analogy just doesn't make sense to me. I see a conceptual difference between value-added features (options that some users find worth paying for) and essential tools (intrinsics e.g. filtering or a transmission) that everyone needs to have in order to derive a good experience. To me, filtering is in the category of a needed tool to reduce or eliminate the garbage from non-investing agenda posts that can and do RUIN the experience for some users. And, these free customers are the users that you want to enice to subsrcibe as they become more frequent and informed about the site. Of course, some free customers never will subscribe and you need to serve them value as well (a loss leader if you will) for the overall success of the site. Surely, you don't think there is no need for the free customers.

* We may just disagree on how we think about your business and we may differ on the value of the free users to the long term health of I-Hub. I respect your opinion, and I have put a lot of energy into giving you my perspective as a good customer of your business. So, if it is OK with you, let's not debate any more. I think we understand each other's perspective.

Truly Best Regards,
Corp_buyer

[Bob Zumbrunnen]

In response to #msg-909111

IDCC is BY FAR your most prolific board

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=1125
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=274
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=299
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=307
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=504
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=485

It's a prolific board, but please don't present as fact that which is easily verified not to be.

If you examine your "most recent subscribers" listed on your home page, most of these have in fact posted for months before subscribing

Most of those people are renewals; not new subscribers. You couldn't know this, so no ribbing about unverifiable facts on this one.

so you need to keep the experience rich for the new and free users, for the long term benefit of your business

Your whole argument can be moved into the auto industry like this:

"Ford needs to give free Pintos to everyone who stops by a dealership. Not only free, but very loaded with features. Leather seats. Cruise. AC. That will motivate people to buy Lincoln Towncars."

The "experience" here for free members is already quite rich. That's an important part of our business model. To offer a rich feature-set for free, but to reserve the most desirable and most expensive (in terms of the computing power and bandwidth needed to provide them) features for paying members and to charge a reasonable and affordable price for them.

The money for our new $8k database server isn't growing on a tree in my yard.

Edit: The vast majority of the people you cite "needing" Filtering and for whom the site is otherwise worthless will never subscribe, even if they could do so at a fraction of the going price.

Many people just feel way too "entitled" when it comes to internet content, and you're one of them. Everything should be free, without regard for the fact that it costs somebody something. The dot-com climb of the late 90's is largely to blame for that.

[Bob Zumbrunnen]

Despite my many emails to Alexa suggestion other sites to include in the "Also visited" sites for our listing, that site has been in our "related links" lineup for as long as I can remember.

For years, it's been saying it's a "new" site, and has had an Alexa ranking in the 2-million-plus area.

[gotmilk]

Adults of Market Beasts versus iHub's

Unlike "the rest" We don't censor. We're all adults here.

Free Zone / User's Groups / Project Penny (OTCFRAUD)
Posted by: Capt_Nemo
In reply to: gotmilk
Go market beasts...........

Message Boards
Peer to peer
MarketBeasts.com offers free public message boards...
NYSE, AMEX, NASDAQ, OTC and Pink Sheets.
... and we'll even create private "by invitation only" boards
http://www.marketbeasts.com/guests/stock-message-boards.html
Our boards are available as standard web pages
or streaming real-time in our own custom Java application.
Best of all... Unlike "the rest" -- We don't censor.
We're all adults here.

[gotmilk]

If Anatomic Pathnymphohornymanology Technical Specialist
Colleen in Hot & Humid Orlando, Florida finds out that you
good-mouthed gotmilk, then she will run naked out into
the street and scream "Is there no justice against sour milk?"

Now a question about your post of:

Message In Reply To:
ADMIN here... & coupled with the COB concept...

Question: What is a COB ?

Dictionary - 5 entries found for cob.

A corncob: corn on the cob.
A male swan.
A thickset, stocky, short-legged horse.
A small lump or mass, as of coal.
A mixture of clay and straw used as a building material.

