This new practice circumvents / renders ineffective the long standing board practice of separating topics which have received no comments (presumably for lack of interest) from those on which others have commented. The second class of topics are easily identified because (1) they appear after clicking the “Discussions +” tab and (2) they display a numerical notation showing the number of responses they’ve received. All in all, it’s been a good system which helps readers know which discussions are currently active.
It’s understandable that someone might feel a need to update / correct / add to an earlier post. That’s great. But I for one would appreciate that in doing so folks use the EDIT feature. To do this, simply go to your original post and click on the “edit” sign at the upper right corner. This will allow you to change what you have already written or simply to add on to the original post. If you wish to call readers’ attention to your updates, simply type in the word “EDIT” above the new or revised content. And if you really want to be meticulous, you can also enter the date and time along with each and every edit you make.
By using the above method, updates to an original post can still be made as necessary, while folks just logging onto to the board will be able to identify readily those topics that are currently under active discussion.
Thanks
Comments
With general respect to this topic, I recently reentered a set of storm graphics, rather than "edit" them, because of these conditions:
• That particular "Hurricane Florence" thread was already well established, so there was no issue of artificial "bumping" into the "Comments+" category.
• Because of the timeliness factor of the updated graphics data I felt it best to re-enter it as a new entry so as to emphasize that the data was current. That would not have been as obvious had I merely revised (edited) the earlier post, and it's doubtful that many readers would go all the way back to that original post to see if there was anything new there.
I completely agree with your perspective on this. If one person violates the MFO traditions and rules at will why won't anyone else who feels like it do the same? This is a great example of one person potentially ruining the setup for everyone else.
The present "Category" system was specifically designed to insulate posts which do not receive comments from other traffic which has received comments. @Ted is well aware of this, and is engaged in a deliberate, mean-spirited and cynical effort to "rig the system" and sabotage those categories, just to stroke his own ego. And this from someone who makes such a great and hypocritical show of "protecting" MFO.
The dictionary has a few words for this type of thing- "underhanded, crafty, cunning, sly, scheming, calculating, sneaky, tricky, crooked." And may I add, shameful.
Regards-
OJ
But I throw up my arms in frustration when I see a post about the day’s markets and it’s showing “2 comments“ under it. My first thought is somebody with at least half a brain must have had something to say about the day’s action. Maybe they noted something unusual or had their portfolio impacted in some unexpected way. Instead, when I click on the thread I find nothing but a pointless laundry list of 25-50 links to superfluous market summaries - accompanied by no intelligent commentary. Duh?
All of us have internet. We can do our own search whenever we choose to and uncover a plethora of articles summarizing the day’s markets. If Ted thinks it’s important he has a right to link it. But @Ted: Do so honestly. Don’t piggy-back needless “updates” on top of your own original post simply to make it appear there’s some actual discussion taking place - when there isn’t.
The present MFO categorization scheme was engineered as a compromise after multiple continuous complaints of his flooding of the site with garbage links that few read and almost no one responded to. He knows this very well, and his latest phony "updates" are nothing more than a sham to defeat the intentions of the MFO administration.
I recently called him on this, and that has precipitated his recent flurry of vitriolic personal attacks. The "cut and paste" king doesn't take kindly to criticism.
I very much appreciated Old_Skeet's reply in the "Hurricane Florence" thread, and am gratified that he appreciated my attempts to be helpful. He's a survivor, and a pretty good judge of "when to fold, when to run" as the old FundAlarm motto went.
Regards-
OJ