# New 100 character minimum rule in stock threads



## Joe Blow

As some of you may have noticed there is now a 100 character minimum post length in stock threads. This was introduced to stop the rash of worthless posts such as "Is anybody still following?" or "Go XXX!!!" or "43c now!" that we have been noticing a lot of in recent times. This requirement only exists in the three stock forums. The other forums still have a three character minimum.

The mods and I don't think a post length of one hundred characters, which is about 10-15 words, is asking too much. If you don't have a post of at least that length to add, perhaps you should think about it a little more until you do. Alternatively, if you cannot think up a post of that length, maybe its best not to post in that thread.

Those who pad out their posts with meaningless rubbish including ".................................................." will have those posts removed.

Through this policy we are trying to encourage people to contribute real content to stock threads and get rid of short posts that add no value. We hope you will respect our intentions and construct your posts accordingly.

I understand that those posting charts may find this a little difficult to get used to, especially those who include commentary on the chart itself. In this case, I would just include some general commentary abut the chart type, time frame or the stock in question.

Thank you for your co-operation.


----------



## GreatPig

Does not a picture count as a thousand words? 

And more seriously, does it include quote back? Very easy to meet 100 characters when you quote back someone else's 100 characters first.

Cheers,
GP


----------



## Joe Blow

GreatPig said:


> Does not a picture count as a thousand words?
> 
> And more seriously, does it include quote back? Very easy to meet 100 characters when you quote back someone else's 100 characters first.
> 
> Cheers,
> GP




Hi GP,

No, it doesn't include quoted text. The 100 characters must be new material.

I agree that a picture is worth a thousand words. But unfortunately because this system cannot distinguish between those posting charts and those who don't, we are hoping that it can also be worth 1015 words.


----------



## Joe Blow

I would also like to add that the introduction of this rule was a last resort for the mods and I.

We have been finding that too much of our time has been spent removing short posts (such as the ones quoted above) that add no value to the stock threads they are posted in.

We understand that this may take a little getting used to but we feel the stock threads will be more useful as a result. Time will tell as always but we ask that people persist with this new system and add more content to their posts in stock threads.


----------



## 2020hindsight

I suppose if a post only makes it to 90 bludy characters, you can throw in a bludy adjective or two 

the above makes 79 characters 
(or 100 characters including spaces - which no doubt don't count)

If you cut and paste a draft into Word, then (highlight area), go to tools> word count  > character count . 




> "BTW this one meets 100  :- I suppose if a post only makes it to 90 bludy characters , yuo can throw in a bludy adjective or two”




To summarise, it looks like you qualify for 100 characters if you make more than one line of text .




> when the sh*t hits the fan (21 characters)
> 
> when the bovine excreta hits the rotating air movement device centrally located in the centre of the room, the resulting scatter of material will not be evenly distributed  (145 characters)



so much for K.I.S.S


----------



## macca

Sounds reasonable to me as it can be annoying when we get the rampers constructing brick by brick.

It does slow down the loading process and they add zero to the thread.


----------



## resourceboom

I think 100 characters is around 20 words, and might be a little annoying, but thats cool.


----------



## Joe Blow

Those trying to get around this new rule by padding out their posts with nonsense are annoying the mods and I. In fact, it is making us downright cranky!

This rule *ONLY* applies to the three stock forums... and, as one of the mods was kind enough to point out:



> You may not realise just how little 100 characters is. In fact, this post is exactly 100 characters.




When you actually sit down and look at it, 100 characters isn't much. It is a very small amount of text. As a minimum post length in stock threads it is quite modest and I don't believe it is expecting too much of people to require them to make their posts 100 characters or more in length. 

A tip: If you are just saying thanks to someone or acknowledging someone's post in some way please send them a quick PM instead. 

Another tip: If you are just asking a question, ask two questions or alternatively elaborate on the first question a little.

To those abiding by this new rule, a very sincere thanks from the moderators and I. We have noticed a significant improvement already in the quality of postings in stock threads and have no intention of relaxing this rule in any way.


----------



## The Mint Man

what if you just want to quickly post an ann? 
I usually quote (as thats what Im doing, quoting it!) these but because of these new rules I cant do that anymore.
yes I usually chat about it... but sometimes someone (usually a mod) will request the ann to back up something previously said. In this case should I just add the ann without quoting it?.... or add 100 characters of rubish to pass the test?


----------



## Joe Blow

The Mint Man said:


> what if you just want to quickly post an ann?
> I usually quote (as thats what Im doing, quoting it!) these but because of these new rules I cant do that anymore.
> yes I usually chat about it... but sometimes someone (usually a mod) will request the ann to back up something previously said. In this case should I just add the ann without quoting it?.... or add 100 characters of rubish to pass the test?




All I can suggest is that if you really don't have time to add a brief commentary just don't use the quote tags when quoting the announcement. I can always come along and add them later.

Or maybe just describe the announcement in words first (e.g. "BHP Billiton just released an announcement regarding their securing an interest in a Guinean bauxite project. Here is the text:") or something similar.


----------



## The Mint Man

Joe Blow said:


> All I can suggest is that if you really don't have time to add a brief commentary just don't use the quote tags when quoting the announcement. I can always come along and add them later.
> 
> Or maybe just describe the announcement in words first (e.g. "BHP Billiton just released an announcement regarding their securing an interest in a Guinean bauxite project. Here is the text:") or something similar.




Cool, thats fine.
just that someone posted something about BDG the other day and kennas asked for something to back it up so I quoted some of the Ann, in this case I didnt really want to write about it... I was simply helping out as the person may have been off line at the time or might not know how to quote.


----------



## Happy

The Mint Man said:


> Cool, thats fine.
> just that someone posted something about BDG the other day and kennas asked for something to back it up so I quoted some of the Ann, in this case I didnt really want to write about it... I was simply helping out as the person may have been off line at the time or might not know how to quote.




All hoops are blind and genuine posters are disadvantaged with unnecessary burden.

Joe, 
Is it possible, (like you've done with your moderators, that you trust them and allow them to act in your name), to create class of 'trusted posters' or 'waluable posters' who will have privelages not available to the rest of flock?


----------



## Joe Blow

Happy said:


> All hoops are blind and genuine posters are disadvantaged with unnecessary burden.




Happy, 100 character minimum post length in stock threads is not an unnecessary burden.



> Joe,
> Is it possible, (like you've done with your moderators, that you trust them and allow them to act in your name), to create class of 'trusted posters' or 'waluable posters' who will have privelages not available to the rest of flock?




In the future I can see a time when those with less than 50 or 100 posts have their posts go into a moderation queue instead of going directly onto the forums to try and weed out the spammers and the rampers from the established posters. If that is what you mean, then I would say it is more than likely.

The bottom line is the bigger ASF gets the more rampers and troublemakers we seem to get. This rule is an attempt at maintaining posting standards in spite of the relentless onslaught of ramps, spam and meaningless posts. I don't apologise for the policy nor do I plan to change it. For those who wish to see more posts along the lines of "GO XYZ!" "This stock will rocket tomorrow!" or "34 cents now!!!" you may have to visit another forum to get your fill.

Happy, maintaining standards is hard, but I will not shrink from the responsibility. I refuse to let the rampers and the spammers take over this forum as much as they would like me to give in. Wherever there is someone trying to uphold standards there are always others doing whatever they can to try and tear them down. This forum is no exception. I wouldn't have brought this rule in if it wasn't required. Unfortunately it is.