[Probably from obsolete cob, round object, head, testicle.]

To punish by striking on the buttocks with a strap...
The top or head of anything.
A leader or chief; a conspicuous person,
esp. a rich covetous person.
All cobbing country chuffs, which make their bellies
and their bags their god, are called rich cobs. --Nash.
A spider; perhaps from its shape; it being round like a head.
A young herring.
A fish; -- also called miller's thumb.
A short-legged and stout horse, esp. one used for the saddle.
A sea mew or gull; esp., the black-backed gull
A cobnut; as, Kentish cobs.
Cob loaf, a crusty, uneven loaf, rounded at top.
Adult male swan

also, your
"Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare"
does not translate in a Spanish to English.

[linedrivehitter]

AH, it feels good again around here. I'm sure you remember the outcry on the IDCC board before you implemented free filtering and you must have noticed the total absence of problems with that board after filtering was made available.

Why stir things up again when we were all getting along fine?

Please keep filtering free.

[linedrivehitter]

I had 3 dimwits filtered. That's enough for now until some other dimwits join the party.

[Churak]

I can't believe you elucidated better what I was trying to say. Very well said ie filtering is required when there is a weak ADMIN. ADMIN here is anything but weak & coupled with the COB concept, I don't understand the need for a filter. But that's me....and Doug, apparently. I need a drink.

[Churak]

Put that on the RANTS board & I will vote it RANT of the week. LMAO!!!

[gotmilk]

re: iHub having ala-carte subscription items

Bob,

My message here will use Churak's reply, as follows.

Churak's reply to himself in Public: (msg# 2)
"... against filtering. Period.
I am a premium member & have no one on filter..."

For myself,
1.
On Silicon Investor i have one person on Ignore "Friendly Fire"
with full intentions to eventually go back and read ALL his posts
that i missed reading. Note: not the normal reason for an Ignore
2.
On the Raging Bull board HABE i have 78 people on Ignore
that includes idiots, bashers, hypers & friendlies
and yes, this board for me has become sicko & worthless
3.
Here on iHub i have zero on Ignore/Filter and hope you and Matt
can develope iHub in a non Raging Bull direction such that the
necessary reasons for Ignore/Filter are removed(aka TOU violators)

Thats why i believe Churak's reply: "... against filtering. Period."
is the key & focus here,
NOT
your (From BobZ)
Then we completely and utterly disagree about the definitions
of "crapper" and "quality content". [stop.]
since,
That issue is only an issue when iHub has Raging Bull attributes,
which include either or both non existance Administration folks,
and clueless or misguided Administration folks.
yes,
it all a work in progress to make iHub "The best it can be."
or,
A need for Ignore/Filtering reflects a problem that may exist
in many places, included OR(s) and AND(s) of posters, readers,
and yes even you and Matt.

doug

[Phil(Hot Rod Chevy)]

You must be a lawyer or an advertising executive.

I almost fell asleep while trying to read and understand that post.

Pay up or quit whining.

And,

Have fun,
Phil

[Corp_Buyer]

EDITED - Bob, thanks for taking the time to mull things over and re-activating filtering for now. My apologizies to the poster I highlighted. After thinking about my issue some more, let me try to explain it perhaps more clearly for your consideration:

Filtering is content management tool above all else. If you provide filetering to the subscribers but not the free users, then the CONTENT (still within the TOS) will quickly DIVERGE to the point that the non-subscriber value is lost. Using the "next" button is good up to a point but not when the garbage level exceeds 10% or more of the posts due to grafitti or chat content.

I must emphasize that I am NOT objecting to negative posts; rather, I am objecting to paid or unpaid stock price manipulators and folks that just want to chat by constantly posting non-sense questions. This is the real world and we have all these types represented on our boards that do operate within the TOS but provide no contribution to information or analysis.

