Suggestion - posts in Chit Chat won't count

[50 cent]

Baron;

Many times when we read posts, we tend to add more value to opinions of veteran posters (since that would suggest they are veteran traders???? maybe....)

Anyway, many times we judge who is a veteran poster by the number of posts he made.

Apparently, it seems like there are many posters on Elite who have 2000 posts or more, 1500 of which are in Chit Chat, blabbermouthing about their atkins diet or about how they hate G.W. Bush or similar issues. These posts are included in their post count, and create a very deceiving effect.

In accordance with the recent changes in the website that are geared to promote its credibility, I think it would be a good idea that posts made in the Chit Chat forum won't be included in the poster's post count. Furthermore, perhaps even this feature can be implemented retroactively on past posts as well, i.e., the number of posts of each poster will be reduced, as his past posts in Chat Chat won't be included in the post count anymore.

Thanks for a consideration of this idea!
50 Cent

 

[EricP]

I agree.

You can see the same type of worthless posts in other topics, as well. Many useless posts are as short as "Screw you, butthead" or some other worthless content in the trading or other forum.

To better sort out the worthless versus valued contributors, and help newbie readers determine who has 'earned' the right to be respected and appreciated, a new ratings system could be created based on fellow ET member feedback. Similar to something on Amazon's website, each post could have a feedback box, where the reader could answer the question "Was this post informational or helpful to you?" The overall ranking of each poster could be based on the average feedback from these posts, and possibly include a component based upon how many fellow members have decided to 'ignore' them.

Over time, the current 'rankings' based on number of posts could be phased out entirely and replaced with this new 'ranking' based upon how useful the member is to the purpose of shared information within the ET community. This would encourage many posters to make extra effort to ensure that their posts are clear and useful to their fellow members, improving the quality of the site as a whole. It would also help to discourage some of the petty bickering that goes on, since this would lead to the decline in the members rating due to the bad feedback from their fellow members.

I realize that this might be a lot of work, and possibly not worth the effort. However, I think that this would definitely be a change that would lead to better quality content on the site, and greater value to all involved.

-Eric

Quote from 50 cent:

Baron;

Many times when we read posts, we tend to add more value to opinions of veteran posters (since that would suggest they are veteran traders???? maybe....)

Anyway, many times we judge who is a veteran poster by the number of posts he made.

Apparently, it seems like there are many posters on Elite who have 2000 posts or more, 1500 of which are in Chit Chat, blabbermouthing about their atkins diet or about how they hate G.W. Bush or similar issues. These posts are included in their post count, and create a very deceiving effect.

In accordance with the recent changes in the website that are geared to promote its credibility, I think it would be a good idea that posts made in the Chit Chat forum won't be included in the poster's post count. Furthermore, perhaps even this feature can be implemented retroactively on past posts as well, i.e., the number of posts of each poster will be reduced, as his past posts in Chat Chat won't be included in the post count anymore.

Thanks for a consideration of this idea!
50 Cent

 

[dbphoenix]

There are so many better things that Baron could do with his time.

Depending on rankings or ratings or whatever to determine whether or not a post or poster has value is ludicrous, typical of the common inability to decide for oneself whether or not something is applicable or is worthwhile.

As for being a "veteran poster", what on earth does that mean, other than somebody who's been around for a long time and doesn't have a life, at least from 9 to 4?

I suggest getting rid of the counts altogether. As it is, someone with a short count is automatically assumed by many members to be an alias or a spammer before the post is even read. I see no point to these counts, particularly now that that stupid list is gone.

Believe it or not, it is possible for a new member to make an intelligent and useful post. But having a low post count and a low ranking unnecessarily pushes a lot of buttons.

 

[50 cent]

Quote from dbphoenix:

Depending on rankings or ratings or whatever to determine whether or not a post or poster has value is ludicrous, typical of the common inability to decide for oneself whether or not something is applicable or is worthwhile.

I do agree with that.

However, let Baron himself consider my idea of removing ChitChat posts from the post count, and decide for himself whether it will make Elite a more credible website or not, and whether implementing the feature is worth his effort or not.

 

[dbphoenix]

Quote from 50 cent:

I do agree with that.

However, let Baron himself consider my idea of removing ChitChat posts from the post count, and decide for himself whether it will make Elite a more credible website or not, and whether implementing the feature is worth his effort or not.