ASF is not about the quantity of posts but the quality. And that's the way its going to stay.


----------



## Pommiegranite

Joe Blow said:


> As some of you may have noticed there is now a 100 character minimum post length in stock threads. This was introduced to stop the rash of worthless posts such as "Is anybody still following?" or "Go XXX!!!" or "43c now!" that we have been noticing a lot of in recent times. This requirement only exists in the three stock forums. The other forums still have a three character minimum.
> 
> The mods and I don't think a post length of one hundred characters, which is about 10-15 words, is asking too much. If you don't have a post of at least that length to add, perhaps you should think about it a little more until you do. Alternatively, if you cannot think up a post of that length, maybe its best not to post in that thread.
> 
> Those who pad out their posts with meaningless rubbish including ".................................................." will have those posts removed.
> 
> Through this policy we are trying to encourage people to contribute real content to stock threads and get rid of short posts that add no value. We hope you will respect our intentions and construct your posts accordingly.
> 
> I understand that those posting charts may find this a little difficult to get used to, especially those who include commentary on the chart itself. In this case, I would just include some general commentary abut the chart type, time frame or the stock in question.
> 
> Thank you for your co-operation.




JB,

Great idea!! I used to visit CotHopper but got so annoyed trawling through crap, and their navigation is awful.

Anyways..do you have any plans to introduce subforums *per stock *to make it easier to post questions and search for info relating to a stock, rather than just adding onto the end of one longggg thread ?


----------



## Joe Blow

Pommiegranite said:


> JB,
> 
> Great idea!! I used to visit CotHopper but got so annoyed trawling through crap, and their navigation is awful.
> 
> Anyways..do you have any plans to introduce subforums *per stock *to make it easier to post questions and search for info relating to a stock, rather than just adding onto the end of one longggg thread ?




Hi PG,

Thanks for you feedback!

I'm not quite sure what you mean by introducing sub-forums per stock. We do  have a dedicated thread for each stock. Unfortunately with some stocks these threads do end up being fairly long. However, keep in mind you can have stock threads start with the oldest or the most recent post.

If you meant something completely different please let me know. I may have misunderstood what you said.


----------



## constable

Frustrating if your posting is concise! (33words)
But eliminates the wow oh my gosh good for you crap!


----------



## purple

Joe Blow said:


> introducing sub-forums per stock.




I think PG meant something like sub threads per stock. so for example, the stock WOW would have sub threads like :
- WOW options
- WOW dividends
- WOW price action
- etc.

so that there are sub topics and makes it easier to zero in on a particular topic rather than the 'one lonngg thread'.

My opinion is :
I'd rather keep it as it is and have the one longg thread. because for any particular stock, all the topics are somehow linked. 

having many sub threads will lead to situations like Hotcopper where it's difficult to just read through ALL posts concerning the one stock.


----------



## Joe Blow

purple said:


> I think PG meant something like sub threads per stock. so for example, the stock WOW would have sub threads like :
> - WOW options
> - WOW dividends
> - WOW price action
> - etc.
> 
> so that there are sub topics and makes it easier to zero in on a particular topic rather than the 'one lonngg thread'.
> 
> My opinion is :
> I'd rather keep it as it is and have the one longg thread. because for any particular stock, all the topics are somehow linked.
> 
> having many sub threads will lead to situations like Hotcopper where it's difficult to just read through ALL posts concerning the one stock.




Ahhhh... I gotcha. I have often thought it might be good to be able to preface a thread (before the first post) with basic data on the company. I will have a look into it and see if this is feasible. 

Also keep in mind that individual threads can be searched on their own. At the top of each page of a thread you will see 'Search this Thread'. You can use this feature to search for particular keywords within the thread and it will simply spit out the posts that keyword is mentioned in. A very powerful tool for finding particular information within a thread. Especially as the thread gets longer.


----------



## clowboy

Joe,

Out of interest sake not everyone would have seen this thread.

Myself being one of them, making me being guilty of "padding" a post out.

It always bugs me that I sometime miss stuff that is relevant as I only ever go to the "forums" page and often there are more threads than fits.


Is the 100 characters per post open to review at any point? (ie 50 chars perhaps?)


----------



## 2020hindsight

> You may not realise just how little 100 characters is. In fact, this post is exactly 100 characters.



ahh - so presumably we can include the spaces   even easier


----------



## kransky

The 100 char minim annoys me off but i understand why you started it. Eliminate useless short posts. But a bigger issue imo is eliminating overly long posts where someone quotes another persons long post and then adds a small comment.

On whirlpool.net.au they have some sort of minimum ratio of 
new comment / quoted comment when you try to make a post.


----------



## Happy

How frustrating even to hear that we have so many wreckers, same with arsonists, graffiti vandals and list is almost endless.


----------



## Joe Blow

kransky said:


> The 100 char minim annoys me off but i understand why you started it. Eliminate useless short posts. But a bigger issue imo is eliminating overly long posts where someone quotes another persons long post and then adds a small comment.
> 
> On whirlpool.net.au they have some sort of minimum ratio of
> new comment / quoted comment when you try to make a post.




Quoted material does not count towards the 100 character minimum. It has to be 100 characters of new material.



Happy said:


> How frustrating even to hear that we have so many wreckers, same with arsonists, graffiti vandals and list is almost endless.




There are spoilers in all aspects of life unfortunately Happy. There are those who are simply not happy unless they are undermining principles, rules and standards for their own selfish ends. I would prefer to not have to bring in rules like this at all, but unfortunately its always a few bad apples that end up spoiling things for everyone.

Still, 100 characters isn't much. It's abut two sentences of a reasonable length. It *is* gratifying to note that more than 95% of posts have been passing this modest standard without having to resort to padding out posts. 

I don't think it will be long until people are used to the new system. It might also be an opportunity for those using 'u' instead of 'you' or 'c' insead of 'see' to rediscover the English language (and a few extra characters per post at the same time).


----------



## 2020hindsight

If I am I because I am I, and you are you because you are you, then I am I and you are you - forget.  
100 characters (incl spaces) or 75 ( if not) 

If I am I because I am I, and you are you because you are you, then I am I and you are you; but if I am I because you are you, and you are you because I am I , then I am not I and you are not you.
196 characters (incl spaces) or 145 ( if not)


----------



## purple

2020hindsight said:


> If I am I because I am I, and you are you because you are you, then I am I and you are you - forget.
> 100 characters (incl spaces) or 75 ( if not)
> 
> If I am I because I am I, and you are you because you are you, then I am I and you are you; but if I am I because you are you, and you are you because I am I , then I am not I and you are not you.
> 196 characters (incl spaces) or 145 ( if not)




LOL.. are you advancing the cause of poetry when commenting on a stock's performance 2020? rare breed...most of ASF are the $$ and  :drink:  type.

100 words it is then...where's me Collins Dictionary?


----------



## nizar

This rule is annoying.


----------



## 2020hindsight

nizar said:


> This rule is annoying.



a)depends 
b)why?
c)probably I'd agree
d)but I find a beer or two helps
e)until the next morning

98 characters (spaces excluded) 102 (included)  - gotta feeling that includes "2twocents"
apologies joe, I'm a compulsive "what - if"  er . 
I also have trouble taking anything seriously - especially life itself 

ps THOUGHT FOR THE DAY (and tomorrow - and hek - why not for the rest of the year )  :-



> Never forget what a man/woman says to you when he/she is angry - Henry Beecher 1813 - 1887
> Speak when you're angry - and you'll make the best speech you'll ever regret - Lawrence Peter.




