Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
From the post to which I'm replying: Bob they are probably two different aliases. But because they are both making a complaint on the EGADS it should be looked at is all I am saying.
From the post in which you first brought it up: 1. then enforce the rules like the multiple aliases of say Viperchick who is posting under two on the EGADS.
No further commentary on that one necessary.
Moving on...
That question is not answerable except in the case you made and I would have to see all information before making an
answer. That is your exact words on questions of that nature but like others they demand to have questions answers and they always seem to be unanswerable one.
I don't know why that would be unanswerable. The question is about whether it's wrong to delete posts because they express opinions or offer information that runs counter to one's vested financial interest in the discussion.
But I'll just mark you down on both questions as "Refuses to Answer". Thanks.
Now, with that said, I will say this one last time: This is not the thread for discussing whether I'm good or bad for the site or really anything else about me. It's for questions and answers about the site itself for the benefit of people who have questions that're best directed to me.
If a thread doesn't already exist where all of this discussion is on-topic, then create one.
I'm not sure if InfoSpace used the term. I don't have a problem with Peter using it because it's qualified with things in the same sentence that show it's a layoff rather than "Fired For Cause". Well, a minor problem with it, but his meaning was clear, so not a major problem.
1. then enforce the rules like the multiple aliases of say Viperchick who is posting under two on the EGADS. Enforce the rules. But you are tryiing change them not enforce them and that is my focus.
I'm not psychic. This is the first I've heard of that allegation. Care to PM me the links to the two profiles you suspect are the same person? By your arguments, though, I shouldn't do anything. Forget that the site has owners. Forget that a large number of people join sites with rules because they'd rather participate in a place with rules (yourself aside). It's a free-for-all and anyone should be able to do anything. The site somehow "owes" them that.
But still, you didn't even come close to answering my question. Just used it as a launch pad.
Same with the second question, actually. I asked if you felt that it was "wrong". I'm guessing you don't think it's wrong for people to do that and don't think the site itself is wrong in giving people the ability to do that on the site's behalf.
Actually, I addressed the comments noted in your post, but not directly as a reply to yours. Someone else pointed out other symptoms of the same thing.
Here's the answer.
If the last post in a thread is deleted, the total post count will be one more than the number of posts that are "available". The reason being that the deleted post still occupies a spot in the thread. It's just hidden from view. If the last 3 are deleted, the total post count will be 3 greater than the number of visible posts, etc.
It's happening right now because we keep getting hit by spammers and we're roasting everything they write. In some cases, this involves every single thread on the site.
I expect it to be much less of a problem once I'm able to programmatically address the issue of spam.
Bob
I think the record stands at 484 posts in just a few minutes. Someone's running scripts to hit every thread and there's currently nothing I can do about it to prevent it. It's fixable programmatically though. Just can't do it yet.
Also the news and articles say you were fired. Plain and Simple and by your own admission you raised cane about the
moderated threads and the ban feature. Now I am curious why you do not have a lawsuit on why these articles came out saying you were fired when you state you were laid off. Now I have been in business most of my life and I know this is a serious contradiction. I lay off when I have no work or something outside the person's fault is the cause of their termination.
I'm sure another point of disagreement here is that my own brand of Due Diligence involves actually reading something before telling everyone what it said.
The 3 articles since my layoff, and the relevant excerpts:
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=15355023
Bob Zumbrunnen, well known in cyber circles for shepherding the often-fractious stock-discussion boards on Silicon Investor, was fired Tuesday amid across-the-board layoffs at the Web site's parent company, InfoSpace Inc.
Note "fired... amid across-the-board layoffs". While I don't agree with the way the definitions have become blurred, the fact is that they have. It's clear that "fired" here doesn't mean "terminated for dereliction of duty", etc. The message here is that I was among many who were laid off. I'm not megalomaniacal or paranoid enough to think 250 people lost their jobs as a way to get rid of me.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=15617847
Bob Zumbrunnen, who worked until recently as a message-board monitor for Silicon Investor until Infospace fired him amid companywide cuts, agrees.
"fired him amid companywide cuts"
You're removing one word from its context and using it as your "proof".
