The Five Commandments of Aussie Stock Forums

[Bobby]

What is ASFs ABN ( Australian Business Number ) ?
Or legal entity name as registered with the Australian Business Register or Australian Tax Office .

Take Care
Bobby.

 

[Joe Blow]

Bobby,

ASF is owned by Aussie Networks Pty. Ltd.

This has been at the bottom of every page of ASF for years.

 

[skc]

ASF has changed so much since i first joined, it holds very little attraction to me any more because it is no longer what it was, a financial site, and a lot of the good posters are now gone.

I also feel there is some truth in this

Joe, in your response you seem to think this is not a problem. I agree there are still great financial information around... they just feel harder to come by. I was just wondering if some stats / data could prove otherwise. e.g.

- Of the top 50 most replied / viewed posts in the last 3 months, how many of them are "general chat" vs financial related?

- Of the top posters (by that I mean quality not quantity), have you seen any change in their post activities? I assume yourself and the moderators have some ideas who the top posters are in terms of their value to ASF as a financial forum.

I understand this may not be easily compiled, but the potential crowding out effect could be real.

 

[Joe Blow]

I also feel there is some truth in this

Joe, in your response you seem to think this is not a problem. I agree there are still great financial information around... they just feel harder to come by. I was just wondering if some stats / data could prove otherwise. e.g.

- Of the top 50 most replied / viewed posts in the last 3 months, how many of them are "general chat" vs financial related?

- Of the top posters (by that I mean quality not quantity), have you seen any change in their post activities? I assume yourself and the moderators have some ideas who the top posters are in terms of their value to ASF as a financial forum.

I understand this may not be easily compiled, but the potential crowding out effect could be real.

ASF was never a stock market only site. It has always had a robust General Chat forum and I see this as adding to the site, not taking away from it.

I have never wanted this to be a forum where people only discussed stocks and financial/investment matters, even though this is clearly the focus of the site. The world continues to turn after the market closes and there are many other, more general topics worth discussing. Personally, I find forums with too narrow a focus to be a bit bland and boring.

It's easy to avoid the General Chat forum for those who do not wish to participate, but it will always be a big part of ASF because I think it makes it a far more interesting place. I encourage people to discuss stocks and investing/trading related topics but I also encourage people to also discuss matters of a more peripheral nature. There is, after all, much more to life than the market.

However, having said that, I am considering restricting posting in the General Chat forum to those who have been here for a while or who have a certain amount of posts under their belt. I'm still ironing out the details.

No one forum is going to satisfy everyone and I've always realised that. Some people will like the culture of ASF and others wont and ultimately that's up to everyone to decide for themselves.

 

[Julia]

However, having said that, I am considering restricting posting in the General Chat forum to those who have been here for a while or who have a certain amount of posts under their belt. I'm still ironing out the details.

Joe, obviously this is your forum and you should decide how it works.
But I have some reservations about restricting posting in the General Chat forum (or any other forum, for that matter) to any particular group of people.
This brings the sense of stratification into the forum, something which used to exist when the term e.g. 'Senior member' appeared with a person's nic.
Personally, I think it has been better since this was scrapped.

There could be lots of new members who have worthwhile opinions about most things. I can't say I've noticed that newer people necessarily don't have interesting views, but you obviously have a reason for considering a change.

 

[Joe Blow]

Joe, obviously this is your forum and you should decide how it works.
But I have some reservations about restricting posting in the General Chat forum (or any other forum, for that matter) to any particular group of people.
This brings the sense of stratification into the forum, something which used to exist when the term e.g. 'Senior member' appeared with a person's nic.
Personally, I think it has been better since this was scrapped.

There could be lots of new members who have worthwhile opinions about most things. I can't say I've noticed that newer people necessarily don't have interesting views, but you obviously have a reason for considering a change.

Hi Julia,

In the past we have occasionally had problems with people who have no interest in the stock market showing up with the sole intention of disrupting the General Chat forum. This is what motivated me to consider restricting posting in the General Chat forum to those who have demonstrated an interest in trading/investing. The post qualification would be a nominal amount and would not be difficult for those with a genuine interest in the stock market to reach fairly quickly.

Anyway, I am still open to suggestion and would be interested in the opinions of other ASF members on this proposed change.

 

[Julia]

Hi Julia,

In the past we have occasionally had problems with people who have no interest in the stock market showing up with the sole intention of disrupting the General Chat forum. This is what motivated me to consider restricting posting in the General Chat forum to those who have demonstrated an interest in trading/investing. The post qualification would be a nominal amount and would not be difficult for those with a genuine interest in the stock market to reach fairly quickly.

Anyway, I am still open to suggestion and would be interested in the opinions of other ASF members on this proposed change.

Thanks, Joe.
Yes, I figured that out later. Sorry, should have thought it through further.
Agree. A similar phenomenon exists on the Storm Financial thread.

 

[drsmith]

In the past we have occasionally had problems with people who have no interest in the stock market showing up with the sole intention of disrupting the General Chat forum. This is what motivated me to consider restricting posting in the General Chat forum to those who have demonstrated an interest in trading/investing. The post qualification would be a nominal amount and would not be difficult for those with a genuine interest in the stock market to reach fairly quickly.

Anyway, I am still open to suggestion and would be interested in the opinions of other ASF members on this proposed change.

Something like this would not be unique.

DTVforum for example has a minimum post count (essentially nominal) before new members can start threads.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Something like this would not be unique.

