Give me your suggestions, complaints and feedback!

[Sir Osisofliver]

One aspect which may not be the sort of thing you have in mind when asking for feedback is the sense of community that exists. I think it's great that so many people are prepared to offer help, whether answers to questions, or in more depth such as Sir O's beginners' thread and Tech/A's mentoring of Pavilion.
Neither of these are inconsequential in the lives of people with their own very busy lives and show great generosity of spirit.

Aww shucks. I do still keep my eye on the Newbie thread. It's been going on for some time now, but I seem to be experiencing a situation that I just get busier as I get older. I shudder to think what retirement is going to be like at this rate. But on the upside it seems like there is now a pool of people who also keep their eye on the thread and jump in to answer questions. I agree that it shows a great sense of community here and I applaud everyone who generously gives their time in helping others understand and especially Joe for providing the medium and doing such a good job of keeping it together.

As for feedback to Joe - 9 years already!!!! Will there be cake on the 10th anniversary? You're doing a great job Joe - keep it up.

Cheers

Sir O

 

[MrBurns]

Ban Macquack

 

[skc]

Good morning everyone!

ASF turned nine years old in late May, and we are rapidly closing in on 50,000 registrations, 20,000 threads and 750,000 posts.

All these milestones got me thinking about the level of user satisfaction with ASF, so I have decided to simply revive this old thread and ask for some feedback directly.

What do you like and dislike about ASF in its current form? Feel free to discuss any aspect of ASF, from management to design and functionality.

What changes would you like to see at ASF? Again, this could be anything from design changes to the addition of new content or forum functionality.

Your suggestions and feedback are welcome.

Hi Joe, thank you for all your efforts in providing this wonderful forum.

As to improvements, I think it would be great if we can improve the rating function. At the moment only a thread can be rated and I am not sure it is that widely used (I personally can't remember the last time I rated a thread).

Perhaps we can rate a post instead. This will replace some of the low-content (albeit well-meaning) replies which contain nothing but and "+1". The post ratings can then be tallied against a poster, and give the poster a rating as well (something like number of 5-star posts, for example). There can also be a search functionality for top rated posts - doing a serach of such posts in combination with key words would yield the best discussions on particular topics.

 

[Gringotts Bank]

Hi Joe, thank you for all your efforts in providing this wonderful forum.

As to improvements, I think it would be great if we can improve the rating function. At the moment only a thread can be rated and I am not sure it is that widely used (I personally can't remember the last time I rated a thread).

Perhaps we can rate a post instead. This will replace some of the low-content (albeit well-meaning) replies which contain nothing but and "+1". The post ratings can then be tallied against a poster, and give the poster a rating as well (something like number of 5-star posts, for example). There can also be a search functionality for top rated posts - doing a serach of such posts in combination with key words would yield the best discussions on particular topics.

+1

skc, you just want to see a star next to your name!

 

[Julia]

Hi Joe, thank you for all your efforts in providing this wonderful forum.

As to improvements, I think it would be great if we can improve the rating function. At the moment only a thread can be rated and I am not sure it is that widely used (I personally can't remember the last time I rated a thread).

Perhaps we can rate a post instead. This will replace some of the low-content (albeit well-meaning) replies which contain nothing but and "+1". The post ratings can then be tallied against a poster, and give the poster a rating as well (something like number of 5-star posts, for example). There can also be a search functionality for top rated posts - doing a serach of such posts in combination with key words would yield the best discussions on particular topics.

I'm going to disagree on this, skc. Any ratings will be very subjective and will likely reflect some of the personal animosities that exist.
Re the use of +1, I've not been able to find an appropriate alternative if I just want to endorse what someone has said. The only option is, when not wanting to add anything, is "I agree", or similar.
What is actually your dislike of +1 based on?
What do you suggest a poster could do instead?

Often I read a post and mentally agree with everything the poster is saying, but in order not to fall back on "I agree" or "+1" I say nothing. Then that OP doesn't have the satisfaction of knowing his post has hit the spot with others and has been appreciated.

By all means rate threads, but I really don't like the idea of rating individuals. We all have our strengths and weaknesses and imo it would detract from the present egalitarian nature of the forum.
When I first joined, people were classified as Junior, Intermediate or Senior members according to their numbers of posts. I was glad when Joe stopped that as quantity never designated quality imo.


I'd be interested in hearing others' opinions on this.

 

[Zedd]

I don't mind the thumbs up + down seen on many comments or forum facilities on the web, as it summarises well the community opinion on a post without taking up thread space.

Otherwise I tend to agree with Julia. Rating users either directly, or indirectly through their posts, serves no purpose other than to provide some sort of indicator on the validity of ones opinions.