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=15671418
Mr. Zumbrunnen, known in online-trading circles as SI Bob or SI Admin (Bob), was police chief at stock-discussion site Silicon Investor until he was laid off in February by the Web site's parent company, InfoSpace Inc.
IHUB in the last month is in CHAOS were it was peaceful
Ummmm... I don't see the site being in chaos. Only this thread. And only because a few people choose to do war in here to try to discredit me.
But I don't know why I bother pointing that out. You didn't address a single thing in the post to which you're replying, so you're not trying to refute. Just using a post of mine as a launch pad for one of your own diatribes.
An administrator that is rule obsessed is a human-God like being seeking a realm to reign supreme and control.
and
fighting the "I'll say what I want" and "I'll bad mouth all I want" for no pay
Two direct questions:
1. Just what do you think a site administrator does if it doesn't have anything to do with enforcing the site's rules?
2. Do you really see nothing wrong with deleting a post just because you don't agree with it (it expresses an opinion or reveals information that goes against your financial interest in and therefore bias toward a company) or deleting posts of your own so that they can't be used as evidence?
Bob
PS. You assert that you're not here to just discredit me any way you can, but that's all I see you doing. Actions vs Words.
Ummmm.... I've been observing on the sidelines here and this is a slinky that keeps getting helped onto the next step every time it stops.
The more rules you have the more rules that can be thrown back at the administration.
And the fewer and less explicit the rules are, the more people will intentionally abuse the spirit of the rules.
It's kinda like... Oh, I dunno. Maybe like starting a thread for the purpose of something like (snatching a topic out of the air) questions and answers about the site or some such thing. With few explicit rules. The "spirit" of which is basically to keep the thread useful for others. But the rules aren't explicit enough, so you add a rule and maybe even give another avenue so people won't keep violating the spirit of the thread.
But, then they're onto something else and forgetting about the spirit of the thread (which is analogous to "the rules"), so you add yet another rule, then they comply with the letter of that one but not the spirit again, so you add another one, etc, etc.
Some people tend never to get the spirit of any rules or simply refuse to comply. Only the letter is meaningful to them. Rationalization of how their conduct is within the letter of the law is typical.
And since they'll only comply with the letter, you end up with more rules so they can't throw "But you don't have a rule against that" in your face.
Kinda like how some of us keep having to create new threads because people won't let a thread that should be benefitting new users live up to the spirit in which it was intended.
Not anybody I can think of. Just some people are like that.
<g>
Bob
PS. I'm a busy guy, so if someone wants to convey a thought to me, it's generally a good idea to just do it, rather than expect me to go through a tedious exercise of attempting to decipher what they're saying. When faced with that challenge, I usually don't even bother.
PPS. I'm not, however, above toying with others for my own amusement, so I think the next time I'm at a softball game and a foul ball heads for the bleachers, rather than yelling the boring and cliche "Heads up!", I'm going with something more like "When in the coarse of hunam ivents a lobbed hoarse hyde wrapped orb becomes a stray missive it would be commended that all does in its path kindlingly pervert their intention skyword in an intent to undermine the path of sad orb and as quitly as possible improve themselfs from its path less day be bobmotized buy said fast moving orb."
Define "basher".
Yes, when a post is deleted, and it's the most recent post, the timestamp for the latest post will be the one for the deleted post.
A "deleted" post isn't really deleted. It's not moved to another table or anything like that. All that happens is a field is toggled and the ASP's that read posts skip the ones where that field is toggled.
I agree with someone else's earlier comment, too, that "This message was removed by the Chairman" is not good enough. It needs to substitute the alias of the person doing the deletion for the word "Chairman". That's supposed to be getting worked on.
The site had gotten hit by a spammer about that time, who posted to every single thread, and all of the posts were immediately deleted.
Chalk it up to either age or maybe naivete that isn't befitting my age and experience, but for some reason the notion of conducting market-related discussion on a "personal" (read "rules-exempt) board didn't really sink in until two people used baseball bats to get the point across; one of which did so by creating such a thread.
I agree with you there, although I still love the term "Bobotomy". But agree with you on how it reflects on someone who resorts to such a tack to begin with.
