Site Suggestions

[CASHOUTKING]

Any plans for implementing a like/dislike feature for every post?

[mr green239]

iBox's get very cluttered with (seemingly to some) redundant information occupying large chunks of web space.

Suggestion of adding 'iBox pages' to the iBox feature.
'iBox pages' could be accessible through links within the 'default iBox page' (possibly a built-in 'iBox page' navigational GUI).
Pages could have descriptive properties such as title, description, tags, etc.. and could simply be HTML code that overwrites the default HTML of the iBox once activated.

The 'default iBox page' would be able to efficiently provide full due-diligence packages through organization and subject specific content.

I believe the 'iBox pages' feature could potentially make Investorshub that much more of a due-diligence tool.
This all very much relies on the organization, effort and cooperation of every board Moderator...

Maybe 'iBox pages' could be made only editable by one!

Artificial intelligence would be another subject :)

Something to ponder at the least!

Thank you.

[IH Geek [Dave]]

Other posts can be "upvoted" to displace them from the top lists.

[CPTMatt]

Admins - I'm seeing an issue with the voting system. We should be able to down vote a post if you're convinced you want to stick with this process. Currently what I am seeing is serial spammers/OT posters upvoting their own posts to get them to show up at the top of boards.

[IH Geek [Dave]]

Thank you for the suggestion.

The Admins operate as a team and have complete visibility to each others actions and dialog with users. Most requests are handled via FIFO queues (such as PMs to IH Admin) and are handled by whichever staff are on duty. If they cannot answer or resolve the matter they have the ability to forward to PM to the appropriate staff member.

[PirateSteve]

Please include the member name of the admin who deleted a post on the "My Deleted Posts' page. Knowing who to have a PM discussion with about nuanced interpretations would be useful and save a lot of review requests (and admin time) if explanations could be directly sought with the individual. It would also be an inhibitor to abuse, as it no doubt happens that sometimes admins, being human, delete things on their own whims unfairly. And by the same token, sometimes leave up the damnedest drivel.

Thanks for consideration

[IH Geek [Meatloaf]]

We do have email verification of new signups. My best guess is that your email account has been compromised. There have been massive amounts of password dumps available on the internet from sites such as Yahoo being hacked. Change your email password as soon as possible.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/03/technology/business/yahoo-breach-3-billion-accounts/index.html

[pepperspray88]

You should add eMail verification to signups here.

Just saying. The username I'm posting on now has apparently been posting here since 2015. Signed up using my junk-mail eMail address. I logged into it today to recover a password for a site I barely use, and I see notices of responses to "my" posts. So I came here, did a password reset, and I've got the recommendation in the subject.

Add eMail verification.

Apparently the guy posting on this username is an asshat anyway, you should see my inbox. So, not like I'm interfering with someone with anything less than douche intentions.

Have a nice day!

[OTC_Buyer]

The last board I was moderator to the software for their site allowed reporting of private messages too. I see no way to do this on this site. I believe this is a must because I myself received a private message that should be reported but the admin Susan says they can not see it and I have to copy and paste it which I did already. (I realize there is a block feature but that seems to be a bandaid and not a fix to some people's behaviors behind the scene.)

[FutureBankruptcy]

New "Suggest This Post Be A Sticky Note" button that users can press that sends an email to all mods and says "Post number XXXXXX has been suggested to be a sticky note by user XXXXXXX. Parse data by user log in and post number reference, then embed data and automate the precanned template email. Each user account can only press the vote button once per post ever.

Clean, simple and an approach that hopefully avoids abuse while adding communication channels.

If you want it can be a member only feature - which id like to be gifted lol, its xmas :D

[lasombra]

HOW DO YOU GET THESE DAMN ADS OFF THE RIGHT SIDE OF IHUB'S PAGE??
Thanks in advance!

[IH Dan (Retired)]

I suggest that you post your suggestion on the Q & A board. I don't think many people monitor this board.

