How to IMPROVE EliteTrader!

[dbphoenix]

These ideas have been presented before in other threads. This is not to knock them, but merely to point out that Baron has already addressed all this. The most recent incarnation follows:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18988

It's nearly impossible to know ahead of time what is going to be simple and what is going to be difficult in terms of writing or re-writing code. What seems simple may be far too difficult to be worth doing.

Those who continue to bring up Ignore as a cure-all fail to understand that it doesn't work. But finding something that is both simple and effective remains a challenge. Seems to me that charging a small fee would help, but I'm sure there are reasons why Baron wants to avoid this since it's been suggested many times before.

 

[Wiener]

Quote from aphexcoil:



I believe Baron has mentioned in the past that, although this is a good idea in principle, it would take a basic rewrite of the software that runs this board to allow for that type of rating system.

However, Slashdot uses a system similar to this using "karma points."

The magnitude of the rewrite involved would depend on whether this board was developed largely from 'canned' software packages which tend to be more inflexible. But, yes this sort of change would be from the web GUI down to the database backend.

I'll have to take a look at the Slashdot forum to see how it works.

 

[NihabaAshi]

Quote from dbphoenix:

These ideas have been presented before in other threads. This is not to knock them, but merely to point out that Baron has already addressed all this. The most recent incarnation follows:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18988

It's nearly impossible to know ahead of time what is going to be simple and what is going to be difficult in terms of writing or re-writing code. What seems simple may be far too difficult to be worth doing.

Those who continue to bring up Ignore as a cure-all fail to understand that it doesn't work. But finding something that is both simple and effective remains a challenge. Seems to me that charging a small fee would help, but I'm sure there are reasons why Baron wants to avoid this since it's been suggested many times before.

Completely agree.

In fact...the IGNORE design is extremely inadequate.

This tells me that to rewrite to code is too much of a pain for Baron...

reason why when we put someone on ignore we can still see them starting threads and still see their names within threads although their message content doesn't appear.

A true ignore feature is one where you never see the message content nor the name...its as if the person never posted at all.

Yahoo does this and you see for example...post #345 then post #347...you would never even see #346 if that person was on ignore.

This has been mentioned by me a few times in the past and I'm sure it sounds simple to do but the fact is that it must require some sort'uv code rewrite or else Baron would have done it by now.

The fee charge doesn't stop the trouble makers from posting...it only helps prevent multiple user names by the same person.

Simply...as dbphoenix said...its all been mentioned before in the past.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19493&perpage=1&pagenumber=16

Baron does read the feedback and probably sits down and decides if its cost effective or worth doing it.

Yet...if he can figure out a way to do some of these suggestions...

moderators would have less work...there'll be less complaints about the noise at ET...

and maybe traders will lurk less and make ET even more active.

Maybe Baron can make another website...get a small test group (I'll volunteer) and test some of these features that continues to be repeated over and over and over and over again by different traders and new members.

In a month or so...someone else new here or not aware of these topics...

will raise the issue again.

I've basically given up and spend less time here at ET in comparison to what I really want to do (spend more time here) because I truly don't think the suggestions discussed in this particular thread will ever be implemented.

NihabaAshi

 

[dbphoenix]

Quote from NihabaAshi:

The fee charge doesn't stop the trouble makers from posting...it only helps prevent multiple user names by the same person.

True. Even SI has problems, though the number of disruptive posts is only a tiny fraction of the total. Initiating a charge is probably the most effective and certainly the easiest solution to implement. Would people leave? Looks like people are leaving already.

 

[candletrader]

I gotta agree with NihabaAshi about the use of a true ignore function... for every post which one person thinks is crap, there are probably others who think it is good.... the ONLY way to proceed is to give each member complete choice over what he reads through the option to completely ignore another user...

 

[Scientist]

Quote from candletrader:

I gotta agree with NihabaAshi about the use of a true ignore function... for every post which one person thinks is crap, there are probably others who think it is good.... the ONLY way to proceed is to give each member complete choice over what he reads through the option to completely ignore another user...

Thanks a lot for that my fellow brother. I said the same on page 1, and don't think that a per-post rating is good. Besides, too complicated.

However, my point was a per-user rating that shows which users are worth their salt and which aren't. I think being able to rate users and set your filters to filter low-rating users would be a great option.

I do understand that it would require enormous efforts in the direction of re-structuring and programming, but the question is whether the benefits would outweigh this.

Having 20,000 members competing for the best posts could make a pretty awesome community, having them compete for the most posts doesn't.

Again, a lot of very enlightening posts have been made on this thread, and it's great to hear different people's ideas.

It's a bit like a board meeting here... Just that the board is still missing!


Isn't Brainstorming a great thing???


Sincerely,
~The Scientist

 

[aphexcoil]

Quote from Scientist:


However, my point was a per-user rating that shows which users are worth their salt and which aren't. I think being able to rate users and set your filters to filter low-rating users would be a great option.

I do understand that it would require enormous efforts in the direction of re-structuring and programming, but the question is whether the benefits would outweigh this.

Having 20,000 members competing for the best posts could make a pretty awesome community, having them compete for the most posts doesn't.

It depends on how flexible the software is that is currently being used to run ET.

Off the top of my head, I would simply create a new table and allow each user to vote for another user once. Once that user has voted for a specific user, they cannot vote twice. The software could then scan that table and calculate the average rating for each user.

You could enhance it further with some calculations such that users who are ranked higher can place more weight on their vote for other users.

Obviously you wouldn't want a lot of users with 8 different aliases voting down someone they didn't like just for spite. That way, if each of those aliases were already voted a 1 by other users, their votes would be less significant.

Everyone has their own idea of a perfect system but I do think that there is a good common ground somewhere.

 

[dbphoenix]

Quote from Scientist:

However, my point was a per-user rating that shows which users are worth their salt and which aren't. I think being able to rate users and set your filters to filter low-rating users would be a great option.

Same problems as with Ignore. When someone who is "acceptable" quotes someone who is not, one winds up reading the "unacceptable" post anyway.

Using the "spike" thread as an example, you, for example, might be acceptable, and FPC might be unacceptable. Yet FPC's posts are included in your posts. Does one then put you on an "unacceptable" list because you can't resist responding to FPC?

If someone has a solution to this problem, I'm looking forward to reading it.

 

[stoplosst]

Maybe I'm missing something.If you put me on ignore what is there to stop me from just useing a different name the next time?Is there a way to filter e-mail add? If we paid a small fee, would that stop the jerks? I doubt it.

 

[Scientist]

Quote from stoploss:

Maybe I'm missing something.If you put me on ignore what is there to stop me from just useing a different name the next time?Is there a way to filter e-mail add? If we paid a small fee, would that stop the jerks? I doubt it.

Good point. Well if you take a different name next time, that's just sad. Some ppl are really just useless.

Paying a small fee would filter out a lot of jerks. Paying $5 or even $1 (ie PayPal) per month would clean up the community immensely and weed out the timewasters / not serious abou t the subject people. Any really good service charges something.
You have to pay for good things, cruel as it sounds.

However, this would most probably not work for EliteTrader, since chances are that most members here are actually inactive, and pay-for registration would reveal that only 1,000 or so subscribers would be active AND willing to pay the fee.
Remember: Most people are NOT serious and kick everything that is not 100% free. So ET would lose boatloads of advertising revenue since they can't show the stats, which would in turn send them broke. So yeah. There's probably not much point in the to-pay-for thing...

See how we go in the further replies...

~Scientist