Bob the bottom line is personal boards are not regulated because the moderator is the Chairman and regardless of how you want to change that it is the original concept of IHUB.
Then let me go on the record saying that I disagree with what you express as the original concept and if it's etched in stone and cannot be changed, take up a collection, buy the remainder of my contract from me, and feel free to shred it. I'll even pay the postage.
1. It is a paid site to join and that is not good.
You'd be surprised just how "good" that is. Very surprised. On many levels.
2. However you can start a moderated thread and with that you get a ban feature to shut up who ever you want for
whatever the reason you want.
Which is why I have a problem with it, but my hands were tied. But at least posts can't be deleted for the same reasons, which is good.
2. SI waited too long to make this feature to try and stop the exodus.
Near as I could tell, the only impact it had on the "exodus" was speeding it up.
3. You are no longer there, no offense but you were fired
Correction: I was laid off. Along with 250 other people and you can only speculate on the reasons why. I happen to know why, and it had nothing to do with job performance, philosophies, etc.
But the reason the old guard is so alarmed
How many in this "old guard" are alarmed? I'm seeing a lot of alarmed-looking posts, but can count the number of "alarmed" posters on one finger.
But the reason the old guard is so alarmed is because something is not right here with all this new rules to moderated personal boards.
Can you show me the "old rules" in writing? There're a lot of gaps in coverage in the rules and that needs to be addressed, too.
Things like the ones whose revelation to me result in a reply of "Personal what???"
You want to dictate what people will post, how they post and exactly what they will and can do and to insire control
eliminate the very thing you hate most, moderated personal threads.
Nope.
I don't think the rules should be so much about what you can post, but what you cannot. There's a lot more you *can* post than you *cannot*.
The rest of your sentence isn't comprensible to me, though, so I'm reluctant to agree or disagree with it.
Plus I believe SI made the moderated as a copying cat of IHUB.
Ummmmm..... LOL!!!!!!
we can always go there and leave IHUB to be a desert
I'm not so sure it'd be a desert. In fact, I'm pretty certain that particular "exodus" would look more like a group trying to hitch-hike their way to Woodstock than it would rats fleeing from a sinking ship.
But it's not (to me) about numbers anyway. It's about what's "right". I'm kinda funny that way.
there is another. And it has a banned feature
Sure does. Don't let its implementation during my tenure lead you to believe I was in favor of it. Same goes for a "popular vote" to reinstate someone whose account I'd terminated.
SO if this site gets Bobmotized
I'm kinda curious: Why do you think they hired me? Do you think they knew nothing of my reputation?
Bob
...I'd rather have a bottle in front a' me than have to have a frontal bobotomy
Yes, that's where quite a bit of the disagreement is. Personally, I don't see why the "ticker" is relevant. It's just a field in a database. My concern is discussions surrounding stocks, whether labeled with a "ticker" or not.
BTW, it'd be a funny play on words (I'm going to use it too -- I like it) if it's "Bobotomized" or "Bobotomy".
I put a sign in my home on my front "Buy US Bonds - Support the USA"
The "home" analogy falls apart pretty quickly, too. I expect to be able to do what I like with my home because it's really mine. I didn't just move my stuff into it. I paid money to the previous owner to make it my home.
I think the only way to make a "home" analogy work is to assume a town in which a landowner has built a bunch of houses and decides to let others live in them. In such a situation, he'd probably retain the right to do with his houses as he sees fit.
To repeat an old "inside" joke, spamming a thread that you know full well is read by the site's administrator is a lot like robbing the only donut shop in a large town.
In this case, you walked into headquarters and snatched a jelly-filled right out of the mouth of the Chief of Police. And I didn't achieve this kind of girth by taking kindly to food being snatched out of my mouth. Usually end up with a few fingers to dunk in my coffee.
If we're talking about the same thread, the thread isn't deleted. Posts prior to a specific one aren't visible in thread-browsing mode because of a post that contains HTML that interferes with viewing because of the way we're parsing a "header" out of the post. It's a bug that's being taken advantage of. I don't want to completely squash that bug, though, as it's what allows people to post charts. However, in addition to being able to be misused in the way I've discussed, it's also why the system doesn't like it if a URL is the first thing in a post.
