Replies to post #120032 on The Question and Answer Board (IHUB)

[Billybob_TX]

Phil, everything you put forth is your opinion. I would like to know in what logical sense is the topic of boardmarks is an off topic post.

"but in reality they don't mean anything" well, as I said before, why then do they even exist if not as a numerical indicator of something, and with no "topical" ability to measure a numerical indicator over time why does it exist on every frigging board?

[downsideup]

"in reality they don't mean anything in regards to investor sentiment."

The only way that statement can be true is if "they" refers only to the specific instances mentioned, and not to the aggregate.

The logic is that of definition. A board with zero marks is by definition not popular. A board with a bazillion marks is by definition popular. The indicator of popularity isn't stock specific... obviously, but only, since some popular boards are not stock specific boards.

The claim that a stock specific board "might" be popular for any number of reasons that have to do with something OTHER than the aggregate of interest in the stock, is a logical distractor. It says, "see the trees and not the forest" in arguing against there being any value in awareness of metrics you might apply in better understanding forest ecology.

"Nothing to see here, move along"... or an indication of interest in something that matters... ??? It seems the argument that stock specific board metrics don't matter... can only be a back handed suggestion that the TOS don't really work to keep the conversations properly focused ? I'd agree the metrics don't matter if the conversation on a board isn't relevant to the topic, but couldn't agree that the metrics don't matter if it is ?

If Ihub uses the metric as an element in how they rank order boards... meaning the metric is associated with site management tied to utility and thus to revenue... as seen with those listed under the "Hot!" tab... ??? The level of interest is used as a tool to make the site more useful... but shouldn't be seen as useful otherwise ?

It does suggest that there might be a lot of additional potential value in new pairings with unused potential metrics of sentiment that are going untapped. I'd include that if you think there isn't any value in the metrics that ARE used to determine "good places to look" now... that means only that you still need to find ways to generate them ?

What happens if you allow posters to vote on the quality of DD a particular board contains, in the I-Box, or to rank the quality of the conversation... how well the moderators maintain an even hand, how they declare or tilt. Would "democracy" solve the problem, or exacerbate it, without any ability to qualify the voters ? There are tools that would allow text analysis to determine the grade level of the conversation... and would you rather look at boards with content written at a third grade level, or those with something more ? Popularity might be a negative indicator, too, which still doesn't mean it is meaningless ?

Some of those sorts of tools are available on others sites. Yahoo's sentiment indicators are... useless. The CAPS ratings on Motley Fool seem to have value... as does their tracking of others results... which here is all left up to you, to figure out what to value and what not.

Generally, I think there will be more value in having more information available, and in making better and more useful information available... also as that is directly tied to revenue from perception of value...

Calling attention to change in a metric... has to be relevant? Unless the metric is not relevant... but THAT issue of relative relevance to an investors use of metric, is a decision to be made by investors themselves, inside the TOS... while awareness of popularity is not something you want being determined by any influence from management ???

The only use of marks I see that could be "off topic", as a matter of logic, is to discuss the number of marks one board has, on the board of another stock.