If you want to retain members and gain new ones, you have to figure out why people get frustrated trying to trade stocks without constantly having their investments being attacked.
Trading stocks and discussing them are separate and distinct activities. So I take it you really mean stock specific boards should be all hype, moonbeams, and unicorns. But that does not make for discussion of any kind.
People don't want a tug a war, when the odds are strongly in the favor of those who oppose their investment…
Why is that? I mean, why are the odds "strongly in favor" of the "bashers"? Because they do better research than the longs? Because the longs already know their current favorite is a POS, but hope to make money on it anyway?
If the longs genuinely believe the stock is a good one, why not develop arguments that will effectively counter the bashers' criticisms? That's what discussion is all about. And it might well attract new buyers.
The reality that many fail to grasp is that controversy brings new participants--and no doubt many more new readers--to the stock boards. An avalanche of hype posts does not. Consider, if you will, what happens when the notorious $25 a day pump group shows up. Sometimes they're welcomed at first, but soon regular longs get fed up with the barrage of meaningless posts. Many depart for the duration of the promo. Others complain about the spam. Only the most naive feel it has a positive effect on the stock in question.
Why should there be a need to call people "morons" and "idiots"? Why not simply demonstrate why what they say is moronic and/or idiotic?
I do that all the time.
AI
