Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

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

Previous linking of articles

So yesterday I got scolded again by Ted for linking an article he had linked already.

However, here's the deal. When I link an article I make a point of scrolling through 2-3-4 previous pages of discussion topics to make sure that it hasn't already been posted thus sparing someone from getting their underwear all bunched up. I did that yesterday with the Social Security article and not seeing a previous posting I posted it.

Of course you all know what happened so I went on a search through the discussion lists once again. In fact I've done it now on 5 separate occasions and Ted's original posting has only shown up in one of those searches. I'm taken to his original post if I click on his naggy reminder that it's already been posted but I only have a 20% success rate if I go scrolling through all the previous posts manually my own self.

So my question is: is this a glitch in my computer and browser (Mac laptop w/Safari) or with the hosting site or software? Thanks for any input.


  • @MFO Members: "underwear all bunched up" not me, I wear !
  • It has happened on a couple occasions. I posted the link hastily as I was on my lunch hour. Similarly, I have had links posted after I posted them. It is no big deal.

  • *rolls eyes* (again)
  • edited October 2018
    @Mark - Look at the bright side. Ted apparently thinks your links are pretty good.:)
    (usually denigrates mine)
  • Ted's retorts don't affect me one bit.

    I'm wondering why posts seem to appear and disappear.
  • Forget about it. Much ado about nothing.
  • Sigh... pathetic that he places so much importance on being first with a link. For heaven's sake, there's nothing more important to worry about?
  • edited October 2018
    Old_Joe said:

    Sigh... pathetic that he places so much importance on being first with a link. For heaven's sake, there's nothing more important to worry about?

    Ditto what Old Joe said. And I've wondered the same as Mark about some of Ted's phantom links. Even snapped screen-shots once to try and determine whether I was hallucinating or not. But it just isn't worth the trouble.

    His batting average based on the % that ever receive comment?
  • edited October 2018
    @hank- Well, if you click on Ted's name, and then click on his "Comments", you'll see that today, for example, he has thirty posts, only three of which merited a comment, at ;east up to this time.

    Then again, occasionally he posts a real gem, for instance the current "Micheal Lewis" thread. For me, the "Comments+" category works quite well as a filter, but it's a little unfair, when you think it through: I don't have to sort through 30 posts to find something of interest, but then I'm also depending on some other poor guy to do the sorting for me, bringing it to my attention by commenting on it.

    Who was it that observed that life isn't fair?

Sign In or Register to comment.