150 characters (excluding spaces),  185 (excl) - approx lol (100 years from now is anyone gonna care if it was really 186  lol)

PS Most important thing about this site is that there are heaps more than 100 characters here


----------



## nomore4s

2020hindsight said:


> If I am I because I am I, and you are you because you are you, then I am I and you are you - forget.
> 100 characters (incl spaces) or 75 ( if not)
> 
> If I am I because I am I, and you are you because you are you, then I am I and you are you; but if I am I because you are you, and you are you because I am I , then I am not I and you are not you.
> 196 characters (incl spaces) or 145 ( if not)




lol 20/20 you have way too much time on your hands


----------



## 2020hindsight

nomore4s said:


> lol 20/20 you have way too much time on your hands




I know joe called you "nomore4us" once, 
Don't know about you mate, but lol
gotta feelin it's "no more for me tonight"
otherwise tomorrow morning is gonna be unbearable

PS 139 characters (excl spaces),  165 (incl)  :nono: :alcohol:

back on thread

unbearable, ? or "un bear or bull" (decisions , decisions)


----------



## purple

there is anther forum which uses a grading for members...once you pass a certain number of posts, you're upgraded. they've got a whole load of fanciful names for each level - starter, newbie, member, guest, guru etc etc...

and they have different rules for diff levels of members...

but I'd prefer 1 level playing field where all members are equal, except the :ald: machines, er...waddya call 'em....ah, that's it...moderators.


----------



## 2020hindsight

purple said:


> there is anther forum which uses a grading for members...once you pass a certain number of posts, you're upgraded. they've got a whole load of fanciful names for each level - starter, newbie, member, guest, guru etc etc....




Hell mate , let's face it !!!
how many characters did Caesar say when he went to HIS forum ??



> Et Tu Brute !




I'm sorry sir.... only 10 characters - your post is rejected ...  try again lader .... "click"


----------



## Rafa

nizar said:


> This rule is annoying.





How the hell did that get thru... surely thats not 100 characters...

NIZAR.... what are you up to???


----------



## purple

lol.............................................................................................................................................................


----------



## purple

sorry Joe! couldn't resist that! promise not to do that again in my real posts...


----------



## Joe Blow

Rafa said:


> How the hell did that get thru... surely thats not 100 characters...
> 
> NIZAR.... what are you up to???






purple said:


> sorry Joe! couldn't resist that! promise not to do that again in my real posts...




Hi Guys...

The 100 character minimum only applies to posts in the three stock forums: Stocks A-H, Stocks I-P, Stocks Q-Z.

Other forums are exempt.


----------



## nomore4s

2020hindsight said:


> I know joe called you "nomore4us" once,
> Don't know about you mate, but lol
> gotta feelin it's "no more for me tonight"
> otherwise tomorrow morning is gonna be unbearable
> 
> PS 139 characters (excl spaces),  165 (incl)  :nono: :alcohol:
> 
> back on thread
> 
> unbearable, ? or "un bear or bull" (decisions , decisions)




lol, you make me laugh. But I think you're right nomore4us tonight

How many characters was that?lol


----------



## Happy

purple said:


> there is anther forum which uses a grading for members...once you pass a certain number of posts, you're upgraded. they've got a whole load of fanciful names for each level - starter, newbie, member, guest, guru etc etc...
> 
> and they have different rules for diff levels of members...
> 
> but I'd prefer 1 level playing field where all members are equal, except the :ald: machines, er...waddya call 'em....ah, that's it...moderators.






I would like to disagree.

For being exemplary in any field one should be rewarded, that’s why we have Nobel Prize, Australian of the year award and every other award.

Why exemplary citizens of any community should be equal to non-contributing members or even parasites?


----------



## Pommiegranite

purple said:


> I think PG meant something like sub threads per stock. so for example, the stock WOW would have sub threads like :
> - WOW options
> - WOW dividends
> - WOW price action
> - etc.
> 
> so that there are sub topics and makes it easier to zero in on a particular topic rather than the 'one lonngg thread'.
> 
> My opinion is :
> I'd rather keep it as it is and have the one longg thread. because for any particular stock, all the topics are somehow linked.
> 
> having many sub threads will lead to situations like Hotcopper where it's difficult to just read through ALL posts concerning the one stock.




Actually what I meant is like this:

http://boards.fool.co.uk/Boards.asp?fid=5029

You can drilldown on a letter,stock and finally thread..to view posts against a particular question/discussion.


----------



## laurie

Is there a way to have a character counter as you type  

cheers laurie


----------



## Kimosabi

laurie said:


> Is there a way to have a character counter as you type
> 1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
> 
> cheers laurie




Sorry, this message is too short...


----------



## Joe Blow

laurie said:


> Is there a way to have a character counter as you type
> 
> cheers laurie




Hi Laurie... 100 characters is less than one line of text. This post is exactly 100 characters long.


----------



## Mousie

Joe, what Laurie meant was: is there any way to show posters the no. of letters they have yet to type to reach a 100 characters? That's "counter" of a bean counter's type


----------



## Joe Blow

There are still a few holdouts who, rather than abide by this new rule, prefer to try and hide their padded out posts by changing the text colour to that of the background and then posting some gibberish or who simply just add a bunch of '............' to the end of their post. Rest assured these posts *will* be removed. The rule is there for a reason.

Again, I would like to remind people that this rule only applies to the three stock forums and that 100 characters is not much content to have to come up with. It is basically one reasonable sentence. It has been a few weeks since this rule was introduced and even in that short time the mods and I have noticed a significant improvement in the quality of content posted in stock threads.

Thank you to those who are making the effort and complying with the new rule. It is appreciated.


----------



## Joe Blow

Mousie said:


> Joe, what Laurie meant was: is there any way to show posters the no. of letters they have yet to type to reach a 100 characters? That's "counter" of a bean counter's type




Unfortunately there isn't a practical way to do this (that I am aware of), so I was just demonstrating to Laurie how short 100 characters really is.


----------



## Julia

Why don't we all just accept the 100 character rule and stop niggling about it.  If we didn't have so many blatant and persistent rampers, Joe would not have had to do this.  Let's just support him and the moderators in maintaining a quality site which we all enjoy or we wouldn't be here.

Frankly (and I doubt that Joe would go for this) I'd support a membership fee.  That might weed out some of the troublemakers.
I won't hold my breath waiting for support for such an idea.


----------



## nizar

Julia said:


> Frankly (and I doubt that Joe would go for this) I'd support a membership fee.




Frankly, Not all of us are rich, Julia


----------



## ta2693

Julia said:


> Why don't we all just accept the 100 character rule and stop niggling about it.  If we didn't have so many blatant and persistent rampers, Joe would not have had to do this.  Let's just support him and the moderators in maintaining a quality site which we all enjoy or we wouldn't be here.
> 
> Frankly (and I doubt that Joe would go for this) I'd support a membership fee.  That might weed out some of the troublemakers.
> I won't hold my breath waiting for support for such an idea.




I support any arrangement to weep out troublemakers but I do not see the connection between membership fee and weeping out troublemakers.


----------



## rub92me

No problem with the 100 character rule. But what about a maximum character rule? Some 'characters' go on and on on this forum :


----------



## Happy

Julia said:


> Why don't we all just accept the 100 character rule and stop niggling about it.  If we didn't have so many blatant and persistent rampers, Joe would not have had to do this.  Let's just support him and the moderators in maintaining a quality site which we all enjoy or we wouldn't be here.
> 
> Frankly (and I doubt that Joe would go for this) I'd support a membership fee.  That might weed out some of the troublemakers.
> I won't hold my breath waiting for support for such an idea.





