They showed dollar signs with each alias that were a measure of how many membermarks vs. ignores each person had. It was very thoroughly abused, meaningless, and caused many problems of its own.
I'm generally considered a fairly credible person. When I posted on RB several months ago in the AZNT thread (because some doofus accused me of prank-calling his new, unlisted phone number), my dollar signs initially shot up because people recognized me, then immediately plummeted as the AZNT touts used their many aliases to ignore me.
Hell, a whole "black market" arose around those dollar signs. There was a board there where you could post any "basher" alias, and every tout and/or fool who read the board would use their many aliases to add you to their ignore list.
And when I posted on the HCCA thread, expressing amazement that it was not only still trading, but was still being actively touted, the first thing the touts did was berate me for my lack of dollar signs and tell everyone to ignore me because I had no credibility.
You have to keep in mind that even Filtering is something I had to be talked into. Personally, I would never use it except for testing. I've said before that I think it's financial suicide to ignore someone whose opinion is contrary to your own. If they're only annoying (as in can't ever seem to post on-topic), fine. But if the main reason for hiding someone is that you or someone else believes they're lying, that can be extremely dangerous to one's portfolio. Suppose that person does finally find a blatant smoking gun and posts about it. And you don't see their post because you were too in love with the stock to pay attention to critics. I mean "you" in the general sense, not you specifically.
Case in point: "But Anyway" or whatever his name is. I've read his posts. Mature, civil, intelligent, and really explains things thoroughly (notwithstanding the fact that so many people reply to him showing they obviously didn't understand what he said).
He's apparently on a quest right now to determine if the shares that EDIG held in some other company and sold way too early didn't find their way into the hands of company officers or friends/relatives for personal gain at the expense of shareholders. I don't think he's implying (yet) that this is the case, but has presented a strong argument for it being possible and perhaps plausible.
What if he finally finds proof that that happened? And not only do a bunch of people have him filtered out because they personally didn't want to hear what he said, but a bunch of others filtered him out simply because his profile shows that a lot of people have?
I'm not saying that he's right. I don't know if he is and frankly don't care. But if I were invested in that company or were considering such an investment, I'd pay much closer attention to his posts than the many posts of the "Begone, basher!" variety.
Each person should judge for themselves and only for themselves the value of a particular participant and what they have to say. Not have the community decide for them.
Like I said, Filtering itself is something I don't particularly care for because I know people will use it in self-destructive ways, but I could see some ways in which it was also handy.
I see zero benefit in any way in having the number of filters put up for public display, which is why I decided earlier not to post that list of top-10 most filtered.
If someone can tell me not only how doing that would benefit individual members, but also benefit the site as a universal community, I'm all ears. But I haven't heard a good argument for it yet. And if someone offers "because I want to see who everyone else ignores so I can ignore them", I'm going to reply with a dismissive wave of my paw and a "Bah".
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