I'll go zap the post now that's causing that, although it sure messes up my ability to review deleted posts.
I'll be able to fix it so that future attempts to do that via including things like that in a post won't have that effect.
In the meantime, anyone continuing to do that will be suspended for doing it. It's malicious thread disruption. And when I delete such posts, they cause me even greater problems.
The next time anyone sees this happen, would you kindly reply to them with a link to this post? Remember to put something before the link or you'll likely have trouble submitting the post.
Bob
PS. Drat, drat, drat!!! You got the grub I most wanted for myself! I love the group Rush so much, I'd pay $50 for lawn seats to listen to them belch into beer cans for 2 hours. "Why are we here? For the beer. Row the boats."
I'm discussing it here publicly (rather than just wringing my hands gleefully while plotting) because I am open to being convinced otherwise. I feel very strongly about my position on this, but as I've said before, I listen most attentively to anyone who disagrees with me.
As long as it doesn't get personal and focuses on the issue.
Gary, I'm very politely expressing my opinion here. Note there's been no vehemence. I believe that getting emotional about a disagreement weakens one's argument.
I'm willing to continue engaging in this conversation only if you can refrain from making it personal.
To the best of my knowledge, we were discussing a concept here; not whether or not I've got something up my sleeve or am "Big Brother".
anyone that even remotely has a personal board that deals in the market will not be a personal board
Let's take a different tack since I think you're getting hung up on "personal" board as an all or none proposition.
My opinion is that if a stock is being discussed, it is wrong to allow capricious reasons for deleting posts relevant to that discussion. On any board, regardless of what *kind* of board it's called by whim of the person starting the board.
That means that the Hot Subjects Lists and the Hot Stocktalk that is on the Home page of SI, were not functioning for a long time and were in error most of the time. That means that if some of the threads on SI were on those hot lists in the #1 spot for really long periods of time, says even years, they really were not #1, the system just had problems and they were stuck in the #1 spot accidently.
It's extremely unlikely that any thread could stay right at the top of the hot list without fail every single day. But possible if the algorithm is also taking into account just how active the thread is.
The way it was originally written, it only measured the *increase* in posting/bookmarking activity compared to what it was in the previous 7 days. I don't know whether or not total bookmarks, total posts, new posts per day, and new bookmarks per day are taken into account now or, if so, how long it's been working that way, but I would think it would be valid to do so.
I take it you're not a programmer. If you were you'd understand just how unlikely it would be that that list is representing anything but the results of crunching data from the site itself.
The programmers don't care about such things as popularity of threads or posters. What they care about is writing an algorithm to crunch millions of rows of data and produce a summarized output. The kind of manipulation you suggest would need to be done by a programmer, which, to me, is the most solid reason to believe no manipulation is taking place.
Unfortunately, the only way someone can really prove for themselves whether the output is being manipulated is to write a similar program themselves and see if it produces the same output.
To be honest it is flat out none of your business what I say or do on my personal board. PERIOD. That is what you have not figured out yet.
I disagree. If stocks are being discussed and relevant opinion or information is getting squelched "just for grins", it's very much my business.
It was my understanding that this is a well-known aspect of my reputation and that I was hired because that reputation spoke for how I would work here, not because a lot of people thought I did a good job or because my reputation would add credibility to the site, but my understandings have been mistaken before...
My personal is not attached ro anything else. Personal boards are personal boards just as my corner where I give my
opinion and I really could care less about anyone else' view, opinon or whatever.
Personal boards that are occupying spots and engaging in conversation on a stock discussion site
You do nothing. I control my personal board and I am voicing my opinion and it is NOT open for discussion
if I so elect to do that.
I disagree. I may be wrong, but I very strongly disagree.
Here's my reasoning: If there's discussion of WXYZ, it would be wrong to squelch one side of the discussion (assuming no TOS violations), regardless of the contents of the "ticker" field in our database.
That simple.
If you do not ignore it then you are saying that basically my board is now an extension of the WXYZ thread and I disagree.
