Ignore chains to save ET from demise

Discussion in 'Feedback' started by MajorUrsa, Aug 16, 2007.

  1. Hello all,

    it seems to me that the amount of rubbish written on the board is getting out of control. For some reason it seems impossible for the publisher to control the number of IP's per handle so we are confronted with the same idiots time and again.
    Also, there is apparently no rule about the maximum number of threads per day (or hour) so the number of one-sided opinion-dumps for lack of attention is growing by the day.

    I have a hard time finding the few useful bits and, frankly, it is starting to cost to much time to find them , thereby rendering the forums useless.

    Of course we have the ignore feature, but it takes a while to find out who are the culprits, and we still see the threads they produce.

    My proposals:

    1) no more than a few threads-starts per day allowed, depending on the number of posts.

    2) this max number could be zero eg. if the number of posts is less than 200.

    3) show the number of ignores for a certain member in his member-profile.

    4) publish a top-50 of ignoreds, with ignore buttons next to the names so we can quickly ignore them too.
    4b) maybe allow setting of auto-ignore level in this top-50, someone managing to reach eg. number 15 can then be ignored automatically.

    5) build peer-networks; if some of my peers ignore someone I want them ignored too.

    6) make it choosable whether to show threads started by someone ignored.

    7) not more than 1 alias per IP!

    I think ET is getting into some serious trouble. Maybe the business model is depending on page-views; if so quality will suffer and those who of real interest to the advertiser will vanish and start theirs own.

    I hope the measures can still be taken in time. I've been around for a few years here, learned a LOT, which is the reason to stay loyal for a while. The number of mis-spent hours here is starting to hurt and I would hate to see the board become obsolete. I hope the respected publisher will start to take this problem seriously soon.

  2. maxpi


    Some ignore statistics would be good, maybe not all that prominently displayed but in a statistics section, a list of user names over some threshold of ignores, maybe 20, would be ok with me. It would be a reminder for people to try to keep it civil and informed, if that is possible on an internet forum... of course one post in the politics section could get you dozens of ignores even if you were informed. Being able to look up the number of users that have one on ignore would be a plus too, sort of feedback before you hit the big list...

    I signed up for experts-exchange.com services to get some answers to tech problems. It proves that charging some admission will keep the riff raff out... very civil discourse there, not necessarily informed regarding every post but overall highly informative and very civil.
  3. Baron does not hesitate to ban posters for extreme obscenity, disruptiveness, or offensiveness.

    I think the solution to your issue is to add to that list STUPIDITY. That's also spelled STOCK777.
  4. RL8093


    I agree w/ the request for more "ignore" functionality. While I haven't been around all that long, it does appear that more & more space is being usurped by quasi-adolescent, attention-seeking fools w/ little to no real knowledge. As Ursa mentioned, even placing them on ignore does not stop the threads they create from being visible.

    In any public forum, it's always necessary to weed thru junk to find content that is worthwhile. Here, the noise-to-content ratio is growing and mostly attributable to a few noisemakers.

  5. Post of the year.
  6. To make it clear, I'm not suggesting banning rules; they don't work; it's too subjective and the process of getting banned gives these psycho's a kick.

    The system I propose makes the idiots go away by themselves. After installment it doesn't need any maintenance and will gradually improve the gem/manure ratio.

    Something must be done, soon.

  7. Ursa,

    I think your ideas are great. However, you have zero chance of ever getting Baron to enforce them.

    This isn't a non-profit website. Baron gets paid for page views, thread counts, and post counts.

    Having a few babbling lunatics here actually adds to his bottom line!!! :D
  8. This is what the Strategy Trading section says -

    The area for talking about backtesting, formula writing and other aspects of strategy design.

    However most threads being started there have a different agenda all together.

    Take a look -

    Atleast the ones not fitting the bill can be moved to Chit-Chat and such or is that asking for too much?
  9. I'm aware of that. But when their number exceeds a certain treshold, which is what's happening right now, then all that will be left are the babbling lunatics.

    I'm not saying I have that much of importance to say, but when I'm considering leaving for good, I just know many others will too. I'm sure that the advertisers are not interested in having non-trading babbling lunatics as their viewers, but rather guys like me and you, who will actually consider spending good money on their products, because we might need them for actual trading.

    In the end the number of pageviews will deteriorate anyway, this is what always happens when content gets dumbed down and mediocre.

    There are several other rather good forums, so maybe it's just a matter of survival of the fittest, again.

  10. +

    Welcome to capitalism.

    The solution to your dilemma is to provide some type of voting matrix. If you like a poster, you vote for him ( her).

    When cumulative votes > (x) , said poster has unlimited posting and thread starting powers.

    When votes = < (x), said poster can only start 1 thread

    when votes < (-x) , said poster loses all posting powers for (X) days.

    You do understand nothing will come out of this?

    National Enquirer sells more issues than the Washington Post. Take a hint on where the money is.....garbage sells. With a business that has failure rate > 95% , fresh meat is necessary for survival.
    #10     Aug 26, 2007