Quantcast New 100 character minimum rule in stock threads - Aussie Stock Forums - Page 5

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 107
  1. #81
    Administrator Joe Blow's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    ASF
    Posts
    4,336
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Re: New 100 character minimum rule in stock threads

    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.

  2. #82

    Default Re: New 100 character minimum rule in stock threads

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Blow View Post
    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!

  3. #83
    hoarding tinned food kennas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Bondi Beach
    Posts
    13,117
    Blog Entries
    172

    Default Re: New 100 character minimum rule in stock threads

    Quote Originally Posted by rederob View Post
    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.
    Last edited by kennas; 2nd-October-2007 at 06:52 AM. Reason: typo

  4. #84

    Default Re: New 100 character minimum rule in stock threads

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

  5. #85
    Rotaredom wayneL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Brisbane Queenzealand
    Posts
    14,037

    Default Re: New 100 character minimum rule in stock threads

    Quote Originally Posted by Edwood View Post
    Good Morning Mr Blow, does this new rule also cover the Index threads? Cheers Ed
    Ed,

    Only the Stock A-Z threads.

  6. #86

    Default Re: New 100 character minimum rule in stock threads

    Quote Originally Posted by wayneL View Post
    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

  7. #87

    Default Re: New 100 character minimum rule in stock threads

    Quote Originally Posted by kennas View Post
    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.
    Last edited by theasxgorilla; 2nd-October-2007 at 07:43 AM. Reason: Personal comments removed.

  8. #88

    Default Re: New 100 character minimum rule in stock threads

    Quote Originally Posted by rederob View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by rederob View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by rederob View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by rederob View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by rederob View Post
    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.

  9. #89

    Default Re: New 100 character minimum rule in stock threads

    Joe
    I took the the most recent post and have quoted it below:
    Quote Originally Posted by kennas View Post
    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.

  10. #90
    hoarding tinned food kennas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Bondi Beach
    Posts
    13,117
    Blog Entries
    172

    Default Re: New 100 character minimum rule in stock threads

    Quote Originally Posted by rederob View Post
    Joe
    I took the the most recent post and have quoted it below:
    You are joking aren't you?

  11. #91

    Default Re: New 100 character minimum rule in stock threads

    Quote Originally Posted by rederob View Post
    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

  12. #92

    Default Re: New 100 character minimum rule in stock threads

    Quote Originally Posted by rederob View Post
    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.

  13. #93

    Default Re: New 100 character minimum rule in stock threads

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Blow View Post
    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.

  14. #94
    Rotaredom wayneL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Brisbane Queenzealand
    Posts
    14,037

    Default Re: New 100 character minimum rule in stock threads

    Quote Originally Posted by rederob View Post
    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.

  15. #95

    Default Re: New 100 character minimum rule in stock threads

    Quote Originally Posted by rederob View Post
    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by rederob
    And this addition should satisfy the stupid 100 character rule that Joe insists on, regardless of content.
    Quote Originally Posted by rederob View Post
    However, if it makes your job easier, so be it.
    It makes both my job and that of the mods much easier.

    Quote Originally Posted by rederob View Post
    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.

  16. #96

    Default Re: New 100 character minimum rule in stock threads

    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.

  17. #97

    Default Re: New 100 character minimum rule in stock threads

    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?

  18. #98

    Default Re: New 100 character minimum rule in stock threads

    Quote Originally Posted by craft View Post
    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!

  19. #99

    Default Re: New 100 character minimum rule in stock threads

    Quote Originally Posted by burglar View Post
    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.

  20. #100

    Default Re: New 100 character minimum rule in stock threads

    Quote Originally Posted by burglar View Post
    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...

    CHARSs.gif

    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)

Similar Threads

  1. Stock borrowing/shorting settlement mechanics/legals
    By cuttlefish in forum Stock Market Nuts and Bolts
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 13th-December-2007, 12:26 PM
  2. December Stock Tipping Competition Entry Thread!
    By Joe Blow in forum ASX Stock Chat
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 30th-November-2007, 09:00 PM
  3. January Stock Tipping Competition Entry Thread!
    By Joe Blow in forum ASX Stock Chat
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: 1st-January-2007, 08:36 AM
  4. November Stock Tipping Competition Entry Thread!
    By Joe Blow in forum ASX Stock Chat
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 25th-December-2005, 03:05 AM
  5. Stock Tipping Competition to begin July 31!
    By Joe Blow in forum ASX Stock Chat
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 4th-March-2005, 12:50 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Aussie Stock Forums