Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

SI - Site Forums : Silicon Investor - Legacy Interface Discussion (2004-2011) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (2794)	12/4/2004 10:31:16 PM
From: Tom C	Respond to of 6035

I think its arbitrariness to insist on consistency on how threads are named. Thread naming has always not been under the control of SI. Of course they can change or remove something that's a problem. and thus something you either monitor like a hawk for consistency or just leave alone I'm a programmer so by definition, if I can leave it alone, I'm going to. As they say "If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it's broke, don't break everything else when fixing it." In my view there’s a problem which I don't know about. To solve the problem one solution is to have a separate symbol field for each thread. That solves the problem (guessing). Displaying this symbol field causes a new problem with the thread names since it will often be redundant. Many threads already contain the symbol in their name. Maybe the problem isn't the thread headers but the solution to the other problem? Why does the new symbol field have to be displayed? Couldn't it be displayed in such way that it's not pre-pended to the existing title? I'm just having some fun with this, don't think I’m worked up about it.