If the public board loses value due to the lack of any CONTENT management features, then your site will be reduced to only power users that are willing to pay for advanced, useful, productivity tools. In short, the content needs to be same for all users so therefore the content management TOOLs need to be the same for all types of users; Otherwise, if the content diverges (and it certainly will) then the experience for the lurker/newbie/non-power-user will become useless. Also, your market will be reduced since your will only be useful, valuable, and informative for a small class of subscriber users that can and do manage the content they see.

I really liked the way it worked before when the difference between Free and Subscriber was productivity tools (multiple read, etc.) and value added features (search, PM, etc.) but NOT content management tools. When you make content management available to subscribers only, then you are creating high potential for divergent content and divergent information and a very different experience between the two type of users.

The leading value proposition you offer is great information for the new, non-power user and you need this market pool from which to draw your subscribers as they become power users. If you allow the content to diverge (by differentiating content management tools) so that the non-subscriber has a poor experience (due to chat or grafitti or lower information content), then you are killing your long term value-proposition, IMO.

Content management tools need to be the same for all users to prevent the content from diverging, to keep a good experience for the non-power users, and as a matter of good business to attract and retain as many users as possible.

Best Regards,
Corp_Buyer

[0nceinalifetime]

Wow, I'm surprised. I thought the arguments presented for keeping filtering a premium feature were much more persuasive, especially from a philosophical point of view. Don't get me wrong, I understand it may be temporary, I guess I was just surprised how fast things happen around here.

Once

[Bob Zumbrunnen]

I've re-enabled Free Filtering at least for the weekend while I mull it over some more and read more opinions about it.

Don't take this to mean that Filtering is going to be free

It's just easier to re-implement it for now. Yes, I'm copping out briefly.

[Cassandra]

Bob: I am in complete agreement.

"Crapper" seems to be an alternative term for "basher," AKA anyone who disagrees with the prevailing hype.

[Cassandra]

Corp Buyer: The features you desire are offered to paying members, but for some reason you choose to be a freebie. It seems odd that you would expect that certain features provided to paying members be offered to those who do not subscribe.

iHub may may make a few cents a month in advertising revenue because you use the site, but it would not likely support the extra expense of the premium features you request or expect.

Why do you think it's appropriate to ask (or insist) that iHub give away premium services that others have chosen to pay for? Is that fair to the paying members? If you get premium services for free, should paying members then ask for refunds?

I guess I don't understand the problem. iHub offers limited features for free to anyone who complies with the TOU. Anyone who wants premium features may pay for them, you included.

If you lack the funds, perhaps you could ask Bob and Matt for a donation.

[Bob Zumbrunnen]

Then we completely and utterly disagree about the definitions of "crapper" and "quality content".

Anyone who needs to be told who is credible and who isn't, and would "ignore" someone only on someone else's say-so, quite simply should be putting their money into CD's rather than equities.

you leave the public users NO TOOL to manage.

The "Next" button IS such a tool. I swear, you're making a stronger case for removal of free filtering with each post you make on the subject and really should bow out and let others make the case for you.

And if you hadn't noticed, the person you labeled a "crapper" has been posting that though he doesn't like the concept of filtering, he thinks it would be worse to limit it than to leave it limitless.

[Corp_Buyer]

Bob, understood, but you wanted to know what a crapper is. So, I gave you a specific example of a real world crapper that works within the TOS, for which you leave the public users NO TOOL to manage. Your boards are vulnerable to such type of grafitti, to the great detriment of the public (free) board users and ultimately your business.

Corp_Buyer

[0nceinalifetime]

Corp_Buyer, I believe you are one of those who Cassandra has so eloquently identified in her recent post here.

Anyone who claims I don't bring relevant perspectives to the IDCC forum is certainly out to pull the wool over the eyes of a few easy marks.

In your ideal world you would censor anyone who had an opposing viewpoint. Please don't drag me into your nightmare.

Once

[Bob Zumbrunnen]

Bob, you have two boards here, the public (free) board and the private (subscriber) board.