 

[sails]

I don't mind the thumbs up + down seen on many comments or forum facilities on the web, as it summarises well the community opinion on a post without taking up thread space.

Otherwise I tend to agree with Julia. Rating users either directly, or indirectly through their posts, serves no purpose other than to provide some sort of indicator on the validity of ones opinions.

I stumbled onto a forum last night and they had an "agree/do not agree" button (as opposed to a "thumbs up/down"). I agree with Julia that being able to click on an "agree" button shows the poster your support for their post.

That said, I don't like the negative of "do not agree" (or thumbs down) as that's where feelings get hurt and animosities start, IMO. Just leave it as the positive only.

Agree that user ratings can present problems but having a facility to agree with posts would be a good thing. Maybe worth a trial?

 

[Joe Blow]

Thank you for all the feedback, suggestions, and the kind words. It is very gratifying to know that people enjoy and appreciate ASF.

I am listening and am very interested in all feedback, so please continue. If you agree with someone else's suggestion, simply quote their post and express your agreement. Similarly, if you disagree with a suggestion, please don't be afraid to let me know.

Many thanks!

 

[pixel]

I stumbled onto a forum last night and they had an "agree/do not agree" button (as opposed to a "thumbs up/down"). I agree with Julia that being able to click on an "agree" button shows the poster your support for their post.

So do I

That said, I don't like the negative of "do not agree" (or thumbs down) as that's where feelings get hurt and animosities start, IMO. Just leave it as the positive only.

Agree that user ratings can present problems but having a facility to agree with posts would be a good thing. Maybe worth a trial?

+1
Apart from that, I'm happy with ASF.

 

[Sir Osisofliver]

Joe

Ok so I was thinking and reflecting. Taking the question from what would make the forum more attractive. I read SKC's post, Julia's response and I can see things from both perspectives.

I remember starting here, I would actively search out for a few posters, those that essentially triggered my decision to register in the forum, rather than just lurk.

My decision was based upon wanting to discuss certain concepts in more depth, but the vast majority of people I think who register do so from a desire to learn more because they are just starting out. (Is this reflected in the volume of beginners thread posts and action in the beginners lounge?)

I'm wondering if this is something that could be expanded or enhanced with a separate section - mentoring. Julia's comment about seeing Tech/A mentoring Pavillion, or the Newbie thread I started really resonated with me. I can think of several long-term posters in the forum who really have the chops as it were, that would be great mentors within their specialty, or just in general.

There would have to be a thread for newbies to essentially sign up to be mentored with the topic they want to learn about, and then the designated group of mentors, who'd pick one or two newbies to mentor. You'd have to be careful to make sure that no advice was given so no breach of RG176. (and of course a group of posters willing to be mentors). I don't necessarily think that it needs to be a one on one posting relationship. We're bound to get similar questions, but the Forum has a tonne of material, and sometimes I see it's hard to find the gems if you are new. IE WayneL's options thread, and as a mentor you'd simply say. Go read "XX thread" and come back and ask me questions on anything that isn't clear.

I also think this could be good for older forum members in the case that one of us wanted to learn a new topic. I know if I wanted to learn more about say Volume Spread Analysis, Tech/A would be my go to guy.

Thoughts?

Sir O

 

[Some Dude]

My suggestion is to ensure neutral thread titles in the General Chat section. As the first commandment states:

We will no longer be allowing inflammatory threads that are intended solely to provoke and divide the ASF community. If you are starting a thread on a controversial topic please ensure that you frame the discussion in a constructive way. A little pot stirring is fine, but any post that directly insults another ASF member or encourages hatred of or vilifies a particular group of people will be removed and an infraction will be issued.

Many thread titles in the General Chat are framed in some manner but they are also utilised for more general discussion on the core topic. If we accept that our perspective can significantly influence how we perceive whether someone is being constructive or not, then a thread title sets that context before we even enter the topic.

That said, kudos to many people who do frame their thread titles neutrally on potentially controversial topics like kennas (Gay Marriage), Julia (Australia's Homeless), and the political party threads by yourself Joe. I'm not suggesting a wholesale change to all threads but for those threads that are regularly used and problematic in the context of not dividing and usually belittling one section of the ASF community, it would contribute to reducing the inflammatory tone.

Also, making the Five Commandments post a global sticky post for all forum sections. If people are more familiar with the contents of that thread/post, it may help to underpin some improvement in how others are perceived. For example, to myself, this is an obvious thing to do in conversation but others struggle with the concept.