To me, it's not a matter of whether or not it's the WXYZ thread or an extension of it. It's discussion taking place on a public message board ostensibly to discuss the merits of a stock as a worthwhile investment.
Sorry. Thought you weren't in a hurry for an answer.
If I understand you correctly, what you're asking is why a deleted posts doesn't show up when browsing a message list.
I'm not sure there's any particular reason aside from trimming down the message list. Not terribly useful to also include deleted posted in there, so why bother? Also, not terribly useful to have "Next" take you to a deleted post. I mean, it's like deleted.
But, if anyone's jumping through a thread and they see that Next took them from post 83 right to post 85, and they're dying to know who wrote post 84, they can just type "84" in the message number box and hit Enter.
I think many here might be interested in having all the posts shown.
And I can guarantee you that if we did it that way, even more people would say "Why not just remove it from view if it has no contents. I wasted a click on each one of these that was deleted. They're just in the way." Or "It bugs me that SpamMeister wrote 100 posts to this board and I have to mess around with finding the first non-spam post or click Next 100 times to get to it."
Also, when you do eventually put up the HOT subjects etc., will iHub choose a company that is no way conncected with any posters or their threads so that there is no special treatment to anyone here.
I'm not sure what you're asking here, but I *think* I might. Let me know if I took off on the wrong tangent.
Hot Subjects isn't a static list that's created by some outside company. That's not the way it works on SI and that's not the way it'll work here. It's a dynamic list. Updates in realtime. And the programming for it is done in-house. I'll actually be writing that one myself because it's a bit tricky but I'm intimately familiar with the algorithm.
The hot lists will just be the realtime output of our software, just like everything else.
I don't know whether or not SI manipulates that list, but can tell you that I personally doubt it. It's more likely that there are still problems with the programming for it. There were for a long time anyway.
It's also very possible that perceived irregularities with the list are really just the viewer's misunderstanding of how the list is done. On SI, it's not a measure of a thread's activity, but a measure of a thread's current activity compared to its previous activity.
If a new thread rapidly grows to 1000 posts per day, it'll be on the hotlist. If it always gets about 1000 posts per day, it'll eventually fall off the list because there's no increase. That's SI's definition of "hot" and I agree with that definition. "Busiest" is another issue and will be addressed.
Edit: One of the things about computer programs that just read data and spit out results (like a hot list does) is that the only people who could possibly "manipulate" the output would be the programmers and database admin. And they're not interested in doing so. They're off breaking something else. <g>
Whether or not a stock's ticker is attached to the board is irrelevant. Do you think the SEC cares whether or not a company's ticker is included in an extra field in a board where the company is being actively discussed?
And that will create a war because it just undermine the COB concept.
The problem for me, on many levels, is that it was my understanding that "the COB concept" meant this: Only the posts that the admins themselves would delete are actually deleted. Just a lot more quickly and with a much easier workload for the admins. You have no idea how much it bothers me to now find out that "reality" and "my understanding" were two entirely different things. Forget, for the moment, that I decided a lot of latitude in areas where stocks and people weren't being discussed seemed later to be a good idea to me.
I can honestly say that if I'd been told that COB meant: "People can delete whatever they want for whatever reasons they want", my own site would be running by now. I had funding and talent lined up. But this idea was a new one to me and the design of the site was very agreeable on a lot of levels.
I think it's entirely possible that you and I still disagree on what the "COB concept" really is. But perhaps we're not too far apart. At least, in intent, we seem to be on the same page, paragraph, and sentence, if not word.
So if on Gabard's corner if I discuss stocks, the market or even people its not personal when in fact the site is for anyone who wants my personal opinion on anything.
Here's my quandary: Suppose on GaBard's corner you discuss anything you want and offer your personal opinion of it and that includes stocks, and you include in your iBox that you'll delete any post you feel like deleting for any reason, giving you the "right" to do so since it's a "personal" board.
Suppose further that you start discussing WXYZ and have found that the incredible trading volume doesn't make sense based on the number of outstanding shares and the size of the float. You start thinking there's a large naked short position and say so and say you're buying shares like crazy and think others should.