DTVforum for example has a minimum post count (essentially nominal) before new members can start threads.

That would most likely avoid duplicating threads while the person becomes orientated. Unless the poster duplicates on purpose thereafter to antagonise but I don't think anyone would.

 

[explod]

Explosion MA (hons) (and I can verify that) reporting in.

Good topic folks, keep it rolling. Lovely fine day down here on the Peninsula, birds singing, bay is a flat cerelian blue mill pond; and can hear the polluting cars rolling down the Mooroduc Freeway, could not be better.

Dont' know where this will finish but agree wholehartedly that some form of easing in (and out) on a common sense basis is needed.

I will mull over.

Oh and sorry Joe, looks like I want that prize, running second last on the stock tipping.

 

[Kremmen]

The rule has actually proven to be very successful and as a result there are far fewer posts in stock threads with little or no worthwhile content. Posts that are padded out are promptly removed.

Said like a true politician. Avoiding stupid "me too" posts would only take a 10-character limit. Making it 100 characters is like cracking a nut with a sledgehammer. Yes, it works, but it's excessive and unnecessary.

There are many posts about stocks, such as reporting take-overs, announcements, etc, which can impart useful information to others and can be phrased in way under 100 characters. The limit just means that everyone phrases things sloppily and uses longer words. It simply encourages the opposite of good, clear writing.

Posts that are padded out are seldom removed and it would be almost impossible to do so. Someone might use a couple of 8-letter words instead of 3-letter words to get them over the limit, and policing that would take a huge amount of effort. Not only that, but if it were policed, a massive number of useful, informative posts would be deleted.

 

[Joe Blow]

Yes, it works, but it's excessive and unnecessary.

Only to those unwilling to put in any effort.

There are many posts about stocks, such as reporting take-overs, announcements, etc, which can impart useful information to others and can be phrased in way under 100 characters.

Nonsense. 100 characters is no more than one line of text. If you're reporting a take over or passing on an announcement how about adding a comment or two of your own and adding some value?

The limit just means that everyone phrases things sloppily and uses longer words. It simply encourages the opposite of good, clear writing.

I notice very little of this.

Posts that are padded out are seldom removed and it would be almost impossible to do so.

Not true. Most are removed. You just have to know how to search for them.

Not only that, but if it were policed, a massive number of useful, informative posts would be deleted.

I couldn't disagree more. I have never seen a post of less than 100 characters that couldn't have been improved with a minimal amount of effort. There is one reason for posts of less than 100 characters in stock threads: laziness.

 

[drsmith]

To me as an individual poster the 100 character limit does seem excessive. Useful information can be provided with less particularly when answering a simple question put by another poster.

At the same time though it's easier to contribute nothing of added value with fewer words so perhaps it's a compromise that has to be struck and from their viewpoint the mods have concluded that 100 characters represents the best overall compromise.

 

[Wysiwyg]

To me as an individual poster the 100 character limit does seem excessive. Useful information can be provided with less particularly when answering a simple question put by another poster.

At the same time though it's easier to contribute nothing of added value with fewer words so perhaps it's a compromise that has to be struck and from their viewpoint the mods have concluded that 100 characters represents the best overall compromise.

The way I see this rather insignificant issue is the rampers are disgruntled because they have been asked to apply an informative communication. This seems to stretch the acceptance level of a few that, by persona, are unwilling to comply.

 

[Kremmen]

Nonsense. 100 characters is no more than one line of text. If you're reporting a take over or passing on an announcement how about adding a comment or two of your own and adding some value?

What if I have no further value to add (that wouldn't be classified as ramping)? I haven't analysed any of it, I've just noticed something important that hasn't been commented on before. Perhaps I'm in a hurry. I post ... and the board tells me that I've failed to reach the 100-char limit. What do I do? Either pad it, or not post at all. The former is a waste of time, the latter means that some information just never appears here.

The really silly part is that it's just that much too big to be annoying. I would probably ever notice it if it were a 60 or 70 or maybe even 80 character limit. 100 is just long enough to be a pita, while providing nothing that a shorter limit wouldn't also achieve.

 

[nulla nulla]

It appears this thread is becomming bogged down on the merits of posts being a minimum of 100 characters, at the expense of the social guidelines raised in the 5 commandments.

 

[nick2fish]

Agree, and as my signature suggests sometimes a few words can convey a great deal

 

[bunyip]

If a post is removed for whatever reason, particularly if it's an offensive or insulting or disrespectful post, the offending person should at least be notified of the reasons for the removal and warned that they'll be skating on thin ice if they repeat their behaviour.

 

[Wysiwyg]

If a post is removed for whatever reason, particularly if it's an offensive or insulting or disrespectful post, the offending person should at least be notified of the reasons for the removal and warned that they'll be skating on thin ice if they repeat their behaviour.

From first hand experience I agree. (not this forum) It is very offensive, insulting and disrespectful to find one has been sin binned without warning, notification or most importantly the reason. For trumped up or trivial reason is injustice of the highest order.

 

[nunthewiser]

Agree .

After being binned from Commsec on numerous occasions without ANY reasons given whatsoever it is rather refreshing to be told what i am doing wrong here and given the chance to pull my head in when i get a lil carried away at times ....... At least here you are given fair warning before you get canned

Re. being notified why posts are removed Bunyip , everytime my posts are removed i am given a reason why, i may not agree with them reasons but at least i know why.