Julia,
I agree with you, but this is typical approach, that Government does and we are so used to it, we don’t see little things (while ago I mentioned ROAD HUMPS as an example).

Our problem are RAMPERS who represent tiny minority, our solution is REGULATION AFFECTING 5,000+ members society (and later on it will be 10,000 maybe one day 100,000).

Why don’t we concentrate on marking and banning monsters instead of affecting all posters?

If system banning under 100 characters posts is automatic, as Joe said RAMPERS and or JOKERS come up with gobble gook and he and all moderators, have to look at all posts irrespectively of blocking setup, with more material to read through in order to work out if post should be deleted or not.

I am for rules and regulations but,  …


----------



## Mousie

Julia said:


> Frankly (and I doubt that Joe would go for this) I'd support a membership fee.  That might weed out some of the troublemakers.
> I won't hold my breath waiting for support for such an idea.




Frankly I'd denounce a membership fee. That might weed out some of the forummakers who'd made this forum what it's become today. I won't hold my breath waiting to count the numbers of those who quit because of such an idea.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS: To those of you seasoned netizens, you'd remember CommunityZero's demise. 2 out of 2 groups I was with quitted because they started charging. The name itself pointed to its ironic failure.

Lesson: Control who you want in the forum by all means, but don't ever betray those who'd help got it here.


----------



## YELNATS

ta2693 said:


> weeping out troublemakers.




As long as you provided them with plenty of hankies. Sorry, couldn't resist it.


----------



## james99

I think a membership fee is unreaslistic given the free share blog sites. It would undermine the idea of a community "owned" resource.

I think also that there are many (including me) who would be unwilling to pay and then provide or share opinions, for free, that at times may have taken significant research to reach.

As a new member, I can say I would not have joined for a fee.


----------



## Julia

nizar said:


> Frankly, Not all of us are rich, Julia




Nizar,

Others have raised rational objections to any thought of a membership fee (as I expected), but this seems a little silly to me.  I'm sure I've read posts from you suggesting people buy various books on the stockmarket.
You haven't suggested they need to be rich to do that.  I was thinking of a nominal membership subscription, simply to take a bit of the financial load off Joe, and to represent an appreciation of a site we enjoy.  Say, around $50 p.a.   

It was just a suggestion and I understand Joe's philosophy is essentially that he would not want ASF to be unavailable to anyone because of affordability.
And no, I agree that a membership fee would not necessarily inhibit the activities of rampers.

It was just a thought.  I'm completely unsurprised at the reaction.


----------



## yonnie

well Julia,

I dont think Joe Blob eh Blow would have any objection of you giving him some money under the table for a couple of beers?
I cant do it; got enough trouble getting rich.


----------



## Captain_Chaza

Ramping in IMHO is a Non-Event

I do not know anybody that takes advice and the ACTS on any Ranp

I feel it only keeps the regulators concsience free of obligation when shares go UP
They dish out speeding tickets as if they are out of fashion when shares go UP

HOWEVER when they go South as they always do at times 
Where are the Ticket writers?
NOWHERE!

What a "Pack of Cheats!"

Maybe it is time to introduce an "Off-Side Rule:??? in this 
"The Greatest of All Sports"

Salute and Bon Voyage


----------



## wayneL

Captain_Chaza said:


> Ramping in IMHO is a Non-Event
> 
> I do not know anybody that takes advice and the ACTS on any Ranp



You should get out more then


----------



## Joe Blow

yonnie said:


> well Julia,
> 
> I dont think Joe Blob eh Blow would have any objection of you giving him some money under the table for a couple of beers?
> I cant do it; got enough trouble getting rich.




Too miserable to shout me even a couple of beers.... what a gyp!  

P.S. Julia has already donated to the site... several times in fact.


----------



## wayneL

Joe Blow said:


> gyp



Good Heavens Joe! That's blown a few cobwebs out of my dusty old archives. I haven't heard that word since I lived in the evil empire. LOL


----------



## Joe Blow

wayneL said:


> Good Heavens Joe! That's blown a few cobwebs out of my dusty old archives. I haven't heard that word since I lived in the evil empire. LOL




I've watched too many of those 'merican moving pictures I think!


----------



## Captain_Chaza

Ahoy Admiral Joe Blow

I am only new to this forum and have not donated a cent at this stage
but I must confess
I am waiting for you to do something really Brilliant and above all odds 

Firstly!
 LOL!

Salute and Gods' Speed


----------



## wayneL

Sorry for the annoying pedantry, but it's Godspeed... one word.


----------



## Joe Blow

Captain_Chaza said:


> I am waiting for you to do something really Brilliant and above all odds




I could dance like MC Hammer... would that do it?


----------



## Sean K

wayneL said:


> Sorry for the annoying pedantry, but it's Godspeed... one word.



Is it really? I have thought it was 'God's speed.' As in, God is really fast.......


----------



## Broadside

Joe Blow said:


> I could dance like MC Hammer... would that do it?




I notice you said Julia had made some contributions....how does one support the site...is there a link to send some money or is that not allowed?

It's a really informative site, thank you.


----------



## wayneL

kennas said:


> Is it really? I have thought it was 'God's speed.' As in, God is really fast.......



*Godspeed*      /ˈgɒdˈspid/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[god-speed] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
good fortune; success (used as a wish to a person starting on a journey, a new venture, etc.).


----------



## Captain_Chaza

What I mean  by 
Gods' Speed  

is in the speed by more than one /many Gods

If I had meant God's speed as in "ONE "God I would have typed it as such

Religion is a funny thing as is Typing!!

Salute and Gods' Speed


----------



## Joe Blow

Broadside said:


> I notice you said Julia had made some contributions....how does one support the site...is there a link to send some money or is that not allowed?
> 
> It's a really informative site, thank you.




Hi Broadside,

I've just been joking a bit tonight (too much wine  ). I really don't expect donations, I'm just glad people enjoy the site and find it useful as you have. However, donations are always appreciated and if you wish to donate you can simply click the little button right at the bottom of the page (the one on the left) or post it to:

Aussie Networks Pty. Ltd.
P.O. Box 1130
Carindale, QLD. 4152

Any donations always come with my sincere thanks!


----------



## Sean K

wayneL said:


> *Godspeed*      /ˈgɒdˈspid/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[god-speed] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> –noun
> good fortune; success (used as a wish to a person starting on a journey, a new venture, etc.).



So, we're assuming that the speed of God is a good thing, yes?  

I suppose He had to be pretty damn quick, creating the world in just 6 days. And it must have been safely done.


----------



## wayneL

kennas said:


> So, we're assuming that the speed of God is a good thing, yes?
> 
> I suppose He had to be pretty damn quick, creating the world in just 6 days. And it must have been safely done.



It was apparently from the Middle English word "spede" which means "to prosper"

So it's "May God prosper you"

On another note, I'll bet God is glad he did it all before workchoices... he would never have gotten penalty rates for working Sunday. (Saturday was the day off back then)


----------



## Sean K

wayneL said:


> It was apparently from the Middle English word "spede" which means "to prosper"
> 
> So it's "May God prosper you"
> 
> On another note, I'll bet God is glad he did it all before workchoices... he would never have gotten penalty rates for working Sunday. (Saturday was the day off back then)



 LOL  

So, the Captain's moniker is on the ball. Except for the construction. I actually thought it was 'safe journey', sort of like the Indoenesian 'selamat jalan'. Perhaps it can be used in that tense also.


