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.

Pastimes : SI Message Filtering - Pros and Cons -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SI Brad who wrote (23)	2/10/1998 7:14:00 PM
From: Michael Coley	Respond to of 263

RE: Moderated Threads? / Filtering Ideas. Brad, I think that there might be some potential for a moderated thread in some particular cases. The following questions come to mind, though: 1) Would it be individuals or specific messages that are excluded/included? Usenet moderated threads are message by message, but I can see some benefit of excluding/including at the individual level (as you suggested). 2) Is it fair to a paying member to be excluded from leaving his messages on a thread? That's the main reason for paying to join, from what I've seen. (You wouldn't believe how many messages I've seen saying "I've followed the thread forever, and signed up so I could say this.") 3) One of the benefits of SI is the real-time aspect. I can see a message that someone left two seconds ago. That could be hampered by the moderation process. I still like the idea of rating messages and allowing the reader to select a minimum rating (and whatever other filtering options) on a thread by thread basis. One thing that must be taken into consideration is that there are a multitude of ways that people use SI, and that even one person will use SI differently on different threads and at different times. It's hard to come up with a method that works well under each possible scenario. Whatever you do, make sure that you can enable it on a thread by thread basis, and do a good beta test on several different types of threads (busy threads, wild threads, slow threads, civil threads, etc.). - Michael Coley - wwol.com

To: SI Brad who wrote (23)	2/10/1998 8:39:00 PM
From: Zeuspaul	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 263

Moderated thread I like the idea of adding another dimension to SI. I would think that the number of moderated threads would be small compared to the "free for all" threads. The linked response at the bottom would be a good way to provide for responses from anyone wishing to augment or disagree. The response would not be controlled by the monitor. I would like to see all of the questions or comments directed at the moderator or the "selected" thread members. This way I would be able to see what he/she/they are filtering out. How about a "Club House" like list of questions directed to the monitor? Anyone could post to the "Club House" and everyone would be able to view the questions. The moderator would then pick and choose the questions to answer on the thread. Perhaps you could use the moderated thread as an incentive for people to join SI ( I would like to see you make some $) Let anyone view the "free for all" but the moderated threads would be viewed by members only. Just some thoughts to help stimulate some discussion. Regards Zeuspaul

To: SI Brad who wrote (23)	2/10/1998 11:43:00 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 263

Re: Moderated threads - a great idea if the industry is ready I'm not sure how many people here remember the heyday of Compuserve where no company was worth their salt unless they had their own forum there. It was also a great place to meet others in the business and share ideas. Truly one-stop shopping for the computer industry. With the spread of the world wide web, companies began dropping out of Compuserve and setting up their own web sites. Compuserve has recently modernized its forums and moved them to the web, but, alas, the sense of community is gone, maybe forever. SI has started on the other extreme; we have a great sense of community, but we lack an outlet for companies that would make SI one-stop shopping for the entire financial industry. Moderated threads would be perfect for such an endeavor. My thinking is simple: there exists information that is not important enough for a press release but too important to be left unsaid. For example, was the purchase in stock or in cash? Was that a paying contract or a free pilot? Exactly how much overhanging paper is there currently? Whereas the existing threads deal with opinion, the moderated threads would deal with facts-- convenient for all to see and reference. Logically, then, moderated threads should be maintained by an IR rep from a company. And they should pay for the privilege. Such a forum here on SI would not only give the company visibility, but it would establish good will and save them the time and expense of answering the same questions individually day after day on the phone and via e-mail. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, moderated threads would be a perfect place for investors to once and for all settle disputes. Too often on SI it is not the person with facts on their side who wins an argument, it is the one with the stamina to outlast the others. Whereas I can see it is almost impossible to toss someone off SI for a dissenting opinion (i.e. cries of free speech and all), I certainly think anyone who blatantly ignores facts to further an agenda, or to raise the ire of others, should be bounced to preserve the integrity of the thread. In other words, you can yell in a crowded theater, but you can't yell "fire" when there is none. - Jeff

To: SI Brad who wrote (23)	2/11/1998 7:01:00 PM
From: loafy loaf	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 263

To All I've read this thread and would like to suggest problems with almost all suggestions, and also end with the outline of another problem. Perhaps some will have some ideas? Someone suggested the thread should vote out members. Here are the problems with that. The majority is sometimes wrong. There are posters here who were knocking a woman on the Fonar thread. My reading of the thread has been that she was the victim. I find her posts valuable on that thread and elsewhere, too. I don't understand why SI doesn't remove the fellows who behave badly toward her and yet are blaming her for the problems. Yet if the majority voted on that thread, she might be voted out, even though I think they are wrong. What happens to justice and equal enforcement of rules? The fellows baiting her with dozens of notes are breaking the rules and yet she is the one who'd be booted off. Also, the constitution of a thread changes, since stockholders move in and out of stocks. She could be voted out by some of these fellows, who I think have been bullies, and then others who appreciate her comments on the stock would be unable to have the benefit of her point of view as they join the thread. A disliked member at one time may be favored at other times. Also, the people who are negative about a stock would always be voted out. And then there would be politicizing to get people to vote out some people and friends of a poster would be asked to come into a thread just to vote for or against a poster. It would be a real mess. The negative aspects to a kill key is that it distorts information. There would be dozens of notes saying to "ignore" someone, and people will end up having distorted conversations -- some responding to an ignored person will quote him and people then will read the information, anyway. Kill Key is okay, but it doesn't solve the problem, since I don't think a list should be circulated about who is ignored. It should be a private decision and not discussed endlessly on the threads. But if the Fonar thread is an example, people will constantly tell others to ignore someone. Raven, for example, posted repeatedly to press the "next" button when this woman posted. Who needs to read that? Everyone knows they can push the "next" button. She'd be doing the same thing with the "ignore" button. So I don't think the ignore button is a complete solution. Overall, I think the people should all try to get along and not respond repetitively in an unpleasant way to posters whom they find objectionable. Responding creates more of a problem than the original notes. With the Fonar thread as an example, if some don't like a person, why do they post hundreds of notes repeatedly saying so? They create the real problem with the thread. As for restricted threads, it's hard for me to see the value of them. I'm open if I can hear a value to them. Anyone? But right now a company can always post in the existing threads and many do participate. The company can end their notes by saying they aren't able to reply to questions, if that is the case, but are just providing information. A special thread for that is okay but not very exciting. There are currently several news threads and "libraries" and they work. Why does it have to be officially restricted? If the point of such threads is to keep out some members, it becomes potentially discriminatory. All members here should be able to equally participate in discussions and services. I don't like censored points of views, and don't see the reason for it. If someone is a constant pest, they should be removed from membership. The problem with a membership committee recommending action to SI, is that it's possible here that they might be involved in some way with the people under consideration. The idea sounds good at first blush, but if they have had dealings with the players, or their friends have, how can objectivity be insured? I do think objectivity and equal enforcement of the rules is a problem on SI. Does anyone have any ideas about how to approach this problem? There are rules of service that are not enforced. Disruptions of threads through notes designed for that should be reason for removal of membership. Continuing with the Fonar thread as the example I've seen, the fellows posting personal attacks and irrelevant notes to that woman should be "up" for removal -- not the woman being attacked. I'm wondering why can't the rules of service be more clearly defined and enforced by the management? Can you explain, Brad? LOAF