We have only one kind of board here: Public.

There are two different kinds of users: Free and Subscriber.

Most of the rest of your post, in addition to really only repeating the same "need" over and over without providing a solid "why", was a diatribe against another member of the site. This kind of post is very specifically discussed in the iBox for this board and, in accordance with the guidelines I laid out about personal attacks, your post has been deleted.

Edit: Further, I'm very seriously considering putting a limited version of Filtering back in (3 filters for free members) and just enabling unlimited filtering until I get done writing the code to handle filter-limiting (I'm about 25% of the way through it).

You're not a very eloquent spokesman for the "Want Free Filtering" camp and your post arrived literally seconds before I was going to turn filtering back on, but just in time to make me stop and reconsider.

Still, I'm going to go ahead and re-enable it (the unlimited version) right now for the weekend while I mull it over and read more opinions on the matter.

[Cassandra]

As a fully paying premium member on iHub (as opposed to grandfathered), I do not have anyone filtered.

However, I do use the feature on RB because some members there post the same exact cut and paste stuff every day for months on end and never contribute anything new. Both longs and naysayers are equally at fault in that department. I use the "ignore" feature there simply as a time-saving feature, not to avoid new information.

Fortunately, iHub does a better job of sanctioning that type of mindless poster, so I see no need to filter anyone.

[Cassandra]

i had a list of names that i sent to all my people for them to put on ignore...you have allowed the disruption of this forum and i am pissed..i wish we never left the raging bull...

IMO, this is the biggest argument against filtering. Stock touts often rope people (their "marks") into investing in some penny stock that they claim will be the next Microsoft. The tout explains all about evil "bashers" who are out to steal money from the marks by scaring them into selling their shares. To avoid having their marks exposed to facts that may challenge the tout's misrepresentations, they almost always issue suggested ignore lists of "bashers" (naysayers / critics) who post the negative aspects of an investment or even the revealing of a scam. IMO, anyone who posts a suggested ignore list is a con artist.

Being overly principle oriented, if I owned iHub, I would rather make a little less money losing the volume from touts and their ignorant marks than helping them deceive the naive.

JMO!

[0nceinalifetime]

I'm not sure that limiting the filter list to 2 or 3 people would be much different from having free filtering because most people would likely only have two or three people they may wish to filter anyway. Furthermore, it might be worse as it could encourage free users to filter who would normally not filter if filtering was unlimited. You know, the ol' "must be valuable if I have to pay for more, might as well use up the freebies" mindset.

Anything that encourages lots of people to filter would probably impact the system more than a few people with larger filter lists.

My $.02

Once

[0nceinalifetime]

I tend to avoid filtering anyone because I want to keep on top of the discussion at hand. Of course, there are always one or two posters who have proven to me time and again that they are only interested in suckering others into hyping their favorite stock, the same type of person who would be defending management even if they were arrested for insider trading or fraud. Still, I tend to avoid filtering even those people because it is so easy to quickly skim over their viewpoints. But I do find e-mail filtering to be a valuable tool. That way those who are known to have a lack of emotional control can't fill up my mbox with vulgar messages. Yet, if they have something legitimate to say to me, they can say it in public.

Still, I don't know why those of us who have paid for a subscription should have to subsidize those who do not want to support Ihub. Filtering takes up resources that we all pay for indirectly, whether it is through subscription costs, extra advertising or merely less rapid system response. Probably worst of all, is the repetitiveness and lack of coherence that filtering encourages. I don't want to hear the same question asked (or answered) time and time again just because a few people have chosen to ignore a few other people. I think it detracts from the discussion far more than the irrational posts of a few idiots that we can just skip past without any particular inconvenience. That's why filtering should remain a premium service, you don't want to encourage those who have nothing invested in Ihub (and therefore nothing to lose) to use such an easily misused tool when the repercussions can impact the entire community in a negative way.

