InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

infinite_q

05/23/03 10:50 AM

#27842 RE: Bill Dalglish #27822

Bill, I totally agree. This board is becoming a waste of time.

Fortunately, there are some posters who try to stay on topic and post valuable information, like Eneerg.

I really miss the old club board days.
icon url

linedrivehitter

05/23/03 11:16 AM

#27855 RE: Bill Dalglish #27822

AMEN Bill D. I read only about 5% of the posts now. Most of what is posted here now is garbage or just lengthy articles about some peripheral issue.

On the bright side, I can scroll right through a couple of hundred posts in just minutes. I never use the next 10 feature anymore. It just slows me down.


icon url

captainslog

05/23/03 11:48 AM

#27864 RE: Bill Dalglish #27822

Bill - Great Post. I read about 10% of the posts on the board now. It's getting to be that I don't come back here any more.

I traded many emails with Matt and other owners suggesting that they put in a feature similar to the RB board where member marks turn a poster's name into bold in the message listings. That way you can scan the listings to see just the people who make credible points. Ignoring all the yahoos on this board is just a waste of time.

No was his answer. He runs a business. He doesn't care about the community. No he didn't want to make it simpler for people to weed out the chaff.

It's typical. He probably see the number of posters coming to this board raising the noise level and spiking his traffice while at the same time he doesn't see the quality of post going down, long term lurkers (like myself), or credible posters getting tired of all the crap.

This board will move to venue. I don't doubt it.

Matt's gotten his traffic, but pretty soon, the traffic from this board goes away.

I agree with you 100%. You need to create an environment where inteligence and thought pay off. Where the good posts don't get lost in the noise.

Thanks for your great post.

Jeff
icon url

loophole73

05/23/03 12:58 PM

#27892 RE: Bill Dalglish #27822

Bill

Are you talking about your post about par.q that Jim refuted and you did not take the time to make a response.

loop