Do not put words in the mouths of others! This is one of the surest ways to start a fight. If you are uncertain of someone's opinion on a particular issue or are confused by their stance then ask them to clarify.

Obviously it won't change the world but having that thread more visible in the section where robust discussion is going to happen may help.

 

[Calliope]

I am happy with the status quo. I agree with you that many conflicts are started by putting words into peoples' mouths or twisting their words .e.g. I might say "I think obesity is becoming a problem with our school children" and get the retort "Why do you hate overweight kids"? This sort of thing happens all the time. It is just taking a cheap shot.

The is one small change I would suggest, and that is the removal of the small triangular "dob in" icon. Use of this icon is one way of settling old scores. If you consider it is desirable to retain it as a monitoring tool, then could I suggest that, if an infraction ensues from this "dob in", then the offender is advised that it is as a result of a "dob in".

In case someone should twist my words , I am not advocating that the informant's name be revealed.

 

[MrBurns]

Congrats Joe, was it all worth it ?

I don't think a rating system for threads or posts is needed, after all it's just a few peoples opinion and others may find more value in posts that aren't rated so the rating system might distort things
Stickies are important as some threads are heavily used and should be on top.

 

[skc]

I'm going to disagree on this, skc. Any ratings will be very subjective and will likely reflect some of the personal animosities that exist.

For threads related to trading, investing and specific companies, a post rating system will help tremendously anyone new to search for the best information quickly.

For posts related to opinion (e.g. any religion / political thread), the post rating system will serve a slightly different purpose. It will show the relative opinion amongst those participating in the post/thread.

What is actually your dislike of +1 based on?

I don't dislike +1 apart from what Zedd has said for me.

I don't mind the thumbs up + down seen on many comments or forum facilities on the web, as it summarises well the community opinion on a post without taking up thread space.

It offers a "lite" way of participation. Plus it allows search for the best information within a thread, instead of having to run over many many pages.

By all means rate threads, but I really don't like the idea of rating individuals. We all have our strengths and weaknesses and imo it would detract from the present egalitarian nature of the forum.

Again, Zedd has offered the reason for an indirect poster rating.

Otherwise I tend to agree with Julia. Rating users either directly, or indirectly through their posts, serves no purpose other than to provide some sort of indicator on the validity of ones opinions.

I think these suggestions enhance the forum as a database of knowledge. I do also acknowledge that the suggestions may alter (for better or worse) certain social aspects of the forum. But they'd be tools that people will learn to use over time.

 

[CanOz]

+1 SKC

 

[Julia]

For threads related to trading, investing and specific companies, a post rating system will help tremendously anyone new to search for the best information quickly.

I understand your point, but believe people are quite able to pretty quickly sort out for themselves where the informed comment lies.

For posts related to opinion (e.g. any religion / political thread), the post rating system will serve a slightly different purpose. It will show the relative opinion amongst those participating in the post/thread.

I don't really understand what you mean here. Can you express it differently?
In threads on religion, politics, et al, it's usually very obvious where the dominant opinion lies.

I really don't like the idea of rating posts in any of the General threads. To do so is to attribute a rating to one person's post by another person who might simply have a different pov, or have some sort of old score to settle.

Politically, there is naturally enough some bias to the Right on ASF, and for those with conservative views to consistently highly rate posts expressing similar views to their own would imo be unfair to those with a Left focus, simply because there are fewer of them.

The whole idea is also inequitable, imo, on the basis of some people having a greater capacity to express themselves than others. The views of people who perhaps lack some verbal skills shouldn't be discounted because they're less capable of putting forward their ideas persuasively.

All up, I just think it's filled with the potential for hurt feelings and dissension, emotions that are already present here from time to time.

(I remember a thread I started a while ago where I commented on just one of about four responses, only to find one of the other responders say 'what was wrong with my suggestion', obviously feeling chagrined at his opinion not being personally acknowledged.)

I also endorse Sails's comment earlier about the "I Agree" being fine but not the "Don't Agree".
If we do not agree with something, then I think we are pretty much obligated to explain why. Otherwise, it's just rather rude.

 

[skc]

I understand your point, but believe people are quite able to pretty quickly sort out for themselves where the informed comment lies.

Can you quickly find me the best post on the topic on position sizing?

You will search for the key word, and you might find 6 threads and 300 posts. After reading all 300 posts, you find the actual answer offered by 6 different posters, 3 of which are wrong, 2 are incomplete and only one hits the spot. Unforutnately you don't know which one.

I don't really understand what you mean here. Can you express it differently?
In threads on religion, politics, et al, it's usually very obvious where the dominant opinion lies.

