New 100 character minimum rule in stock threads

Joe Blow · 27 April 2007

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 · 27 April 2007

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 · 27 April 2007

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 · 27 April 2007

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 · 27 April 2007

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 · 27 April 2007

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 · 27 April 2007

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

Joe Blow · 2 May 2007

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 · 2 May 2007

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 · 2 May 2007

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 · 2 May 2007

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 · 2 May 2007

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 · 2 May 2007

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 · 2 May 2007

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 · 2 May 2007

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 · 2 May 2007

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

purple · 2 May 2007

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 · 2 May 2007

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 · 2 May 2007

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 · 3 May 2007

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

New 100 character minimum rule in stock threads

Joe Blow

Administrator

GreatPig

Pigs In Space

Joe Blow

Administrator

Joe Blow

Administrator

2020hindsight

macca

resourceboom

Joe Blow

Administrator

The Mint Man

Joe Blow

Administrator

The Mint Man

Happy

Joe Blow

Administrator

Pommiegranite

Joe Blow

Administrator

constable

purple

Joe Blow

Administrator

clowboy

2020hindsight

Similar threads

New 100 character minimum rule in stock threads

Administrator

Pigs In Space

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency