Managing the volume of the Investor's Roundtable thread

[bhtooefr]

I'm going to bump this to reiterate my recommendation of removing the main thread for next year.

The volume is so high that nobody reads the other threads, and we continuously get problems with people going to the main thread first, and just posting there, and then things spiraling out of control, posts getting deleted, and people getting offended by that.

Remove the main thread, and people can pay attention to the threads they care about, and I suspect topic drift will be less of an issue (not entirely solved!)

 

[JRP3]

Won't work, people want a general market thread to kick around various ideas which could influence the stock. Sometimes people wander off topic, can't be stopped without banning everyone.

 

[Matt Porter]

I have implemented a filter that only shows posts with a specified number of upvotes. Counting 'disagree's and 'funny's is optional.

I have used this solution for several weeks now and it works very well.

My solution is unfortunately not easy to roll out to everybody, so I'm hesitating to publish it. I also think it would be more convenient to reimplement it in GreaseMonkey. Or, better, if it was implemented in the forum software.

I've just put together a GreaseMonkey compatible script. Can include based on Like/Love/Informative ratings, as well as "favourite" authors. TMC Show Rated -- I haven't used it much yet though so I'll see how it goes and adjust the thresholds accordingly

 

[TheTalkingMule]

There certainly can be and should be a "main thread", but there's a difference between spitballing ideas and a 3 page rambling debate between 2 people on something that clearly has it's own appropriate forum/thread.

Like the cybertruck nonsense for instance. When that's the hot topic, there's no reason for another investor forum thread, let alone endless posting in the "main thread". There's a truck forum. We should have clear marketability, technical, design threads in there to let people properly discuss the topic.

The reveal day was a perfect example of why this board gets messy. All truck talk was in the main thread, then an admin created a thread for ALL truck talk, then another admin said go ahead and post truck stuff in the main thread between 6:27pm today and 4:39am. There's no clear guidelines for where anything goes.

I've found that "gameday threads" work well for sports sites. Cybertruck should have had an admin-started "Cybertruck Reveal" thread a week before it was out and it could simply run until the momentum fades and truck talk goes back to the truck forum.

There's no way to follow this forum unless you want to post 100x per day and read it non-stop.

 

[jbih]

I've just put together a GreaseMonkey compatible script. Can include based on Like/Love/Informative ratings, as well as "favourite" authors. TMC Show Rated -- I haven't used it much yet though so I'll see how it goes and adjust the thresholds accordingly

Now that you had some time to use the script, how does it work for you?

I love my program, it works extremely well for me, but since it starts a local server it's not as user friendly. A userscript is the better solution.

 

[Matt Porter]

Now that you had some time to use the script, how does it work for you?

I love my program, it works extremely well for me, but since it starts a local server it's not as user friendly. A userscript is the better solution.

I haven't really noticed it... I suspect it's not filtering much out. I've also been reading on my phone more and haven't got the script on there anyway.

 

[jeewee3000]

I'm going to bump this to reiterate my recommendation of removing the main thread for next year.

The volume is so high that nobody reads the other threads, and we continuously get problems with people going to the main thread first, and just posting there, and then things spiraling out of control, posts getting deleted, and people getting offended by that.

Remove the main thread, and people can pay attention to the threads they care about, and I suspect topic drift will be less of an issue (not entirely solved!)

It's an interesting idea (removing the general thread) but I'm inclined to think it won't work.

Basically TMC:
1) has grown too large too fast
2) does not have enough mods to counteract the above
3) and due to the above a whole "babbling" culture has started. (On r/spacex they are called "low effort comments", they are only allowed in party threads such as launch threads)

Thing is, the "investor" main thread has become the general chat room for the entire message board.

IMO we should have one party/general TMC thread, for all members. This would replace the current main investor thread.

Besides that we should have the normal threads in which "babble" is restricted. This would be a lot stricter than now, and a change of mindset that many members would not agree with. (For example in a non-party thread such as the Near future production predictions thread, there should be not one comment that does not add anything and consists of only a joke.

Harsh? Maybe. But it would cut the noise down by a lot. And if you want to "hang" -> go hang in the main thread. (We actually have threads like that, like the "introduce yourself" thread, but people have gotten used to just doing that in the main investor thread since that is where the crowd is.)

Either way, it will take a transition period of overly harsh modding to achieve the Utopia above. People are people, and TMC is a form of leisure...

EDIT: in the hang thread the rule would also be that you are not supposed to have read all previous posts. In the stricter threads you should do your research before posting.

 

[JRP3]

IMO we should have one party/general TMC thread, for all members. This would replace the current main investor thread.

Disagree. A site wide general thread would encompass all topics, the general investing thread does mostly focus on topics which affect an investment thesis. Yes it wanders off topic on a regular basis but it does have a focus and we do get back on track at times. Mods do what they can to herd the cats as needed. It's not ideal but the ideal is not possible.

 

[jeewee3000]

Disagree. A site wide general thread would encompass all topics, the general investing thread does mostly focus on topics which affect an investment thesis. Yes it wanders off topic on a regular basis but it does have a focus and we do get back on track at times. Mods do what they can to herd the cats as needed. It's not ideal but the ideal is not possible.