----------



## Joe Blow

Just a reminder that we will continue to remove posts in stock threads that do not meet the required 100 character (not word) minimum.

100 characters is less than one line of text and we do not believe it is asking too much of people to contribute that much meaningful content to their posts. Please note that this minimum ONLY applies to posts in the three stock forums.


----------



## Joe Blow

Just wanted to add that this rule was never intended to make life difficult for anyone but to encourage people to contribute more content to their posts in stock threads.

We ask that people don't see it as an inconvenience but as an opportunity to add another thought or a snippet of information to their post so that it is more useful to those reading the thread.

We really do appreciate it when people make the extra effort.


----------



## Julia

yonnie said:


> well Julia,
> 
> I dont think Joe Blob eh Blow would have any objection of you giving him some money under the table for a couple of beers?
> I cant do it; got enough trouble getting rich.




I've only just seen this, having been away during that week.
yonnie, I haven't any interest in footing Joe's grog bill.
All I was doing was recognising that there are considerable costs involved in running ASF, that advertising probably doesn't cover all of them and pay for Joe's time, and that there are very few things in which I participate which don't cost me something.  I've learned a good deal from being a member of ASF, and have made some friends.  So it simply doesn't seem unreasonable to me to make a small contribution in appreciation.

Clearly not a popular point of view but that's fine with me.
Some of those who have objected have given very sensible reasons for not making any contribution.
The notion that some people might just be too tight just wouldn't even occur to me.


----------



## Nicks

Julia said:


> Nizar,
> 
> Others have raised rational objections to any thought of a membership fee (as I expected), but this seems a little silly to me.  I'm sure I've read posts from you suggesting people buy various books on the stockmarket.
> You haven't suggested they need to be rich to do that.  I was thinking of a nominal membership subscription, simply to take a bit of the financial load off Joe, and to represent an appreciation of a site we enjoy.  Say, around $50 p.a.
> 
> It was just a suggestion and I understand Joe's philosophy is essentially that he would not want ASF to be unavailable to anyone because of affordability.
> And no, I agree that a membership fee would not necessarily inhibit the activities of rampers.
> 
> It was just a thought.  I'm completely unsurprised at the reaction.




Julia, would you like my Paypal id so you can donate to me please, as I offer free advice on this forum. It would help take some financial load off of me. It is a forum, for people to share free advice with each other. 

I appreciate this site, hence why I use it. If I feel the need to donate, I will. I dont feel the need to cyber grovel by suggesting things that are not my place to suggest.

Im also curious as to how you have come to know the financial load the sites owners have. Do you know how much revenue the Ad below this post brings? probably not. So how you come to know how much money in fees we should pay suprises me.

Thanks for your suggestion of us paying, and even go so far as saying how much we should pay, who knows where you plucked your figure from. Myself, I have considered your suggestion and disregarded it.

Also, if Google started charging, i'd stop using it.


----------



## Julia

Nicks said:


> Julia, would you like my Paypal id so you can donate to me please, as I offer free advice on this forum. It is a forum, for people to share free advice with each other.
> 
> Also, if Google started charging, i'd stop using it.




You are specifically not supposed to be offering "advice" actually.
There is a world of difference between the free exchange of ideas and information between members on a site and the actual provision and running of that site.

And no, thank you all the same, but I won't be donating anything to you.


----------



## Nicks

Clarification on the word play, I should have said free thoughts and opinions and research.

And also I think the 100 character min is a good idea. Will help stop price announcements minute by minute.


----------



## Joe Blow

Nothing annoys the moderators and I more than those who obsessively abbreviate words and then go on to complain about the 100 character minimum rule in stock threads. In fact, it is beyond irritating to the point of teeth grinding.

A case in point. Here is a recent post:



> Where did u find this 20c+ valuation? Can u point me in the right direction cheers
> 
> I dont like this min 100 character rule ... i have to elaborate with a waste of text just so i can post something ..




Lets break it down:



> Where did u find this 20c+ valuation? Can u point me in the right direction cheers



 = 85 characters



> Where did you find this 20c+ valuation? Can you please point me in the right direction? Thanks and cheers!



 = 109 characters

Use punctuation, don't abbreviate words, be polite and I think you will find the 100 character minimum rule to be much less of an issue. 100 characters isn't much and the rule *ONLY* applies to stock threads in an attempt to get people to contribute a reasonable amount of meaningful content in their posts. Please do the right thing and abide by it, even if it does require a little more thought. Thanks!


----------



## moneymajix

I find it annoying at times.  For example, you might just want to say thanks.


And as you say it does serve a useful purpose.


(I don't think that was 100 characters!)


----------



## Joe Blow

moneymajix said:


> I find it annoying at times.  For example, you might just want to say thanks.




Send them a private message and thank them! 

Or, thank them and add another thought to your post. Stock threads are all about content. Lets try and make them as useful to others as possible.


----------



## moneymajix

JOE BLOW

Didn't think of the PMing.

Could have a whole alternate thread going via PMs.... hmmm...





Cheers


----------



## Joe Blow

This is an example of the sort of post that really annoys the moderators and myself:



> Out at $1.37. Looking for a re-entry!
> 
> Now I have to keep typing to make up 100 characters.




Why are you out at $1.37? What made you sell? Why are you looking for a re-entry? What is it that makes you think this stock worth re-entering? What  is your criteria for a re-entry? 

This sort of post is why this rule exists. Please take a moment to make your post meaningful and useful to others. As it stands, the post above is not useful to anyone and serves no real purpose. On top of everything else, it is entirely unverifiable. 

If you wish to document your trades in this way, please use the Blog feature available to all ASF members.

Information, news and analysis... that is what threads on particular stocks are for. Please do your best to make your posts in stock threads useful to other ASF members. More signal, less noise.


----------



## rederob

Joe Blow said:


> This is an example of the sort of post that really annoys the moderators and myself:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you out at $1.37? What made you sell? Why are you looking for a re-entry? What is it that makes you think this stock worth re-entering? What  is your criteria for a re-entry?
> 
> This sort of post is why this rule exists. Please take a moment to make your post meaningful and useful to others. As it stands, the post above is not useful to anyone and serves no real purpose. On top of everything else, it is entirely unverifiable.
> 
> If you wish to document your trades in this way, please use the Blog feature available to all ASF members.
> 
> Information, news and analysis... that is what threads on particular stocks are for. Please do your best to make your posts in stock threads useful to other ASF members. More signal, less noise.



Seen in the context of a more complete "thread", the "Out at $1.37. Looking for a re-entry!" post could have made a great deal of sense, and been quite adequate.
As a stand alone, I could make sense of it if it was in keeping with the market's actual action.
It would tell me that he/she's sold at a high and looking to re-enter lower as it's a worthwhile stock in the poster's view, but profit taking now seems a good idea.
But I am just speculating.
I have read through long, apparently "reasoned" posts that neither make any sense, nor are in keeping with a known universe.
Yet they are fine!
Irrespective of the length of any post, the reader should be questioning the information, intent (motive) and utility.
Not to do so places one squarely in the idiot camp, or at least in the thoughtless, lazy, blind follower league.