Finally, does free filtering encourage the type of participant you are after? Without any psychological studies to back it up, I would guess those who demand free filtering the loudest tend to be the most arrogant and short-tempered and the least able to constructively deal with opposing viewpoints and opinions. Why encourage those who are the most arrogant and the least accommodating to post on your site, and for free, no less?

On the otherhand, I can see the value of e-mail filtering, there are certain people that I don't want to consider what they have to say unless it is the type of thing that can be said in front of everybody. In otherwords, e-mail filtering cannot negatively impact the continuity of the discussion because it is separate from the discussion to begin with while general discussion filtering should only be available to those who support Ihub and have a stake in it's continuing success.

Once

[Bob Zumbrunnen]

1) paid or unpaid crappers whose goal is to grafitti your house;

They get evicted by the site administrator.

2) need for some management tool(s) to control crappers for the beneefit of all;

Again, that's an Admin function.

3) keeping all the IH boards valuable for the vast majority of users i.e. lurkers, new investors, etc.

A strong case can be made that boards are most valuable when they contain both positive and negative information.

4) if there is not an inherent tool to manage crappers, either eviction, filtering, or some other tool, then the investment made by all the suscribers will be greatly impaired as the quality of information goes down.

There *is* such a tool. The site administrator. Plus, filtering is available to subscribers.

5) If all you want is a private (i.e. not valuable for the public) board, then other forums provide that for free e.g. Raging Bull.

That is not what we want. We don't believe in private boards as a medium for open-minded discussion of specific companies and they aren't a viable business model.

6) Subscribers get many very valuable benefits that have to do with frequency and productivity. The issue is making a critical management tool that everyone needs a subscriber only tool, then the quality of the board is ruined for the vast majority of users;

I still just plain don't understand the "need" for filtering and I don't agree that the absence of filtering for free members is a "quality" issue.

7) If you want a valluable public board, what tools are available to the public if there is no eviction and no filtering?

Most of these are just the same 1 or 2 points rephrased. As such, my answer to this one is a repeat, too: Site Administrator.

8) I for one, was not aware that filtering was a "temporary" free feature. This seems like a chage of policy. Unfortunately, perhaps to the ruin of your entire house, unless some other tool appears to ensure or at least promote higher quality information.

It started out as a Premium feature then was later modified to allow free access with the caveat that it was a temporary thing. Also, the subscription page has repeatedly included the information that Filtering is a Premium feature and can not be counted on to remain available for free. Also, over the past few months, there have been several days at a time that a notice was posted on EVERY page of the site, right below the menu, pointing out that Filtering would not remain a free feature.

9) Disk space must be a cost and concern for you, so if crappers are allowed to run rampant, then that will cost you in storage space, won't it?

1. I'm starting to really take offense at the frequent use of the word "crappers" when it apparently applies to people who are complying with the site's rules and whose major "crime" is posting negative opinions.

2. Disk space is so cheap it's almost free, and we don't use even 5% of the cheap disk space we have available.

10) I could go on and on as to why this policy change can ruin your business, IMO.

Really, I've only seen you present one item in support of free filtering: If we didn't have a site administrator, people who break the rules would be destructive to the site if others couldn't hide them. For free.

[Bob Zumbrunnen]

What we call "Filtering" everywhere on the site but lots of people call "Ignore".

That's still available to paid subscribers and always will be.

[Dumpter]

What are you talking about when you talk about "FILTERING"? Am I missing an important subject?

I am a paid subscriber.