Actually, the idea has been floated for more than a year, if not longer. If it could be done, I imagine it would be. Ditto for the idea of peer ratings.

If a thousand people believe in a stupid thing, it's still a stupid thing. Recommending nonsense doesn't change the fact that it's nonsense. Members are just going to have to decide for themselves whether or not a post has value and whether or not the poster knows what he's talking about. Baron finally made some of the suggested improvements to Ignore. Just use it.

 

[50 cent]

Many people here are total newbies, and therefore lack the ability to properly judge the content of a post. They therefore may prefer to follow the advice of a veteran poster (assuming he is a veteran trader, any many are - including you). Considering their situation of newbieness, that is a legitimate resort. Far from perfect, but still a legitimate resort. The removal of Chit Chat posts from the post count will be handy in filtering out imposters and slackers.

 

[EricP]

Quote from dbphoenix:

There are so many better things that Baron could do with his time.

I think that is for Baron to decide, isn't it?

Quote from dbphoenix:

Depending on rankings or ratings or whatever to determine whether or not a post or poster has value is ludicrous, typical of the common inability to decide for oneself whether or not something is applicable or is worthwhile.

As with anyone else, active trader can be limited in their available time and may not always have the time (or inclination) to personally sort out and make a judgment on the likely quality posts versus the complete b.s. posts. I have been around ET long enough that I have a good idea of which posters have a clue about trading, and which ones talk a good story until you find out that they have never trading (but do well at paper trading, lol).

I think your assumption that depending on the feedback of others is "ludicrous" was perhaps written with insufficient thought. Consumer Reports magazine makes a business of the disemination of useful feedback to the masses. The entire purpose of this ET community is to share ideas and feedback with others. People start ET journals with the purpose of getting feedback from others. I can't see any reason why we can't benefit from the feedback of others to get a quick assessment if a particular poster is an especially knowledgeable asset to the community or simply a bs'er who writes well but is clueless about trading.

Quote from dbphoenix:

I suggest getting rid of the counts altogether. As it is, someone with a short count is automatically assumed by many members to be an alias or a spammer before the post is even read. I see no point to these counts, particularly now that that stupid list is gone.

I'm not against getting rid of the counts altogether, although I do think it can serve as good input to detect spams. A low post count in and of itself does not indicate spam, but certainly spams are heavily weighted towards those with low post counts. Without the post counts, we could still use the "member since" date to get some indication as to whether it may be a potential spammer.

Quote from dbphoenix:

Believe it or not, it is possible for a new member to make an intelligent and useful post. But having a low post count and a low ranking unnecessarily pushes a lot of buttons.

Agreed.

-Eric

 

[dbphoenix]

Quote from EricP:

I think your assumption that depending on the feedback of others is "ludicrous" was perhaps written with insufficient thought. Consumer Reports magazine makes a business of the disemination of useful feedback to the masses.

I assure you the thought was sufficient. As for CR, evaluating a mixer is not quite the same thing as evaluating the quality of thought, assuming that thought is present to begin with.

 

[dbphoenix]

Quote from 50 cent:

Many people here are total newbies, and therefore lack the ability to properly judge the content of a post.

Only if they are unable to judge reality.

As I said, a stupid post that receives piles of recommendations is still a stupid post.

 

[EricP]

Quote from dbphoenix:

As for CR, evaluating a mixer is not quite the same thing as evaluating the quality of thought, assuming that thought is present to begin with.

Certainly there are differences. However, the value of peer review recommendations for both are equally well founded. Would you suggest that the Nobel Prize is also a worthless judge of merit, and that the thought from economics and physics professors at every local community college should carry equal weight as with the thoughts of Nobel Prize winners? Certainly not.

People interested in these fields simply don't have time to research every piece of writing from every person remotely interested in their particular field. In order to get 70% of the benefit from only 5% of the time, people will instead seek out the views of those respected in their fields. This is not to say that the most brilliant economics mind in the world may not currently be teaching at a community college, waiting to be 'discovered'.

What I am saying is that the peer review process would be a great enhancement to this site, helping busy readers to know which posters might warrant special consideration due to their respect among their peers here on ET. We can certainly agree to disagree on this suggestion, and I'll let you have the last word on this with your reply, if any.

-Eric