I think ET would be a far more useful place if the OP of a thread had the ability to moderate their own thread. This moderating power would include two things: the ability to delete posts (not change them), and the ability to banish specific ET members from posting on their thread. This would be extremely useful, even if limited to only threads in the 'Journal' section of ET, IMO. I've seen many cases of otherwise 'good' threads, becoming hijacked by one or more idiots, ruining the value of the thread for all. Personally, I know I'd be much more interested in contributing on ET if I could ensure that my threads wouldn't be polluted by one-line insults and irrelevent, off-topic posts. Here is an example of the kind of crap I'd like to see an OP be able to delete: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2220892#post2220892 This was the first post by this member on the thread. The post is insulting, adds zero value and encourages the thread to turn into a flame fest. Given my choice, I'd like to delete the post, and banish the poster from further posts on the thread. While it's easy enough to put these type members on ignore, it still clutters the thread and lessens the value for others. In fact, I would suggest that all members on the OP's ignore list for be automatically banished from participating on the OP's threads, as a starting point. While certainly not easy to implement, I think this would encourage the posting of more useful information on ET, increasing the value for all (including those that are muzzled). In addition, many of the ongoing thread wars would automatically end, since the combatants wouldn't be able to post on the other's threads.
Good point. Then maybe the default could be that no one is banished from a thread upon creation. That way, the thread starter would have control to enable, or disable, thread wars at their choosing. Although, I would certainly favor an option (at thread creation), to immediately from the onset banish all members of one's ignore list (a check box would work). The ignore list is already an excellent feature that allows users to make their thread <i>reading</i> time much more productive. However, for those choosing to 'give back' and create useful content for the site and it's members, something more is needed to keep their threads from becoming a useless trash bin, IMO.
Unfortunately, this simply does not work consistently or timely enough to be useful, IMO. For example, an hour after I created the thread linked above, I realized that it was in the "Career Trader" forum and not the "Journals" forum as I had intended. I immediately sent a PM to the moderator of the Career Trader forum, asking that the thread be moved (along with another request). That was 26 hours ago, and it hasn't been done. I have no reason to expect the "Complain" button would be any better. In addition, I don't believe the site's moderators should be burdened with the small tasks being requested for the thread's OP to self-moderate (ability to delete individual posts on their threads, and banish individual members from posting on their threads). The post linked above was not bad enough to warrant a 'complaint' anyway, although I'd have deleted it as being off topic and not value-added, if I had the power. I think Baron should realize that the collective posts are what add value to his site, and to the members of the site. I believe that my suggestion will encourage more quality content, and provide a means to self-police some of the immature bickering and flaming that happens on the site (and which benefits no one, IMO). What is the harm of allowing the OP to have some limited self-moderating powers on their own threads (even if only on the Journals forum)? Why must a member call a designated 'policeman' and hope they will clean up their thread? I will often choose the easier path, which would be to abandon the thread altogether. Why should people try to create value added content to help others, if the obstacles are too high to keep it clean and useful? Some people find my posts useful, while others do not. I've a number of posts, however, asking why their is not more useful information posted on this site. The response I've read tend to suggest that the "good traders left long ago" and that the "good content is mostly just old stuff from 3-5 years ago." My suggestion is merely an idea on how to generate more useful content for the benefit of fellow traders (and therefore, for the benefit of the site's owner). My feeling won't be hurt if the idea is ignored, but I think it should be seriously considered as a way to improve the site.
Doesn't make much difference to me one way or the other but this isn't a new suggestion. And it/they were denied in the past.
If you are a veteran of forum use, you know that this is part and parcel of the way forums work. Like the bizarre request you made to ask the moderator to move some responses down below yours, until you were done pontificating? How much do you pay to use this site? Either get a thick skin, or go somewhere else.
Maybe for some forums, but certainly not all. The leading financial forum in the late 90's and early 00's was Silicon Investor, and they offer the ability to self-moderate your own threads. My skin is pretty thick, but I suspect you seem to misunderstand the purpose of the "Feedback" forum. The purpose, IMO, is to prove <i>feedback</i> to Baron, and suggestion to improve the site. I stand by my suggestion, and I comfortable with whatever Baron decides (likely to do nothing, so be it). I do think that maybe if there was a charge to access this site, then there would be a lot less petty arguing and immature behavior. Silicon Investor was an awesome site, before the site was sold (for $50M+, as I recall) and tech bubble burst, and it was a pay for access site. ET seems to be fading into a Yahoo Finance type board, which provide less and less value to the users, IMO. Still almost surprises me how all the comments tend to be along the lines of "whatever the crap, just deal with it", or "press the Complain button", while no one seems to have input on whether the actual suggestion would improve the site or not. Whatever. End of discussion, from me, anyway.