Joe

[Corp_Buyer]

As an alternate tool, it might work. EOM

[Corp_Buyer]

The business issues are:

1) paid or unpaid crappers whose goal is to grafitti your house;
2) need for some management tool(s) to control crappers for the beneefit of all;
3) keeping all the IH boards valuable for the vast majority of users i.e. lurkers, new investors, etc.
4) if there is not an inherent tool to manage crappers, either eviction, filtering, or some other tool, then the investment made by all the suscribers will be greatly impaired as the quality of information goes down.
5) If all you want is a private (i.e. not valuable for the public) board, then other forums provide that for free e.g. Raging Bull.
6) Subscribers get many very valuable benefits that have to do with frequency and productivity. The issue is making a critical management tool that everyone needs a subscriber only tool, then the quality of the board is ruined for the vast majority of users;
7) If you want a valluable public board, what tools are available to the public if there is no eviction and no filtering?
8) I for one, was not aware that filtering was a "temporary" free feature. This seems like a chage of policy. Unfortunately, perhaps to the ruin of your entire house, unless some other tool appears to ensure or at least promote higher quality information.
9) Disk space must be a cost and concern for you, so if crappers are allowed to run rampant, then that will cost you in storage space, won't it?
10) I could go on and on as to why this policy change can ruin your business, IMO.

Posted by: Corp_Buyer
In reply to: Desert dweller who wrote msg# 17802 Date:4/4/2003 1:10:57 PM
Post #of 17819

OT: DD- you make a good sales pitch, but as a matter of principle there has to be a means available to manage (reduce or eliminate) non-productive crappers not just on the IDCC board but on all IH boards. The solution can't be for everyone to be a subscriber, since the vast majority of users are lurkers or occasional posters or new investors looking for initial information. This site does derive revenues from non-subscribers e.g. ad revenues and the subscribers do have many other great features for their fee e.g. multiple-reads, PM, spell checking, etc.. But, there MUST be an INHERENT tool available to eliminate crappers and folks who post non-sense, all rhetorical questions, excessive posts (about 10% of the posts recently were from one such subscriber poster), and other board abuses whatever their motivations may be. Raging Bull provided board managers and users with BOTH filtering and eviction tools to deal with crappers. The fact is there are some folks for that whatever reason, WANT (or maybe they are paid) to paint the beautiful house with graffiti and to TP the lawn (to use Matt and Bob's house analogy). So, there must be some means to manage such abusers INHERENT in the service for all i.e. subscribers, non-subscribers, lurkers, new investors seeking to read information, etc.. When we first came over here, Bob and Matt CHOSE to not have eviction as a tool, so they implemented free (i.e. available to all) filtering as the one and only ALTERNATE management tool. Now, with free filtering gone, we as a board are missing an essential management TOOL, to help the vast majority of users. The IDCC board and all IH boards are fatally flawed, IMO, without some management tool, as a matter of principle, thinking about all the lurkers, new investors, and occasional users. To have a viable public investor board, there needs to be a management tool to handle crappers. If all you want is a member only private board, then as a competitive matter RB provides that for free, don’t they? Coming to IH was a big improvement in many ways including the great features available to subscribers, but the best advantage I noticed was that posting was opened up to lurkers and new investors, but we do need a tool to manage the riff raff if not by eviction. So, I am disappointed by the recent policy to make filtering a subscriber tool and frankly, unless some other tool appears, the new policy will ruin all the boards at IH and the investment of all IH subscribers (not just IDCC subscribers) will be impaired.

Regards,
Corp_Buyer

[Bob Zumbrunnen]

Interesting suggestion received via PM. I like it:

Maybe, for the FREE folks, have a limited list of say 5 filters. For the premium, unlimited. That might be your ticket. Seems the volume is up there. Allow filtering, but just allow a limited number for everybody. Simliar to posts. Upgrade and you get unlimited.

Though heavy use of filtering (it has been more prevalent among free members than subscribers) does impose a lot of overhead, and still would impose overhead with small filter lists for free members, the hit would be much smaller.

I'm thinking a much smaller list, like 2 or 3, for free members.

Thoughts anyone?

[Bob Zumbrunnen]

But, there MUST be an INHERENT tool available to eliminate crappers and folks who post non-sense

There is. It's called "IH Admin (Matt)".