Now suppose someone comes along and says "Have you considered the very likely possibility that the company has been printing tons of paper lately and issuing them to officers, who are selling them to you and that the only people short this stock are the ones who know that's been happening?"
Personally, I don't think you'd delete that post. But, because it's a "personal" board, you have the "right" to do so.
If you do delete it, what do I do?
1. Ignore it: it's a personal board
2. Restore it and have a talk with you
3. Restore it and remove the "personal board" status
I think you know my answer. Does my answer "undermine" the COB concept?
We know I don't like arguing infinite shades of gray in unlikely scenarios, but give human nature, I think this scenario isn't only likely, it's guaranteed to happen. Already has. (not you)
And it's this issue that is at the core of whether or not personal boards can be given extra leeway and, if so, how that leeway is to be handled.
Ask it once, it's a question. Ask it a dozen times, it's harassment.
No, I don't have a specific number in mind for how many times the same question can be asked in a one-hour time period before it's harassment, but I tend to recognize harassment pretty well when I see it.
I know Bob about to open a can of worms here
Surely there's a better place for this conversation. Or maybe no place would be appropriate. Perhaps better that if she makes a post somewhere that someone doesn't like, they refute it in place.
What I would entertain as a possibly on-topic discussion here, though, would be whether or not boards should be able to exclude her (delete her posts) or anyone else if she isn't engaging in personal attacks, etc but is instead persistently negative.
Edit: Deleted. Was supposed to be private.
BADBOB and Parking Lot are prime examples of what the original concept is for COBs.
Parking Lot isn't exactly what I'd call a model for structuring the rest of the site. It's a venting place only. To keep that kind of "noise" out of the stock threads.
But it's already apparent that there will need to be restrictions on what can be considered a "personal" board. If people are going to be able to make threads where, by virtue of a disclaimer in the header, they can delete any post they want, then it's apparent that it's unwise to allow discussions of stocks or people in such threads.
Granted, only a stupendously foolish person would take anything market-related seriously on a board where a post gets deleted just because it runs counter to the "party line", and it's not my job to protect fools from themselves, but it's also my job to not just hand people the ability to so easily run scams like can happen in that environment.
I'll be working on how to deal with this potential abuse of the "personal board" concept, as it's already met with abuse in two separate instances.
But under no circumstances will threads about stocks be given "personal board" latitude.
However, the BADBOB thread sets the example that a COB can limit your posts and can suspend you from posting there if you do not post to a stock thread on topic with a 6 hour period.
True. It's a comparatively benign and unobtrusive way to put a different set of rules on a thread.
But it's not really a test-bed for the "personal board" thing. Note that I started that board before I was thinking about "personal boards" and even longer before I found out that the site already had something like that in place, though unwritten.
Actually, I put those rules in place to kind of "test" those rules themselves in a limited way. Not because I considered it a personal board or thought that a "personal board" had any kind of special status. More because, as the admin, I could do it if I wanted to. As the admin, I decided I could say "Okay, talk bad about me here, but if you do, you have to act like a person who belongs on a stock site too."
Posts don't get deleted for breaking that rule, though.
Imagine, if you will, a thread that's started up to talk about you. But the only people welcome are those who hate you. And posts by people who don't hate you can be deleted, since it's a "personal" thread.. Is that fair? Should it be allowed? My answer to both is a resounding "No!"
Another example: Imagine a thread that's started up to talk about a company that's privately held. But provides internet content. And a public company may have a stake in it. And it's alleged that some shady characters are tied in with it. The thread for it is a "personal" thread , so posts in it that bring to light some of these negatives are getting deleted as soon as they're posted. Is that right? Again, no.
And I'm not going to let it happen.
BTW, both scenarios are based on real situations here recently. In the former case, I should be deleting it so as not to set a bad precedent, but it's aimed at me (I still tend to allow stuff toward me I don't allow toward others), and really isn't getting much activity and its existence is proving a different point. Interestingly, it was created despite there being a similar thread on the site which *does* allow multiple points of view and which is being run very fairly. For some reason, it was thought necessary to create a venue where one-sidedness would be forced onto the thread.
My view of what makes a board a "personal" board is quite different from what those two boards were/are about.
