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 (3089)	10/28/1998 5:54:00 PM
From: RumKola	Respond to of 32871

Apologies certainly accepted here. In spite on the glitch, you guys and gals are still way above MSN in terms of reliablity. Keep up the good work! JDP

To: SI Brad who wrote (3089)	10/28/1998 11:32:00 PM
From: Gary Korn	Respond to of 32871

Brad, FYI, I'm finally resolving a problem with access to SI that I thought had been SI's problem. Others may want to make note of this issue because I'm guessing that it can crop up with other providers as well. I'm on a T1 through a provider that has its own internet backbone. I selected this provider to avoid going through several tiers until I hit the backbone. Notwithstanding, I constantly run into time-outs and lengthy delays in trying to access SI. I assumed it was SI given the fact that I was running a T1. It appears not. When the same problem surfaced with other sites, we did some checking. It appears that a lot of sites (e.g., SI) do not "publish" to the backbone owned by my provider, i.e., the T1s, T3s, etc. of these sites are hooked directly to some other backbone owners, such as UUNET, Sprintlink, MCINet, BBNNET. So, when I go to my provider's backbone, it has to hand me off to a backbone to which SI publishes. E.g. Sprintlink. Effectively, my Tier 1 provider becomes a Tier 2 provider. Moreover, asynchronous transfer problems develop, as my provider can jump to Sprintlink at a number of "peering" points. The consequence of this is that I go to SI via route A, but return from SI via an entirely different route B. That causes real problems. Interestingly enough, when my problems are worst through my T1 line, I can use a 28.8 dial-up modem and hit SI within a second. Totally different response. Why? Because, I think, I'm entering Sprintlink at 1 constant point, and returning back to me at that one constant point. No asynchronous transfer problem. Anyway, plans are already afoot to rectify the problem (I hope) by Friday. We'll do so my switching to a provider that doesn't purport to have its own alternate backbone, rather, it hooks up via DS3 (45Meg line) direct to Sprintlink. (I checked...of that 45Meg, the provider uses on average only 12 Meg, and I've not yet seen a peak that hit the 45 Meg limit). My hope is that this will solve the problem of trying to enter Sprintlink at multiple peering points. Time will tell. Gary Korn

To: SI Brad who wrote (3089)	10/29/1998 3:47:00 AM
From: Intrepid1	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 32871

Hello Brad,[Re - Privacy Issue] If S.I. gets served with a subpoena from the S.E.C. requesting a poster's true identity, does it comply? Please refer to comments attributed to Jill here: #reply-6202062 thanks in advance purething

To: SI Brad who wrote (3089)	10/29/1998 11:28:00 AM
From: pae	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32871

I've seen outsiders/interlopers come in and roil ordinarily valuable threads time and time again. I've been thinking about how to technologically finesse the problem without resorting to name-calling, ridicule etc which further roil a thread or without resorting to complaining to management, which feels a great deal like "telling mommy." Perhaps give any member for more than 6 months the ability to cast up to 4 votes per month for censure, perhaps as an option on the response screen. If 10 persons vote to censure you, you are unable to post for a month. Or perhaps just thread specific - accumulate 10 censures on 1 thread: no posts to that thread for a month. Get banned from 3 threads - no posts for 90 days anywhere. SI probably already has something like this worked out - but managed by "mommy" rather than SI at large. Why not automate/popularize it? (Uh, nothing negative toward Jill or any other SI or Go2net employee is implied by the use of "mommy." Just trying to capture the feeling of having to take it up the chain rather than settle it amoungst ourselves.) Yes, I am concerned that "censorship" might reduce the diversity of discussion. Bears are generally unwelcome on bullish threads and vica versa. But there is a difference between a contrary opinion and a blatant attempt to pump/hype a stock on threads explicitly originated to exclude such activity. A recent example can be seen on "#the final frontier" - some nut never before seen on the thread spammed there and all over SI. #TFF roiled itself in noise, and likely the same occurred elsewhere. If members had the ability to vote down such garbage - that noisy energy would be spent with members quickly shutting up the offender, and the thread returning to normal. If this is technically feasible, it could be initiated on a trial basis. If too many persons were censured, the threshold for censure could be raised - if too few, the threshold could be lowered. If people were too free with their votes for censure, perhaps only 1 censure vote per month would be better. Or perhaps issue all members 10 votes at their 6 month anniversary and review the actions of those who use up their negative energy very quickly. Just an idea. I've tried to balance the clear need to throw bums out while trying to avoid a tendency to suppress legitimate disagreement and heated discussion by proposing an added dynamic to give some relatively gentle teeth to negative feedback. Any thoughts anyone? pae

To: SI Brad who wrote (3089)	10/29/1998 3:50:00 PM
From: wonk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32871

Brad: Is there any reason why a trial member would not show up on an alias search? Thank you. ww

To: SI Brad who wrote (3089)	10/30/1998 1:10:00 PM
From: SofaSpud	Respond to of 32871

Brad, First, kudos for the great job you guys do. I've emailed the same comments to Jill in the past -- didn't know this thread was here. It's a very different site from what it was a couple of years ago. BTW -- Jill, congrats on the change. It was a pleasure to deal with you as webmistress. Now for the question, and apologies in advance if this isn't the appropriate forum. About six months ago SI switched quote servers/providers for the portfolio function. During the switchover there were temporary problems with "weird" Canadian tickers -- stuff like t.xxx.a. That was fixed fairly quickly. But another class of tickers that never came back were the trust or partnership units -- t.xxx.un. At least some of those (e.g. T.ALB.UN) were recognized by your old quote provider, but aren't any more. Any hope of getting them back?