Keep in mind that conscientious and aggressive enforcement of the site's Terms of Service is built right in, unlike some other sites.


Edit after getting another copy via PM with some added verbage:

The disagreement here is apparently the definition of "crappers".

If someone breaks the site's rules, they're gone. Though we don't use that term to label them, it's the closest we'd come to that definition.

I'm not really sure what you mean when you say "crappers". As far as I can tell, it looks like you mean "people whose posts I just don't want to read".

There's a free feature built in already for that. Right above and below each post is a "Next" button.

[Bob Zumbrunnen]

Copied from a PM so I can encourage this discussion to take place publicly rather than just pissing me off with private nasty-grams.

just wanted to thank you for taking the filtering ability off...you sure allowed this board to turn in to a piece of shit...you have now allowed the bashers to destroy the vehicle that allowed the true investors of this company the ability to communicate and discuss the due diligence...

i will not pay and have no intention of paying...i have over 200 people that are invested in this stock that read this board on a daily basis...both they and i do not post at all...

to say i am disappointed is an understatement...you have now ruined a great forum for thousands of people....there is nothing but trash every other post....people don't have the time to wade through all the shit that is not allowed to be displayed..

i had a list of names that i sent to all my people for them to put on ignore...you have allowed the disruption of this forum and i am pissed..i wish we never left the raging bull...

i think it would be in your best interest to change the format to allow filtering..

My reply:

Precisely the kind of message that makes me even more inclined to make sure that Filtering is never free again.

i think it would be in your best interest to change the format to allow filtering..

Filtering is allowed and has always been part of the Premium featureset.

But I know what you really mean is that it would be in my best interest to allow Free Filtering.

Why would it be in my best interest? Remember that not only am I a programmer and message-board fan, I'm also a businessman. So, why would it be in my best interest to allow free filtering?

you sure allowed this board to turn in to a piece of shit...

you have now ruined a great forum for thousands of people....

there is nothing but trash every other post

The above 3 phrases are major exaggerations. I've been reading the board in question, and have not observed any of the above. Exaggeration and hyperbolic rhetoric won't sway my opinion in the direction you would like it swayed.

i have over 200 people that are invested in this stock that read this board on a daily basis

I don't know if this sentence was intended to convey to me that there's a monetary cost of making Filtering a Premium feature again, but if that's the idea, it doesn't work.

i had a list of names that i sent to all my people for them to put on ignore...

Lovely. And if the people you told everyone to ignore posted something very relevant that warned of a catastrophic plunge in stock price, would you personally compensate these people you told to ignore them? You wouldn't rather they decide for themselves whose posts to heed and whose not to? Personally, I wouldn't want the responsibility you assume by doing that.

over 200 people ...
...both they and i do not post at all...

Interesting claim when far fewer than 200 people have the main-ignored person there filtered out and only 29 of them have never posted.

true investors of this company the ability to communicate and discuss the due diligence

Don't even get me started on that particular statement.

If you can give me some solid reasons why filtering should go back to being a free feature, I'd appreciate hearing them. And please lose the hyperbole and rhetoric (and vitriol) when you do. They don't strengthen your case.

I'm all ears.

[Churak]

EDITED: Now that that's out of the way, I am against filtering. Period. I am a premium member & have no one on filter. How do you not know that someone you dislike may not contribute something to the discussion of an equity that might be important? I prefer to use the "Mental Ignore" function. I will read those that I want to read & not read those that I don't. I would think that most here are adults & as such should be able to have enough discipline to decide for themselves who to read & who not to read. I don't agree with the idea out of sight, out of mind. FWIW. So I really don't care one way or the other about giving free members that option other than if it puts a strain on the site & slows it down noticeably then I say nay. Also, if you need to justify the cost of memberships by the additional features then perhaps it should remain a premium feature. IMHO the PM feature alone is worth the price of admission.

[Churak]

grub