Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Why Anonymous posters ??? You won't receive a direct reply...
As there is a sign up/sign in here at MFO; what value is gained by those who always sign-in/logon?
At least from this pc, I do know that those who post as "Anonymous XXX" in the middle of a thread can not have a direct reply posted to their statement or question.
Why is an "Anonymous" visitor NOT prohibited to do nothing more than read the posts?
Hey there Catch. I dunno what the difference is really and don't object to anonymous generally unless just someone lobbing insults, which is rare. One thing to consider is that when you sign in as a member you leave a trail a mile long. Anybody can call up everything you've said going way back. I'd prefer a dumpster like Roy had where things just fall off the cliff after awhile to tell you the truth, unless they 're profound enough to be archived.
We enabled anonymous posting because folks asked for it. I don't see much advantage to it (from the poster's perspective) but it doesn't seem to cause any great harm. Mostly just kinda quirky.
And I suppose we could configure things to make old posts vanish if they're a sufficient annoyance to folks. We pay for storage but we're only using a small fraction of our allowance, so there's no pressing need to kill them. Roy was more space constrained, and so more vigilant about pruning. On whole, I'll try to accommodate the community's desires.
Don't know how many people are in agreement with me about purging old posts. But my argument for: Some people might be more inclined to post (non-anonymously) or post more frequently knowing that the message will disappear in a month or two as it did at fundalarm. I saw that as an advantage. As you know at FA, really good discussions subjects were posted in an archive category and the rest slid off the board in a month or two depending on post frequency.
Also I think an announcement of new features be put up for a week. Some people may not have noticed your addition of the" in this discussion sidebar" on the right.
Waiting to hear what Maurice and others think. Personally, I don't much mind the lengthy "track record" and imagine most frequent posters don't mind either. Am sure there's good arguments on both sides. As it kinda resembles warm stale beer, I'd purge. Just tossed it out as one possible answer to Catch's broader question. Added some hyperbole for good measure. (-: (-:
I'm an occasional reader more so than a poster. I prefer having as small an internet footprint as possible. Because the board has moderators I don't think abuse or spam is a problem. There are a number of anonymous posters and they often add value to the discussion. Having a strict log-in requiremennt would just cause some of those posters to leave. My name is attached to the post and I'm pretty sure the regulars here recognize that I'm the Ed from FundAlarm.
Hi Ed- I honestly didn't have an opinion one way or the other re "anonymous", although it struck me as kind of weird: Why, for example, "Anonymous Ed" since we all know it's Ed anyway?
But I just revisited this thread and found your comment, above, addressed to msf. Why, thinks me, is this note to msf sitting here under a post from Catch? Am I missing something here?
Then I happened to notice down below both msf's note to you (which I'm guessing you are responding to), and Investor's comments regarding the apparently unpredictable positioning of "anonymous" posts. Well, now I do have an opinion, and I have to come down with Investor and Catch on this one. It's hard enough following these longer threads in any case, and the apparently random placement of "anonymous" posts surely doesn't help at all. Not your fault, for sure, but my vote is going to have to be for the "read only" option.
ADDENDUM: Just to completely confuse everything, after I posted this reply to you both your note and this reply "relocated" from the top of the thread, just under Catch's first entry, to down here. Seems completely flaky.
Old Joe, if it goes to read only for unregistered posters it would be ok with me. I think it would be a mistake though. I liked the FundAlarm format better than this one, it seemed more orderly. No offense to David and the others that so selfishly gave their time and effort to bring this boad to fruition. All I can say is that if there were no chance of responding to posts I felt needed to be responded to I'd go elsewhere. I only visit occasionally to see what people are thinking.
Comments
And I suppose we could configure things to make old posts vanish if they're a sufficient annoyance to folks. We pay for storage but we're only using a small fraction of our allowance, so there's no pressing need to kill them. Roy was more space constrained, and so more vigilant about pruning. On whole, I'll try to accommodate the community's desires.
As ever,
David
Don't know how many people are in agreement with me about purging old posts.
But my argument for: Some people might be more inclined to post (non-anonymously) or post more frequently knowing that the message will disappear in a month or two as it did at fundalarm. I saw that as an advantage. As you know at FA, really good discussions subjects were posted in an archive category and the rest slid off the board in a month or two depending on post frequency.
Also I think an announcement of new features be put up for a week. Some people may not have noticed your addition of the" in this discussion sidebar" on the right.
Anonymous posters cannot easily find out which threads are updated. Where the new posts are.
It looks like they cannot reply to a particular post.
There is no way check for postings from a particular anonymous poster to find an older post.
There is no way to send direct messages to the anonymous posters.
I'd rather make the board read only for Anonymous posters if it was up to me.
Waiting to hear what Maurice and others think. Personally, I don't much mind the lengthy "track record" and imagine most frequent posters don't mind either. Am sure there's good arguments on both sides. As it kinda resembles warm stale beer, I'd purge. Just tossed it out as one possible answer to Catch's broader question. Added some hyperbole for good measure. (-: (-:
I, too; would prefer a read only for those not signed in.
I suspect there are those who post through a pc that is not their own...work/company.
Thanks for your input, too; related to the other problems.
Catch
Noticed the sideback time/date, too.....and this is a nice add-on.
Catch
And here I thought you were the Ed from misc.invest.mutual-funds
But I just revisited this thread and found your comment, above, addressed to msf. Why, thinks me, is this note to msf sitting here under a post from Catch? Am I missing something here?
Then I happened to notice down below both msf's note to you (which I'm guessing you are responding to), and Investor's comments regarding the apparently unpredictable positioning of "anonymous" posts. Well, now I do have an opinion, and I have to come down with Investor and Catch on this one. It's hard enough following these longer threads in any case, and the apparently random placement of "anonymous" posts surely doesn't help at all. Not your fault, for sure, but my vote is going to have to be for the "read only" option.
ADDENDUM: Just to completely confuse everything, after I posted this reply to you both your note and this reply "relocated" from the top of the thread, just under Catch's first entry, to down here. Seems completely flaky.
"I ’M nobody! Who are you?
Are you nobody, too?
Then there ’s a pair of us—don’t tell!
They ’d banish us, you know.
How dreary to be somebody!
How public, like a frog
To tell your name the livelong day
To an admiring bog!"
--- Emily Dickenson