Post it here:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/The-Question-and-Answer-Board-504/

[Andrew23]

Ihub has an area where you can set up alerts for when a stock has news out located here:

http://ih.advfn.com/common/alerts/newsalerts/add?symbol_search=NO

It would be helpful if you could also get SMS alerts for when a stock gets news as well.

Just a suggestion!

[jobynimble]

Scratch the member marks, they've become perverted. Here's a classic example...

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=106811656

[ScovilleUnits]

An iHub Santa clause “PostStream” Christmas-Gift Wish?

Moving on thru 2013 into 2014 forward please alter/adjust “Post Stream” to only include posts from other iHub boards, not from/including the “stock specific” board where you came from, already read the posts, and must ask the “post stream” from.

One goes to a stock specific board and reads what they want from the posters on that stock specific board and then when curious what other iHubers might be thinking/saying on other iHub boards about the stock click “post stream”… the window of posts is cluttered with what you’ve already seen/read following visitation of the stock specific board that you just came from in the first place.

Please eliminate the Stock Specific Stock that you are originating from when clicking “Post Stream” to only access posts from other iHubers/boards that are mentioning/referencing that specific stock you’re interested in too.

Thinking would not only be more efficient and effective for viewers gathering knowledge but also less costly to iHub removing redundancy replication posts from that stock specific board to “post stream” boards being posted/inquired about?

Scov.

[tryoty]

A potential solution for the basher/pumper saga...

Modify the site so that if someone ignores a poster, that poster can't see the posts of the person ignoring them. That way, if a large portion of the boards membership ignored a pumper, a basher, or whoever, the offending poster would see a dead board with no posts. Problem solved. No audience.

A change like that would moderate the hype and armaggeddon crowds and lead to a world class discussion board, IMO. That alone would offset the loss of posting traffic caused by the "auto ignore". I've been told that this idea would promote group-think. I disagree. If there is only one thing that can be learned from message boards, it is *no* group ever agrees. That concern isn't supported by reality. I think I-hub should consider the traffic that would *DRAW* to their boards instead of worrying about the number of posts, no matter what the quality.

I can see this making all of I-hubs boards self moderating, without the need for moderators and admin overseeing moderators.

But I would put a 30-60 day expiration on *all* ignores. IMO they should do that now. Hey, we all flip out now and then, no need to make an iggy permanent. If a poster is over-the-top hyping to the point that people ignore them, they see no posts to respond to. If a poster is beyond armaggeddon negative to the point that people ignore them, they see no posts to respond to. If they are just beating the keyboard because they are awake and it is annoying, they see no posts to respond to. After 30-60 days, they can speak their mind again.

It would teach messageboard edicate and tame some of the emotional outbursts that can happen. State your case, positive or negative, and discuss it and support it rationally. People won't ignore anyone doing that.

Another benefit is it eliminates the accusations of censorship that frequently gets thrown at moderators. There is no "one" person that can push the button.

And, the best reason for this idea, it eliminates the drone of repetitive posters, positive, or negative. Incessant repetition has been an ongoing and unsolved problem for I-hub.

Just a thought. It's a table change and a couple query changes, the user interface remains unaffected... no big deal.

[sidedraft]

As I can't post on the Q & A board, where is the next best board to post a suggestion?

[xtremezz]

Thanks Dan, will do.

[IH Dan (Retired)]

Not many admin or geeks follow this board any longer.

Feel free to post the question on the Q & A board:

http://investorshub.advfn.com/The-Question-and-Answer-Board-504/

[xtremezz]

Not sure if this one's been brought up before: would it be feasible to have the option to have a board in one's Favorite Boards list excluded from the poststream? The higher volume boards are nice to follow, but they flood the poststream exactly due to the sheer amount of posts. TIA

[ERHClongtimer]

Maybe not, but that's a very cynical way of looking at things.

I think most board readers want neither extreme, only that the truth be expressed in a realistic way (whether positive or negative).