The 100 character rule does nothing to weed out rampers, nor improve value.
Quite the opposite.
Long winded morons can prove that sentiment is a trend, a counterintuitive impulse is natural, fundamental analysis can be charted, and - dare I drag up the past - RBY is excellent value! 

Imagine in Joe's example that the stock was Beach Petroleum - sold at $1.37 - and the poster added a few of the points Joe was seeking: So the poster goes on to say they took a short term profit because the stock was reaching a resistance point.  The poster then goes on to describe an arbitrary, lower, re-entry point - as one would!  Adding something deep and meaningful the poster goes on to say that oil cannot hold above $80/barrel because it's defying gravity, or the rules of the market, or just common sense, given oil has never been that high before.

Yep, they got their 100plus characters and everything Joe wanted.  And then the stock takes off.  Oil moves to $90/barrel due to US maneuvering over Iran, and a supply disruption to Saudi Oil (do a google earth and look where oil tankers pass).  The chart pattern turns out to be reverse head and shoulders.  The company gets rerated by funds because its production profile and profit forecasts are no longer valid on the old assumptions.
But it was a bloody good post at 100plus characters!


----------



## Sean K

rederob said:


> Seen in the context of a more complete "thread", the "Out at $1.37. Looking for a re-entry!" post could have made a great deal of sense, and been quite adequate.
> As a stand alone, I could make sense of it if it was in keeping with the market's actual action.
> It would tell me that he/she's sold at a high and looking to re-enter lower as it's a worthwhile stock in the poster's view, but profit taking now seems a good idea.
> But I am just speculating.
> I have read through long, apparently "reasoned" posts that neither make any sense, nor are in keeping with a known universe.
> Yet they are fine!
> Irrespective of the length of any post, the reader should be questioning the information, intent (motive) and utility.
> Not to do so places one squarely in the idiot camp, or at least in the thoughtless, lazy, blind follower league.
> 
> The 100 character rule does nothing to weed out rampers, nor improve value.
> Quite the opposite.
> Long winded morons can prove that sentiment is a trend, a counterintuitive impulse is natural, fundamental analysis can be charted, and - dare I drag up the past - RBY is excellent value!
> 
> Imagine in Joe's example that the stock was Beach Petroleum - sold at $1.37 - and the poster added a few of the points Joe was seeking: So the poster goes on to say they took a short term profit because the stock was reaching a resistance point.  The poster then goes on to describe an arbitrary, lower, re-entry point - as one would!  Adding something deep and meaningful the poster goes on to say that oil cannot hold above $80/barrel because it's defying gravity, or the rules of the market, or just common sense, given oil has never been that high before.
> 
> Yep, they got their 100plus characters and everything Joe wanted.  And then the stock takes off.  Oil moves to $90/barrel due to US maneuvering over Iran, and a supply disruption to Saudi Oil (do a google earth and look where oil tankers pass).  The chart pattern turns out to be reverse head and shoulders.  The company gets rerated by funds because its production profile and profit forecasts are no longer valid on the old assumptions.
> But it was a bloody good post at 100plus characters!



Rob, obviously quality is better than quatity, 100 characters is just a method to encourage those who have been posting limited information and analysis to lift their game, and to prevent ramping. I'm not sure how much time you spend in the stock threads, but I read just about every one of them and IMO, the rule has succeeded in improving the quality of posting.


----------



## Edwood

Good Morning Mr Blow, does this new rule also cover the Index threads? Cheers Ed


----------



## wayneL

Edwood said:


> Good Morning Mr Blow, does this new rule also cover the Index threads? Cheers Ed



Ed,

Only the Stock A-Z threads.


----------



## Edwood

wayneL said:


> Ed,
> 
> Only the Stock A-Z threads.




thanks Wayne, wasn't sure how the threads were differentiated - apologies for the interruption, I'll get back to my indices


----------



## rederob

kennas said:


> Rob, obviously quality is better than quatity, 100 characters is just a method to encourage those who have been posting limited information and analysis to lift their game, and to prevent ramping. I'm not sure how much time you spend in the stock threads, but I read just about every one of them and IMO, the rule has succeeded in improving the quality of posting.



kennas
I would rather have a 50 character ramp than a 5,000 character ramp.
There is a strong diversity of posters to this forum that make it worthwhile.
Those posters also have the capability to administer a degree of self regulation - without the interference of moderators (not that that is always unwelcome).
Let me make the point again, irrespective of the length of any post, the reader should be questioning its information, intent (motive) and utility.
If replies to the $1.37 poster that Joe exemplified query the poster, and the thread thrived on the subsequent exchange, would that not be a good thing?
From what I do read, and I tend to read quite selectively, there are some excellent exchanges that take place.
Could a post of less than 100 characters set up such an exchange?
I think so.
Have a look at the ASIC notice that appears each time a poster delves into this area.
That should be fair warning enough.
Then subject the post, regardless of length, to the scrutiny of the forum.
That way you and other moderators, and Joe, can devote your attention to the more malicious, venal wars that fester from time to time - and make great reading from the unaffected office armchair.


----------



## Joe Blow

rederob said:


> Seen in the context of a more complete "thread", the "Out at $1.37. Looking for a re-entry!" post could have made a great deal of sense, and been quite adequate.
> As a stand alone, I could make sense of it if it was in keeping with the market's actual action.
> It would tell me that he/she's sold at a high and looking to re-enter lower as it's a worthwhile stock in the poster's view, but profit taking now seems a good idea.
> But I am just speculating.




Exactly, you are speculating because the post could have done with some elaboration. You don't know why they exited at $1.37 and nor do I. However, it would have been useful to know. It would have put their actions in context. It would have given others some more information to digest, analyse and question. But that's bad because it might cause people to have to put together a post of more than 100 characters. Isn't that right, Rob?



rederob said:


> I have read through long, apparently "reasoned" posts that neither make any sense, nor are in keeping with a known universe.
> Yet they are fine!
> Irrespective of the length of any post, the reader should be questioning the information, intent (motive) and utility.
> Not to do so places one squarely in the idiot camp, or at least in the thoughtless, lazy, blind follower league.




This is basic stuff Rob, of course people should question every aspect of every post... except that more detailed posts give people something to question. More detail is better, even if its based on flawed or incorrect assumptions because it gives people something to respond to. Short, meaningless posts offer nothing and serve no real purpose.



rederob said:


> The 100 character rule does nothing to weed out rampers, nor improve value.
> Quite the opposite.




Rubbish. It does indeed weed out rampers and the mods and I know it. We deal with it every day. You don't. Ramping takes up a huge amount of our time and this rule has cut it in half. Ramping is an unceasing, relentless scourge. You don't see 90% of it Rob, you want to know why? Because the mods and I remove it before you ever see it. 



rederob said:


> Long winded morons can prove that sentiment is a trend, a counterintuitive impulse is natural, fundamental analysis can be charted, and - dare I drag up the past - RBY is excellent value!




Long winded morons just give themselves more rope with which to hang themselves. At least it gives people something to analyse and criticise, which is something short posts don't.

Perhaps you would prefer posts like:



> GO INL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!






> This ones going to the moon. Get on now!






> 65 cents now!






> 66 cents now!






> 67 cents now! GET ON BOARD!






> 68 cents now! THE TRAIN IS LEAVING THE STATION!






> 69 cents now! Toot toot!