I guess you're right. Good point.

 

[heltok]

With the corona virus a lot of more people are posting. Some of us try to read every post in some threads to keep up to date. With the current volume it’s getting really hard. So many posts are just oneliners, friendly chat, repost of old stories etc when we are looking for long quality posts by posters sharing their thoughts and investment ideas or commenting on news articles. Would be nice if we could have one thread with a limit of for example at least 5 sentences per post.

 

[UnknownSoldier]

The issue is and has always been the largely arbitrary decision making process about what is relevant and allowed to be posted in the general thread and what is not. I don't care if the main thread is very high volume, that means people have a lot of things to talk about! But for example segregating the coronavirus to a spare thread has done a huge disservice to people who only read the general thread and would therefore be under the incorrect impression everything is perfect in terms of market conditions and so TSLA should be going up forever. This has caused many people to lose significant amounts of money (I know, their own fault if they can't even look at the rest of the subforum) and it was completely avoidable.

 

[adiggs]

The issue is and has always been the largely arbitrary decision making process about what is relevant and allowed to be posted in the general thread and what is not. I don't care if the main thread is very high volume, that means people have a lot of things to talk about! But for example segregating the coronavirus to a spare thread has done a huge disservice to people who only read the general thread and would therefore be under the incorrect impression everything is perfect in terms of market conditions and so TSLA should be going up forever. This has caused many people to lose significant amounts of money (I know, their own fault if they can't even look at the rest of the subforum) and it was completely avoidable.

As a counterpoint, this entire forum is a collection of threads on different topics. Segregating different topics to different threads enables people to be more selective with their time, in a way that consolidating all topics into a single thread does not enable.

Those looking to track and learn about coronavirus can read that thread. I'm finding it highly educational - I'm confident I know a lot more about the virus by reading that thread that any other single source I'm exposed to (especially including the media).

We also have a thread about how the oil & gas industry will evolve, and how that impacts Tesla.


What I would like to see to help manage the volume in the main thread - a preference / bias towards only posting comments, information, and stuff focused on today and maybe tomorrow. Take strategy, quarterly activity predictions / projects, and other investing topics to other threads. Then with those other thread titles, people will be better able to follow along and contribute to the topics they're interested in, and not feel like they're missing out when they need to skip 10 pages because they haven't been reading for the last 3 hours.

 

[adiggs]

You have point. Rename the thread "Daily chat," and encourage people to post relevant threads within threads dealing with the Titled Topic.

I like this idea a lot. I'd go even further and make the megathread into a no moderation thread (or only moderate really egregious stuff, like borderline criminal). Leave it as a free for all.

I think that, in practice, that'll push serious posts and topics out into dedicated threads / topics, and I for one will probably never visit the main thread again. I get a much better signal / noise ratio, and an already excellent forum will get that much better.

(And check this out - I took this out of the main thread too!)

 

[TheTalkingMule]

This place values the size and scope of the main thread above all else, but at the same time insists on arbitrarily moderating out certain chat/topics.

You can either have a massive chatty thread or an on-topic discussion forum. You can't have both.

Pack Leadership Technique 3: Establish Rules, Boundaries And Limitations. | Cesar's Way

One of the mods tried to send me a PM the other day asking why I 'disagreed' with one of their posts about moderation. For some reason I couldn't respond to the PM, but if I could I'd say I disagreed because there are no real set rules. And no one even follows the few clear rules there are.

I did a search on the Investors Thread for that mod's posts and found, of the last 30 or so, 60% were moderation posts and 40% we're OT posts. Literally zero on-topic posts. If mods aren't gonna post on-topic, how can we expect all these lunatics to do so?

I appreciate this place and the amount of effort put into it, but as an on-the-spectrum poster the lack of rules and arbitrary enforcement makes me uncomfortable. Imagine I'm not alone since most folks here are on at least some kind of spectrum.

 

[mblakele]

This place values the size and scope of the main thread above all else, but at the same time insists on arbitrarily moderating out certain chat/topics.

You can either have a massive chatty thread or an on-topic discussion forum. You can't have both.

Pack Leadership Technique 3: Establish Rules, Boundaries And Limitations. | Cesar's Way

One of the mods tried to send me a PM the other day asking why I 'disagreed' with one of their posts about moderation. For some reason I couldn't respond to the PM, but if I could I'd say I disagreed because there are no real set rules. And no one even follows the few clear rules there are.

I did a search on the Investors Thread for that mod's posts and found, of the last 30 or so, 60% were moderation posts and 40% we're OT posts. Literally zero on-topic posts. If mods aren't gonna post on-topic, how can we expect all these lunatics to do so?

I appreciate this place and the amount of effort put into it, but as an on-the-spectrum poster the lack of rules and arbitrary enforcement makes me uncomfortable. Imagine I'm not alone since most folks here are on at least some kind of spectrum.

You're right that some of the Investment mods sometimes post off-topic or post on political topics that are likely to be inflammatory. It would be nice if that didn't happen, but no one is perfect — and the "report" function works for mod posts too.