And it is one thing to express one's opinion about a matter; it's another to constantly barrage a board with the same negative comments over and over again on the same topic. It gets to the point that it is personal spam.

[IH Dan (Retired)]

Sorry but that will never happen here.

Being positive or negative about a company is not a requirement for any Free Zone boards. The goal at iHub is to have all information, whether positive, neutral or negative, discussed in a civil manner, free of personal attacks.

We won't allow a bunch of pumpers to vote a basher off the board or vice versa. That would not be fair.

[ERHClongtimer]

Hi, it would be great if a board member could be ostracized (kicked off a board) like they could in ancient Athens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism

For example, if say over 50% of active board members for the last 30 days voted off a member, then he/she would be automatically banned from the board. (Maybe you would want to have a minimum active member count, e.g. 10 members, before enabling this for a board.) It would be a way for boards to self-police themselves from disruptive posters and stealth bashers. After all, when a board becomes dominated by these types of posters, people start abandoning the board, and your page-view counts go down.

Please give us this capability, and set IHub apart from all the rest of the message boards!

Thanks,
Longtimer

[sidedraft]

Use this post as a suggestion:

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=75316602

[faisal4]

anonymous thumbs up / thumbs down for posts

and let the rating be seen on the forum index so those searching for the good posts can just scan the index looking for recent posts that are highly rated

an example of this - see the comment board section of any news article on Yahoo News. you will see how nice it is. or even NYTimes.com

or maybe even a user rating?
for example, on top of being able to follow/unfollow, users can give other users a rating of thumbs up or thumbs down?

[jeffn]

i vote for this one.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/board.aspx?board_id=3083

[FreeGrass]

How about a contest for the best iBox? Wouldn't that encourage people to put more effort into their iBoxes? But then maybe you would have to select 1 moderator as responsible for the iBox. Because otherwise you're gonna get fights between moderators about who did the most work...

Can I win?

[Seminole Red]

i suggest only premium members be able to 'delete the 'T

[David Fowler]

I suggest that premium members be able to disable this new etrade ad. That is a feature of premium membership, no ads.

[jeffn]

haha! i couldn't resist putting the personal attack part in there. thanks for the reply.

[IH Dan (Retired)]

"it would be nice if they didn't show up on the poststream"

True but if I recall it was decided that the programming would be difficult and not worthwhile.

"i think we should be allowed a certain amount of personal attacks on a monthly basis. "

HaHa you have to be kidding. :)

Actually now that I think about it you are "allowed a certain amount of personal attacks". The certain amount = zero.

[jeffn]

when putting a block on someone, it would be nice if they didn't show up on the poststream. also i think we should be allowed a certain amount of personal attacks on a monthly basis. jmo

[Seminole Red]

ok

[IH Dan (Retired)]

Mods are automatically removed when they are inactive for 90 days. Inactive means they made no posts and made no removals of posts that violate the rules.

Don't assume that just because a mod hasn't posted in 30 days or even 60 days that they are inactive.

We keep mod stats on each mod on each board. Before removing a mod for not posting I always check to see if they are being helpful by removing violations.

We have mods who post but never remove violations and we have mods who remove violations but never or seldom post.

30 day removal for not posting would not be good on a board that gets very few posts.

[Seminole Red]

suggustion;

ive noticed when the mods were changed there are alot of new mods that took on a mod position to see just how many 'mod boards, they could accquire.they are often none participants and do nothing to premote the welfare of the board.

my suggestion is to lower the requirement of a mod to 30 days of no posting, which would result in the dismissal as a mod .next mod in line waiting gets mod position and deleted mod can reapply...

[Big Brother]

I see the new moderator assignments have just taken effect, get ready for PM's to Admin to increase exponentially....lol.....good luck.

Having too many chiefs didn't work for the indians and probably wont work for iHub as well....lol.