Rob, if thats the standard of posting you want, you can find it at many other fourms. They're out there waiting for you! Why are you wasting your time here at ASF? I'm dumbfounded. 



rederob said:


> Imagine in Joe's example that the stock was Beach Petroleum - sold at $1.37 - and the poster added a few of the points Joe was seeking: So the poster goes on to say they took a short term profit because the stock was reaching a resistance point.  The poster then goes on to describe an arbitrary, lower, re-entry point - as one would!  Adding something deep and meaningful the poster goes on to say that oil cannot hold above $80/barrel because it's defying gravity, or the rules of the market, or just common sense, given oil has never been that high before.
> 
> Yep, they got their 100plus characters and everything Joe wanted.  And then the stock takes off.  Oil moves to $90/barrel due to US maneuvering over Iran, and a supply disruption to Saudi Oil (do a google earth and look where oil tankers pass).  The chart pattern turns out to be reverse head and shoulders.  The company gets rerated by funds because its production profile and profit forecasts are no longer valid on the old assumptions.
> But it was a bloody good post at 100plus characters!




Any analysis is better than no analysis. No analysis gives people nothing to work with, some analysis helps others better understand where someone is coming from and gives them something to deconstruct and agree with, expand upon or criticize. 

Rob, let me assure you that this rule is going nowhere. It works. The mods and I know it does. It has reduced our workload. If you don't like it, you're welcome to your view but it isn't changing my mind. If you don't like the rules of this forum then you are more than welcome to go and find another one to post at. The rule exists for a reason and it has proven to be a success. It has not only reduced ramping but it has noticably increased the quality of posts in stock threads.


----------



## rederob

Joe
I took the the most recent post and have quoted it below:


kennas said:


> Mob, inevitable towards the end of the period to gather some free options. I hope that support at 27 ish cents holds.



It passed the 100 character rule.
I read the preceding post, and still can't make head or tail of it, or what kennas was responding to: It was equally devoid of any useful comment.
I'm not saying "66 cents now!" is what I want to see.
I'm saying that I can see it for what it is.
I recently tried to post information to correct a mistake, but because it was a cut and paste from the company CEO, it didn't make the cut.  Still needs to be 100 characters of original material!
I make two points:
First, I would rather a brief comment that exposed a blatant ramp, rather than a deceitful elaboration that passes your rule.
Secondly, that the "value" posters on your forum counteract the banal, useless and self serving post that appear less frequently.
Interspersed in all the threads is a degree of banter that makes this site what it is - refreshing, readable, responsive and, most importantly, stimulating enough to make one want to contribute.

At the end of the day it's your site and your rules, so it's only natural you get what you want.


----------



## Sean K

rederob said:


> Joe
> I took the the most recent post and have quoted it below:



You are joking aren't you?


----------



## The Mint Man

rederob said:


> Joe
> I took the the most recent post and have quoted it below:
> 
> It passed the 100 character rule.
> I read the preceding post, and still can't make head or tail of it, or what kennas was responding to: It was equally devoid of any useful comment.
> I'm not saying "66 cents now!" is what I want to see.
> I'm saying that I can see it for what it is.
> I recently tried to post information to correct a mistake, but because it was a cut and paste from the company CEO, it didn't make the cut.  Still needs to be 100 characters of original material!
> I make two points:
> First, I would rather a brief comment that exposed a blatant ramp, rather than a deceitful elaboration that passes your rule.
> Secondly, that the "value" posters on your forum counteract the banal, useless and self serving post that appear less frequently.
> Interspersed in all the threads is a degree of banter that makes this site what it is - refreshing, readable, responsive and, most importantly, stimulating enough to make one want to contribute.
> 
> At the end of the day it's your site and your rules, so it's only natural you get what you want.




I agree with your point about quoting ann's or CEO comments when you dont reach the 100 character quota but in these cases I simply dont use the quote tags, instead I tell the forum members that the following is a comment from the CEO or whatever the quote/material may be. I do this for a couple of reasons A) I dont have alot to say about it or I expect others to come to the same conclusion as I have anyway... so theres no need for me to elaborate on it; and B) This is an informative forum so you should be able to post informative information in a particular stocks thread. While this may be bending the rules I dont think it breaks them.

However, having agreed with you on that point and subsequently given you a simple solution, I think you are becoming a bit argumentative.

Cheers


----------



## Joe Blow

rederob said:


> Joe
> I took the the most recent post and have quoted it below:
> 
> It passed the 100 character rule.
> I read the preceding post, and still can't make head or tail of it, or what kennas was responding to: It was equally devoid of any useful comment.
> I'm not saying "66 cents now!" is what I want to see.
> I'm saying that I can see it for what it is.
> I recently tried to post information to correct a mistake, but because it was a cut and paste from the company CEO, it didn't make the cut.  Still needs to be 100 characters of original material!
> I make two points:
> First, I would rather a brief comment that exposed a blatant ramp, rather than a deceitful elaboration that passes your rule.
> Secondly, that the "value" posters on your forum counteract the banal, useless and self serving post that appear less frequently.
> Interspersed in all the threads is a degree of banter that makes this site what it is - refreshing, readable, responsive and, most importantly, stimulating enough to make one want to contribute.
> 
> At the end of the day it's your site and your rules, so it's only natural you get what you want.




Rob,

I think if you were perfectly honest you would admit that the reason you are coming out against this rule is because it personally irritates YOU, not because you are concerned with the quality of posting here at ASF.

The mods and I established long ago that most ramps were short and the way to rid ASF of such posts was to ensure that a minimum amount of content be added to a post for it to be accepted. Most rampers do not like to add a lot of content to their posts because it's unnecessary. Ramps are sales pitches, the less detail provided the better. 

I am yet to see one single post of less than 100 characters in length that could not have been expanded upon and made more useful or informative. The primary reasons this is not done is sheer laziness and/or intentional ramping. We find that those padding out their posts are the same individuals time and time again. I can assure you that this is not a coincidence. These individuals are mostly interested in ramping stocks they hold, not adding meaningful content to the thread. I am not saying that people can't ramp by adding more content. This obviously does happen, but it is the exception rather than the rule. Most rampers keep it short and sweet.

My primary concern is the management of this community. ASF is 'staffed' by volunteers. If I had to employ people to do what the mods do this forum would disappear overnight. One of my major concerns is the workload placed upon mods and this rule has helped to reduce it. It has also reduced the amount of ramping and improved the quality of posts in stock threads. We have all noticed it and commented on it. The rule works. If it didn't we would discontinue it. 

The bottom line is 100 characters is not a lot of content. This is a 100 character post:



> You may not realise just how little 100 characters is. In fact, this post is exactly 100 characters.




I refuse to believe that anyone is incapable of contributing that much meaningful content to their posts in stock threads.


----------



## rederob

Joe Blow said:


> Rob,
> I think if you were perfectly honest you would admit that the reason you are coming out against this rule is because it personally irritates YOU, not because you are concerned with the quality of posting here at ASF.



Joe
You have made your points, and me mine.
I'm not at all irritated by the rule - I just believe it unnecessary.
However, if it makes your job easier, so be it.
I am far more concerned about posts that have a sense of legitimacy or authority because the are elaborative in nature.  Yet when drilled into they are empty, mischievous, misleading or downright dangerous to "newbies".
A quick ramp is easily dismissed.
The opposite is not the case and even stands to "elevate" the original poster because of the effort involved in "exposing" it.


----------



## wayneL

rederob said:


> Joe
> I am far more concerned about posts that have a sense of legitimacy or authority because the are elaborative in nature.  Yet when drilled into they are empty, mischievous, misleading or downright dangerous to "newbies".
> A quick ramp is easily dismissed.
> The opposite is not the case and even stands to "elevate" the original poster because of the effort involved in "exposing" it.



