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 - Welcome New SI Members! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SI Brad who wrote (1240)	5/2/1998 3:01:00 PM
From: Len	Respond to of 32887

Great ideas, Brad. Just a quick note to say that # 1 is the best. I've often thought that a quick way to respond to a post, privately, rather than take up the thread with something I know the others won't be interested in, would be a great feature. Thanks for SI Len

To: SI Brad who wrote (1240)	5/2/1998 3:44:00 PM
From: Tim Luke	Respond to of 32887

Hi Brad, You know I have been here a long time and I value SI very much. I think very most important thing that needs to be done is weeding out some of the posters who are trying to turn this into a Yahoo type forum. When I first came on in 96 it was a lot different and I hope it doesn't turn into a joke like Yahoo. Regards TL

To: SI Brad who wrote (1240)	5/2/1998 5:08:00 PM
From: David Lawrence	Respond to of 32887

Glad to hear there's a whiteboard working! >>1) make it universally easier to send a private message in direct response to a public message That has to be an option regardless of any others. The same as you have now, except put a Private Message shortcut in each public message, and an option in the Private Message editing window to automatically refer to the original public message if desired. I'm guessing that would be relatively easy to implement. >>2) allow the poster to append* a short response...* I see some problems with the append-after-the-fact options. Thread continuity is lost for those who don't go back to look for appends. The "View Replies to the Message" takes care of correcting, appending to and reviewing each sub-thread. >>3) allow the author to designate his/her message as "off-topic". Allow the reader to select an option to ignore these off-topic posts. An excellent idea, especially if the Reader had the option of toggling on a thread-by-thread basis via bookmarking. I might be able to start reading the Ascend thread again. If course, it's very dependent on the author to designate the off-topic nature when they submit. It will also be important that each thread sets out a charter that describes what is and/or is not on-topic. (as a side note, some old, active threads really need to have their charter cleaned up or updated). >>>4) create a special class of forums (perhaps moderated by members) that explicitly state that no off-topic discussion or "thank you" one-liners will be permitted. Moderated forums. I'll reserve comment on that one for now.

To: SI Brad who wrote (1240)	5/2/1998 8:15:00 PM
From: Christopher Reed	Respond to of 32887

re: White board. I read ahead (using the neet read replies feature) and Dave Lawerence had the same comments I do. He can say it much better than I can. The appending a short answer to a post could be workable if the modified post could be "hooked" into the new, not read messages in the bookmarks. I don't know how to handle threads that are read with out bookmarks. The Idea to mark an off topic post and then provide a " next - on topic" link and a " next " link might be a good idea. The concept of an off-topic post leads me to wonder why one posts a an off-topic post. some-times they are funny some times rude, some times just unrelated and should be on another topic. A way to change a response into a private message is a great idea. there are a few times I have started to respond to the main thread and decided that the post should be private. ( flames come to mind ) If I could post a private note I could tell the original poster my views on his post and not bore the topic's readers. A moderated board requires some thought. On usenet a post to a moderated board requires preapproval of a post before it is posted on the net. A moderator usually looks at the pending posts once or twice a day to approve posts. If the moderator takes a day off then the board is stalled. Also, the moderator has censor power -- with all that implies. ( Brad I am sure that you know you cant selectivly censor our messages with-out losing your common-carrier status and you could loose all of your hard earned money. A bigger problem now than before.<g>) Thats enough for now. Cheers.. Chris.

To: SI Brad who wrote (1240)	5/2/1998 9:51:00 PM
From: Zeuspaul	Respond to of 32887

White Paper Topics 1) make it universally easier to send a private message in direct response to a public message Perhaps it is a good idea to put the option in the post. (It only saves one click) A note of concern. Many posters who are somewhat timid will opt for the private message in lieu of the public post. In my case about 20 percent +/- of the personal messages would have been better posted to the thread. I prefer answering questions in a public forum as it is subject to scrutiny. Also some of the posters on the high end of the People Mark may get more messages than they can handle. 2) allow the poster to append a short response (e.g. less than 80 characters) to a message, rather than creating an entirely new post. An example of this would be "when are earnings?" Someone simply appends "April 15th". The original author could also use the append technique to later post a correction/clarification. David has a good point as it relates to thread continuity. However it is too good an idea not to find a workable solution. The ability to correct an error is worth the effort. Perhaps in addition to the read only on topic posts option there could be an option to read or not read the appends. In standard reading mode we would read the appends as ordinary posts. When playing catch up on a thread we would opt to read the appends only in the post to which they are intended. I believe it would be important to restrict the append size as you indicate to 80 characters +/- or less. 3) allow the author to designate his/her message as "off-topic". Allow the reader to select an option to ignore these off-topic posts. The only downside I can see is that it will increase off topic posts. 4) create a special class of forums (perhaps moderated by members) that explicitly state that no off-topic discussion or "thank you" one-liners will be permitted. I would probably not read or participate in such a forum. I prefer the free flow of ideas. The thank you posts could be addressed in a different way. Some type of direction form SI management in the form of posting preferences might work. Simply ask us not to generate a post saying thank you or to direct such posts to a Personal Message. Zeuspaul