[Cassandra]

What you are asking IHUB to do is bypass this ability so that you can continue to exchange PM's with someone you claim is harassing you or threatening you? Makes no sense to me.

No, this is not what I am asking of iHub.

I am suggesting that IH members who have blocked another IH member from responding to them not be able to send a PM to them. Or if they have sent a PM, that they not be allowed to later block a response.

[Cassandra]

GreaseWD40: FWIW, I never "tried to use your religion against you." I simply asked you some questions via PMs as to how a certain PK stock you promote seems to have been marketed to the Christian community.

As I explained, it seemed to me that the promotion of that stock could have potentially have an affinity fraud aspect. You then blocked me from further PMs.

[GreaseWD40]

Cassandra, I still have the PM exchange. My response to you was telling you I no longer desired responses from you.
I blocked you after that PM.
It required no response from you, but I blocked you just incase you desired to ram your opinion down my throat once again.
You even attempted to use my religion against me.
That is why I decided it was my best interest NOT to associate with an individual such as yourself via PM.
Ofcourse I was NEVER threatening as I am an honest individual who invested in a speculative stock.
That is exactly why IHUB offers the ability for individuals to block others from contacting them and harassing them. No one deserves that.
I posted in this forum suggesting that you block individuals harassing you as well.
What you are asking IHUB to do is bypass this ability so that you can continue to exchange PM's with someone you claim is harassing you or threatening you? Makes no sense to me.
That is all I have to say on the subject.

[Cassandra]

GreaseWD40: Your response is bizzare. You personally are an example of someone who has sent me a PM but blocked me from responding to you -- exactly what I am posting about here.

Your PM to me was not threatening, but was angry and you blocked me from responding.

My whole point is a question as to whether people who send PMs to other members should be able to block them from responding, exactly as you have done with me.

[GreaseWD40]

Block the individual that is sending you threatening PM's.
That seem like a simple solution to me.
I have blocked several IH members from PM'ing me as IH has provided that right.
Having to read the garbage on some boards is enough, but when you get harassed via PM regarding religion etc, that is completely OT.
IH has a set of guidelines that must be followed when posting, but it appears the same rules certainly do not apply to PM's.
Just block them and be done with it.

[Cassandra]

Couldn't iHub enact a code to prevent an IH member who has blocked another IH member from responding to his/her PMs from sending PMs to a member they have blocked?

Couldn't iHub also stop the ability of another iHub member to block responses from another IH member to whom they have sent a PM?

As it is, iHub members can send abusive/threatening PMs and block a response. I recently received an abusive/threatening PM from another iHub member to whom I could not reply because he blocked me.

This is NOT the first time I have been in this situation.

[IH Dan (Retired)]

I see your point but that would mean taking back a PM that was already sent and read. Some members would complain if we did that. It would be like the mailman coming to your house to take back the mail he delivered. :)

The best thing to do is just block the other person so they can't do it again.

[Cassandra]

IH members who have blocked posters from sending PMs to them should not be able to send PMs to those same members that can not be responded to.

I have received threatening PMs from IH members to whom I can't reply because they have blocked me.

If such an IH member sends a PM to someone to whom they have blocked or later blocks the IH member who received the message from respoding, their message should be deleted.

[IH Dan (Retired)]

Ah okay all at once. Sorry didn't realize what you meant. Feel free to suggest it on Q & A. Not sure any geeks or other admin watch this board any longer.

[sidedraft]

Control-F5? I want to do a search of ALL disclaimers, all at once. Does your method do that?

[IH Dan (Retired)]

More Tools/Advanced search. Select Private Message search from the drop down. Hit "Go". Select Author which is you. You have to have yourself Member marked to show in the list.

[IH Dan (Retired)]

Open the disclaimer. Hit CTRL-F5 and type in the search text.

[noquit]

I would like to be able to do a word search within my PM boxes.

[sidedraft]

I would like to be able to do a text search only in the disclaimers from IRPs.

That would be helpful in seeing who is getting paid to pump what.