Replies to post #11274 on The Question and Answer Board (IHUB)

[Joemoney]

Matt: I vote 48 hours for stock related, and no limit for Stock Clubs.

Joemoney

[WillyWizard]

Matt how does it sound if you just leave moderators alone. As long as someone starts a thread they should be able to moderate that thread. You expect someone to live at IHUB. Some of us have other things in live that are more important then being at a thread we start daily reading posts to delete bad ones. Sometimes these threads are inactive for a long period of time. You aksed us to help bring members to IHUB so they could keep the threads clean from bashers then you invite bashers to post to show two sides to a stock. Big mistake IMO.

IHUB has changed it's mission IMO.

Thank you,

Willy


Disclaimer: http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=265276 This disclaimer is copied off my web site and should be read in conjunction with all my posting at IHUB.

[Bob Zumbrunnen]

I also vote 48 hours for all boards because it's easier from my (geek) point of view.

However, I've got the source code open right now for that routine and it wouldn't be very tough for me to handle it any way you want. Talk amongst yourselves and let me know.

If you decide 48 hours is the limit for stock boards and 96 or no limit or whatever for non-stock boards, I can accomplish either in a matter of minutes.

[The Original dpb5!]

Matt, I have to disagree.

Although many here are impassioned to view IH on a regular basis, no.......48 hours isn't even long enough.

Wasn't the original intent of IHUB to create a clean consistent view of a given stock?

Do we truly believe that newbies only "read back" 48 hours? We all know that THAT isn't true.

2 week 'control' barely allows for 'Chairmen of the Board' to WANT to be a Chairman of the Board.

Real Life seems to dictate a necessity of 3 to 4 week 'control'.

[NorthWesterner]

Matt, I think there is some use to a historical record on these boards. Haven't done it often here, but on other forums I'll go back and work back along a thread for what may be months. If some of those posts are deleted, it breaks the thread and you don't know what the sequence of thinking was. So I vote for the shorter, rather than longer, time limits, with you having the ability to dump any post that needs to be if something really wrong escaped the moderator's attention. (Any moderator who can't be on most days should get assistants.)

If some post becomes inaccurate by passage of time, it's always possible to go back and reply to it even six months or a year later. So it's not as though information will stay on the boards that can't ever be commented on or refuted.

In general, though, open history is better than revisionist history.



___________________________________________________
Funny thing, but it seems that the harder I work, the luckier I get.