Yes if you read the whole thread and has been on the forum for 5 years, it's easy to know the prevailing opinion. If you want a quick glance to see whether gay marriage is supported, a supportive post with 25 "I agree" rating and a non-supportive post with only 3 "I agree" rating will tell me (me being the person who hasn't read every post in the thread or participated from the start) quickly where the opinion lies.

The whole idea is also inequitable, imo, on the basis of some people having a greater capacity to express themselves than others. The views of people who perhaps lack some verbal skills shouldn't be discounted because they're less capable of putting forward their ideas persuasively.

It's a forum. If it is not expressed well, it doesn't get rated well. How's that inequitable? I am not rating the person... I am rating the post.

All up, I just think it's filled with the potential for hurt feelings and dissension, emotions that are already present here from time to time.

I rarely participate in general threads so I am oblivious to these concerns you are talking about. I will leave it to Joe to decide if a post rating system is suitable for the the forum or the general threads etc.

 

[Julia]

Can you quickly find me the best post on the topic on position sizing?

[
No. But I don't feel any need to seek anyone's advice on this. I'm able to work it out for myself.
If I did, I'd probably go to posts by Tech/A first and then yourself.

skc, I get your reasons for wanting to rate trading type posts and believe this to be much less controversial than doing likewise with General posts. I just don't think you can reasonably apply the same treatment to trading/investment issues as to the much more subjective opinion relating to politics, religion etc.

Yes if you read the whole thread and has been on the forum for 5 years, it's easy to know the prevailing opinion. If you want a quick glance to see whether gay marriage is supported, a supportive post with 25 "I agree" rating and a non-supportive post with only 3 "I agree" rating will tell me (me being the person who hasn't read every post in the thread or participated from the start) quickly where the opinion lies.

OK, thanks for explaining what you meant.
I still don't think it's necessary. If someone is sufficiently interested in a topic, they will read through a thread.

I rarely participate in general threads so I am oblivious to these concerns you are talking about. I will leave it to Joe to decide if a post rating system is suitable for the the forum or the general threads etc.

That's why I tried to point out what I see as the disadvantages and inappropriateness of rating posts in General threads. I know you almost never participate.
It goes without saying that I'm also happy for Joe to decide whether a rating system would work.
I just can't see any real advantages, but can see plenty of downside.

Might be good to have some input from other people.

 

[DocK]

No. But I don't feel any need to seek anyone's advice on this. I'm able to work it out for myself.
If I did, I'd probably go to posts by Tech/A first and then yourself.

And you would do this because you have been a member of the forum for some years, and therefore have already sorted the wheat from the chaff. From the perspective of a relative newbie, and one who did feel the need to seek information on a variety of investing/trading strategies, I can tell you that it is quite frustrating and time-consuming having to read some of the rubbish posts in order to uncover the gems. There are some posters on this forum who post as if they have been trading for decades and have a wealth of experience, but who it turns out are still quite young and trade with a very small capital base. There are others who are not as arrogant or know-it-all who are actually the ones a learner should taken notice of, but whose posts can be lost amongst the chatter. When I first joined this forum it took some time to figure out who was "talking the talk" and who was actually worth reading. Some of us are time poor, and a rating system would vastly improve the ability to quickly search out a post (on say how to work out free cash flow for example) particularly if those who know their stuff take the time to "agree" with posts they think worthwhile.

skc, I get your reasons for wanting to rate trading type posts and believe this to be much less controversial than doing likewise with General posts. I just don't think you can reasonably apply the same treatment to trading/investment issues as to the much more subjective opinion relating to politics, religion etc.

Agree. There is a fairly self-evident conservative bias to ASF and it doesn't take long to establish the majority opinion on most of the general chat threads. Use of "agree/disagree" icons would maybe only serve to further dissuade those with a minority view from trying to debate/discuss/persuade others to their view.

Might be good to have some input from other people.

.

One other aspect to the general chat threads is that they could be dominated by a relatively small number of posters, and a rating system would only see them "agree" with each others posts, leading to less and less participants. I know there have been times I've read a thread and started to post a reply, only to think "why bother, it's obvious nobody is going to agree with me and I'd be attempting to change a closed mind", and refrained. If I saw from the outset that 80% or more of the "agrees" were for posts I disagreed with, I'd probably not ever bother at all. Then again, I guess it would also provide a way for those less inclined to stick their virtual heads up to be shot down a method of disagreeing with someone anonymously.....

 

[tech/a]

only one hits the spot.

Ill bite ---Which one?

I personally like the Idea of some sort of Like--Interest indicator

For me it would give me an idea where the interest lies and --- being time poor
where to direct what time I have. Speaking of course about threads where I post info and discuss ideas.