I think the reaction to recent events is overdone. Neither KarenRei nor Fact Checking have been banned, AFAIK. They chose to announce a vacation or departure from TMC of their own free will. I'd welcome them back, because they sometimes post valuable insights. But at the same time mods are doing their jobs when they moderate, and that includes off-topic posts made by anyone. Ultimately Nerode N couldn't accept that. If KR or FC find that they can't... well, their personalities might be better suited to another medium: there's no shortage of choices.

(I'm posting in this thread because I think it's a little more on-topic than it would be in the main investor thread.)

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Just wrote a big post and deleted it. Frankly discussion of moderation shouldn't really be allowed either.

I'll just say that a lot of the best posters here seem to be put off by the way things operate. That's something we should address for the health of this wonderful forum. Perhaps after the global pandemic has passed?

 

[UncaNed]

The rift between our most valued posters and MODs illustrates what I've tried to express several times, that the forum structure does not quite fill the needs of this growing, diverse, yet focused group.

My opt-in* suggestion still allows members to post their desired range of thoughts while accommodating what the hard working MODS are, of necessity, trying to do; all the posts that pass the more discriminating MOD's current standards would remain as they are. The more off-topic posts get shrunk to half the current height of an avatar with:

- smaller font size
- unique shaded
- 1/4 size avatar
- click to expand
- members could continue to enjoy the full Montezuma of posts as is currently, or opt-in to the system.

This way, pointless stock price recitations, "three-fiddy", "backing up the truck", and 3-screens-tall graphics all exist, but no longer need to interfere with those scrambling to learn about TSLA during limited work breaks or bus rides to work.

Who decides?
Those above a threshold "Like" to "Disagree" ratio, (or a MOD-appointed group of long-time trusted contributing members) may vote on which posts to minimize; 5 votes and it shrinks.

To accommodate our most valued members, the higher your earned "Like" to "Disagree" ratio, the more shrink votes required to shrink your posts.

I've no idea about the cost of programming something like this, but I'd be happy to contribute.

*Those who elect not to opt-in see no change in the forum whatsoever

(I copied my above post from the main investor's forum)

 

[JRP3]

Thanks for using this thread for the discussion. I'm guessing it's not practical to modify the forum in that manner.

 

[ggr]

The rift between our most valued posters and MODs illustrates what I've tried to express several times, that the forum structure does not quite fill the needs of this growing, diverse, yet focused group.

My opt-in* suggestion still allows members to post their desired range of thoughts while accommodating what the hard working MODS are, of necessity, trying to do; all the posts that pass the more discriminating MOD's current standards would remain as they are. The more off-topic posts get shrunk to half the current height of an avatar with:

- smaller font size
- unique shaded
- 1/4 size avatar
- click to expand
- members could continue to enjoy the full Montezuma of posts as is currently, or opt-in to the system.

This way, pointless stock price recitations, "three-fiddy", "backing up the truck", and 3-screens-tall graphics all exist, but no longer need to interfere with those scrambling to learn about TSLA during limited work breaks or bus rides to work.

Who decides?
Those above a threshold "Like" to "Disagree" ratio, (or a MOD-appointed group of long-time trusted contributing members) may vote on which posts to minimize; 5 votes and it shrinks.

To accommodate our most valued members, the higher your earned "Like" to "Disagree" ratio, the more shrink votes required to shrink your posts.

I've no idea about the cost of programming something like this, but I'd be happy to contribute.

*Those who elect not to opt-in see no change in the forum whatsoever.

I regret that I don't understand how that is supposed to work. Who does the work of "shrinking" a post? If you're suggesting a change to the forum software, forget it... our (moderators') requests usually go unanswered, and that is just for simple stuff like changing the boilerplate messages that so many people get offended by. If you are suggesting manual edits by humans, it's an order of magnitude more work than moderators were already doing.

 

[kyzhk]

there is a fundamental limit how well this forum software solution scales to number of posters and still be useful without being overwhelmed by massive amount of posts (read: only works for handful of people).

One short term solution is
1) implement a view that filters based on comment rating
2) add a rating called "off topic"
3) allow multiple rating from a given user

So a default view could be to filter out comments with some threshold of off topic. Users can customize their view to any ratings.

In the long term (if we expect continued increased of active posters), the forum software needs to be changed to something like reddit with a comment ranking system in order for it to be useful i.e.

1) useful, informative comment will be much more visible than noise.
2) People would not be repeating the same points when they can easily find whatever they wanted to say already as the top comment.
3) replies to a useful post is be default hidden. Replies to replies generally become person-to-person conversation so they are not that useful and its mostly just noise. Contrasting to this forum solution where every reply are treated equally in terms of the screen estate its given (scales as number of words in the post, but not importance)
4) People automatically create a new topic of interest in a separate thread, because it would otherwise not be visible in an existing thread since the highly informative posts in an existing thread always occupies the front seat.

At the end, I would think just creating a new subreddit could work to bring @Fact Checking and @KarenRei back.