To: SI Brad who wrote (1240)	5/3/1998 1:41:00 AM
From: peter michaelson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32887

Brad: Thanks for the considered reply. I won't press the point beyond this post, but... Is your strong belief in the unpleasant "side-effect" of bulk reading substantiated by some particular experiences or examples? Two more questions.... 1. Would you care to experiment on a test basis with a bulk reading? Give us a week and check back? 2. Even with the one-liners, don't you think it would still be much more efficient than today's experience? Thanks, Peter Michaelson

To: SI Brad who wrote (1240)	5/3/1998 10:14:00 AM
From: peter michaelson	Respond to of 32887

Ok, I lied. I have one more idea. How about I pay you $5 per month, for example, for the privilege of bulk reading? Your board would like it, n'est-ce pas. Some customers would like it, I know. Ok, I promise to drop the subject now. Thanks, Peter

To: SI Brad who wrote (1240)	5/3/1998 11:45:00 AM
From: Michelino	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32887

Brad, with all due respect, I strongly disagree with this statement: "I strongly believe that a side-effect of creating a "bulk" reading experience is that contributors will be less fearful/mindful of annoying others with one-line comments or off-topic discussion ("why don't you just skip over it" will be the response to a complaint)." I believe that a simple concept (ie: an option to read more than one message at a time) is being needlessly complicated and tainted in a desire for behavioral modification. The paradigm I've used for the View next xx messages option is the View xx replies feature that already exists! Do you have evidence that the current ability to read multiple replies somehow inspires trivial responses? If so, are you planning to remove the feature? I really don't follow the logic; Why would creators of off-topic posts assume that an optional reading feature is a newly minted blank check to post more nonsense? However, I can understand how the feature might be viewed as a questionable business decision...If the many members who read every message in a thread were to adopt bulk reading, it might substantially reduce the number of page hits that the site is able to report. (For example, by increasing the size of a typical page tenfold, wouldn't this decrease the number of page hits across SI by a factor of ten?) Could this be a consideration in your current thinking? Perhaps you should throw an ad or two on bulk pages to compensate. (Of course purists, that believe the site must remain ad-free for members, would be warned off from using the option) I must add that SI has been designed with a clean and effective navigational scheme. The elegant simplicity of this site is part of its charm and it just might be a major reason for your success. A bulk reading feature would seem to be a natural enhancement to the interface. Regards, Michael

To: SI Brad who wrote (1240)	5/3/1998 12:29:00 PM
From: username	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32887

*OT* In case you missed this, Brad; the contest: (and you can click for the standings) Message 4270148 and the final results: members.tripod.com

To: SI Brad who wrote (1240)	5/4/1998 8:34:00 PM
From: Urlman	Respond to of 32887

How about the option for anyone to "RATE" a posted message... Perhaps a rating of 1-10 or Poor To Excellent... and then an option to read a posts rated "Good" to "Excellent" on any particular thread It would make it alot easier to find those great posts out there... Just a thought.... Urlman

To: SI Brad who wrote (1240)	5/5/1998 1:19:00 PM
From: Michelino	Respond to of 32887

Brad, Have you considered combining items 3 and 4 from your list? 3) allow the author to designate his/her message as "off-topic". ... 4) create a special class of forums (perhaps moderated by members)... You might permit the author(s) of a thread to create a moderated track. The moderator would designate the posts that join the track (which would be a subset of all posts in the thread). The reader could choose to follow the moderated version of a thread or see all posts regardlessly of editorial decisions. Separate bookmarks would point to the moderated and unmoderated versions of the same thread. Choosing responsible moderators is a task unto itself. Perhaps moderator status could be voted on by thread followers...or you may even allow more than one moderated track on the same thread...ie: 'dueling moderators tracks' Regards, Michael

To: SI Brad who wrote (1240)	5/5/1998 2:19:00 PM
From: Nazbuster	Respond to of 32887

Brad, I think the "Off Topic" option is a good idea. A simple checkbox on the data entry screen would do. If checked, just display a noteworthy OFFTOPIC banner in the message. While you're at it, how about invoking the "Private Message" function the same way: a checkbox in the entry screen. That way, if we conclude our message is not appropriate for general viewing, we can check the checkbox and it will become private to the original poster.

To: SI Brad who wrote (1240)	5/6/1998 8:55:00 PM
From: Spots	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32887

Yeh, Brad, here's my contribution to the flurry: It's all very well to try to change human nature to promote better and more thoughtful responses. Now, if we're back to earth, that ain't gonna work in the first place, AND, more important, it can't work even if it works. This contradictory statement reflects the fact that what's important to me is trivial to others. There are many reasons to read a thread, and we each have our own priorities. So no matter how thoughtful the posts, I will be interested in subset x, you will be interested in y, and someone else will be interested in z, and so on and ao on. This is ASSUMING (as we know is not true) that all posts are worth reading. In short, BZZZZZRRRRUUUUPPPPP. Wrong answer. Try again. Spots