For a moment, I thought you were talking about the election campaign (err... well, the phony campaign anyway).

Isn't this true in just about any field? Particularly those that are judged arbitrarily?

People may be verbose and voluminous in their posting and wrong... or right... or both! As long as it has some thought process involved rather than puerile "cheerleading", it deserves to be heard. Dissenting opinions are also welcomed.

This is the nature of intellectual discovery and should never be discouraged.


----------



## Joe Blow

rederob said:


> Joe
> You have made your points, and me mine.
> I'm not at all irritated by the rule - I just believe it unnecessary.




Well I would be more inclined to believe that if I didn't see things like this at the end of your posts:



			
				rederob said:
			
		

> And this addition should satisfy the stupid 100 character rule that Joe insists on, regardless of content.






rederob said:


> However, if it makes your job easier, so be it.




It makes both my job and that of the mods much easier.



rederob said:


> I am far more concerned about posts that have a sense of legitimacy or authority because the are elaborative in nature.  Yet when drilled into they are empty, mischievous, misleading or downright dangerous to "newbies".
> A quick ramp is easily dismissed.




I'm not so worried about those kind of posts because they represent such a small proportion of total ramps. I think all ramping represents a danger to "newbies" and that's part of the reason the mods and I fight against it with such vigour. From a management perspective we spend far more time dealing with shorter ramps that we do elaborate ones. Before we brought in the 100 character minimum rule it was a relentless onslaught. Every day we would get a non-stop barrage of posts like the ones I gave as examples in my post this morning. Bringing in the rule dropped it by around 50% as we were able to more easily identify repeat offenders (via the infraction system) and exclude those who were not going to stop.

Also, in my experience more elaborate ramps are usually questioned by more experienced posters and can end up generating some interesting discussion as at least there is something - anything - to respond to.

Ultimately though its easier to exclude the shorter posts as the software does it for us. There is no way for the software to determine whether or not a post is a ramp, only if its a certain length, so we make the best use of the tools we have to keep on top of it all.


----------



## Joe Blow

As an experiment I have reduced the minimum post length in stock threads to 75 characters. If there is no noticable drop off in the quality of posts then this change will be maintained indefinitely.


----------



## craft

Whilst away I had a couple of quick looks at ASF whilst not logged on, which bought up the home page – on a couple of occasions all I saw was stock codes with a single number underneath.  I assume this is how potential new members would first view the site. On these occasions the site actually looked pretty non-functional.

What was the outcome of the minimum text count exercise? The preview page certainly looks more functioning and active when text is included in the posts?


----------



## burglar

craft said:


> Whilst away I had a couple of quick looks at ASF whilst not logged on, which bought up the home page – on a couple of occasions all I saw was stock codes with a single number underneath.  I assume this is how potential new members would first view the site. On these occasions the site actually looked pretty non-functional.
> 
> What was the outcome of the minimum text count exercise? The preview page certainly looks more functioning and active when text is included in the posts?




Far as I know, the minimum is now three(3) chars.
I'm not unhappy with that.

Please clarify your point!


----------



## craft

burglar said:


> Please clarify your point!




The home screen that people browsing the internet and not logged in as member see as the face of AFR doesn't look very good or functional when there is not text in the posts.


----------



## piggybank

burglar said:


> Far as I know, the minimum is now three(3) chars.
> I'm not unhappy with that.




Hi Burglar,

Why aren't you happy with only 3 character's old boy? I'm not happy when people abbreviate words, especially ENGLISH ones - as I was educated in the English education system - but you don't hear me whinge about it... 




So having looked "Chars" up on my international (English) dictionary I cannot understand what charcoal has to do with ASF threads Have I overlooked something. Generally I don't read your threads as they are over *3 characters * long and send me to sleep. So stop having a tantrum and get on with life - not everyone is blessed with your writing prowese - thank goodness. So keep a stiff upper lip old boy (courage in the face of adversity ) and just ignore the post unless it has 4 or more characters....

Regards
PB (From England)


----------



## craft

piggybank said:


> Hi Burglar,
> 
> Why aren't you happy





Isn't not unhappy - Happy?

Anyrate... Piggybank

You are the poster that creates most of the posts I was referring too.

Log out and have a look at the contrast on the home screen between say your PBT post and the ones below it compared to your BKL post. 

Just making an observation to improve the look to those not logged on.  Perhaps making the charts visible to all would be another option.

Perhaps it doesn’t matter. Just alerting Joe to one persons observation - his business his call.


----------



## burglar

craft said:


> ... You are the poster that creates most of the posts I was referring to ...




Normally I would not speak for another poster.
But Piggybank is just now, coming out of his shell.
It seems that after numerous charts devoid of chars, he actually has an opinion.

See his posts in VMT thread.

If your tuned in Piggybank, I'm on your side!!


----------



## piggybank

craft said:


> Anyrate... Piggybank
> You are the poster that creates most of the posts I was referring too.




Hi Crafty,

I wasn't surprised that I was "the one" in your sights. However, my argument is a picture is worth a thousand words, especially when it is making money for me and anyone else who is interested in jumping on-board. Actually, given that I am intellectually challenged withs mathematics, can you please work out what my strike rate is compared to the ASX50, 100, 200 & 300 and tell me I am not making a worthwhile contribution ($$$$$) rather than going around making a mountain out of a molehill. Not everyone is gifted (or feels comfortable) in writing for the fear of being ridiculed in front of other members. Obviously you only look at what you want - in that more half of my posts have included links/information relative to the company, or its chart.

Well time for bed as I need my beauty sleep, I don't want to upset my boyfriend.

Have a nice day tomorrow Crafty, there are more important issues in life to worry about than "*chars*"

Cheers
PB


----------



## piggybank

burglar said:


> If your tuned in Piggybank, I'm on your side!!




Hi Burglar,

I am always tuned in - if I wasn't I would have died years ago fighting for my country. So I don't tolerate fools easy.

Cheers
PB


----------



## Joe Blow

craft said:


> Whilst away I had a couple of quick looks at ASF whilst not logged on, which bought up the home page – on a couple of occasions all I saw was stock codes with a single number underneath.  I assume this is how potential new members would first view the site. On these occasions the site actually looked pretty non-functional.




Attachments such as images without any text are just represented by their attachment number.



craft said:


> What was the outcome of the minimum text count exercise? The preview page certainly looks more functioning and active when text is included in the posts?




Unfortunately it was a a failure. You can't make people contribute a minimum amount of text if they don't want to. Those who didn't want to write any more just padded out their post with nonsense or something like "(blah blah blah)". In the end it just resulted in a lot of edited posts to remove the padding.

However, a chart contains non verbal information such as support and resistance lines and so on, so there is often more to digest. A chart can sometimes include text. It all depends how it is put together by the poster.

I do agree that a sentence or two of explanation would make it look better on the front page and urge those posting charts to consider doing so. It only takes a minute.


----------



## Joe Blow

Also, was there really any need for that gratuitous squabbling? It serves no useful purpose and just creates bad blood.

Instead of going on the attack, or the defensive, ask for clarification, be diplomatic or just take three deep breaths and move on. Not everything that is perceived as an attack is in fact an attack. The written word can be easily misunderstood, so please give others the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## coolcup

Joe Blow said:


> The written word can be easily misunderstood, so please give others the benefit of the doubt.




Couldn't have said it better myself Joe.


----------