Your personal board is what I'd normally consider a personal board. Just you posting your own musings. When such a thing is used for discussion of stocks, the market, or people, then it ceases to be a personal board (in this context) because it can be used to create an environment of only a biased viewpoint of relevant topics being presented.
And if it continues to happen (not talking about your board), we will either remove "personal board" status from such boards, or do away with the personal board concept altogether.
The post to which I'm replying needs to be left intact for a few more days. As much of a problem as it is for this thread while it resides here (apparently takes extra mouse clicks to get to messages preceding it), it's causing far worse problem for me when it's deleted. I'll re-delete it when it won't be within the 50 most recent deletions.
I answered this one earlier (this is why I so despise so much thread-bloat -- and, yes, I'm guilty of it too), but here's the short answer.
I thought it would be running by now. Since it's not, I will make it a top priority when I have the required access, which should happen around the 25th, so I should be able to have the feature running or provide an update on its status by that weekend.
Odd. I really thought I was replying to that post in the Q&A thread, but apparently not. My apologies for that misunderstanding. All other points raised in my post still apply.
BTW: this string makes your posts invisible in the message list. "<light bulb illuminating> "
That's an interesting one. Must be assuming that anything within the <>'s is a tag.
That's included in our list of planned improvements. Yes, such a list exists, but will not be published. Some of the improvements are things that other sites haven't thought of and there's no sense giving it all away. :)
Bob
<light bulb illuminating>
I think I see the source of confusion now.
Gary, there's a common misconception about the definitions of terms like "Listed", "OTC", etc. This wouldn't be a bad thread on which to clarify. Here are the basic definitions as I understand them. Anyone feel free to correct any mistakes in my understanding.
OTC: "Over the Counter". Synonymous with Nasdaq.
Nasdaq: "National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations". Synonymous with OTC.
Listed: A stock that is carried on an exchange. NYSE and Amex are exchanges. Order flow is handled by Specialists. Nasdaq is not an exchange, it's a market. Order flow is handled by Market Makers. Nasdaq stocks are not "Listed".
OTCBB: "Over the Counter Bulletin Board".
I prefer to dabble in OTC (Nasdaq) stocks and options on them.
OTCBB I don't mess with as a matter of personal preference, but the main reason is that most issues (in stock threads) I'm going to deal with on any message board site end up involving OTCBB discussions and it wouldn't be appropriate for me to have a financial interest in any issue in which there's any likelihood I'll have to deal with posts on the stock and decide whether they're deleted or not.
The fact that people with financial interests in the stocks are able to exert control (and possibly inappropriate control) over the discussions of those stocks made me initially hesitant about the CoB concept, but I think it will work out fine if the person overseeing the chairpeople has no financial interest himself and if the people managing those discussions hold themselves to an extremely high standard.
If I and the chairpeople both had the same financial interest in a stock, that could give rise to allegations of far greater importance than the "He likes so-and-so and let's him post not-nice things about/to me" thing. Well, at least of far greater importance to me.
Whether people like each other or think the admin likes some more than others is an insignificant issue bordering on simply petty when compared to the issue of whether people (chairpeople, admins, and site owners) with financial interests as a motivator may be inappropriately deleting posts or controlling discussions. Far greater importance.
That's something I simply will not allow, and if I find that a rule change is to blame for it happening, the rules get changed back. For example, if "personal" threads end up being used as a subterfuge for getting only one side of any market-related story told, it will result in changes being made on those specific threads or to the rules as a whole.
If I weren't employed as an admin, I might deal with OTCBB stocks. Personally, I find that the information on them is comparatively sketchy (I'm way into fundamental analysis), but I played OTCBB issues before working as an admin and might in the future if I find myself not working as one.
Hope that clears it up.
Not a whole lot that's "in the works" right now, and that's not one of them, but it will be added.
How's the site respond to raw html like
tags?
And can someone explain why my 6 month old germanshepard/huskie/retriever/lab/poodle/beagle pup won't do his
business outside?
I'd guess that he's not big enough to reach the door handle yet.
On that one, you get both an "Amen!" and a heart-felt "Thank You"!