MFOHome About Commentary Discussions Funds The Best Resources Support Us!

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Categories

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

Would MFO be better off without the Discussion board?

InformalEconomist
in Off-Topic
For better or worse, the Discussion board is the public face of MFO to many readers.
Currently it is a dunghill consisting of:
--Uncurated links with no discussion by the person posting the link
--Political rants
--Complaints about M*

Moderation early in the game might have preserved a fund focus. As it is, the culture is set.
The value of the site overall is muddied by what goes on in the discussions. I would not be surprised to learn that is suppressing the donative instinct.

Comments

  • VintageFreakVintageFreak
    edited September 2018
    MFO will be enhanced if it worked like Whatsapp. There can be a GENERAL section which everyone can CHOSE to visit. And then other's can "subscribe" to other Topics, aka chat groups.

    People can join and leave "People against Trump" discussion.

    And just FYI, rants against M* are totally justified.
  • jlev
    It remains a productive place for fund questions to be answered
  • larryB
    edited September 2018
    Why not ban links for two weeks and see what we really have here? I bet the number of real discussions will slowly increase. Yes,,,there will still be rants about politics and M* but the sheer bulk of discussionless links will disappear and perhaps dialogue will return as members return. Currently it's just too much work to Wade through the garbage links to spot a discussion..no offense to the linkster intended but the sheer bulk of links ruins this board.imho. or else call it what it is: Ted's 100 links of the day.
  • Ben
    InformalEconomist said:

    For better or worse, the Discussion board is the public face of MFO to many readers.
    .

    The public face is the home page. Nobody sees these discussions without choosing to do so. Nobody reads an off-topic post without choosing to do so. I support the idea of refraining from posting links without comment. I suggest a self-imposed limit of 2 links a day for any member and a self-controlled ban on any linking without commentary. I also suggest using quote marks for any words that are being quoted. That way there is no confusion as to whose opinion is being read, that of the person who posted the link or the person who wrote the linked article.
  • larryB
    @Ben.+1,,,A+,,,,, Bravo!
  • slick
    ditto
  • davidrmorandavidrmoran
    What Ben says.

    I find many of the links highly valuable, and also read that some of what I post is similarly useful to others.

    dunghill, huh.

    We would all wish for better judgment in others.
  • msf
    Ben said:

    The public face is the home page. Nobody sees these discussions without choosing to do so. Nobody reads an off-topic post without choosing to do so. I support the idea of refraining from posting links without comment. I suggest a self-imposed limit of 2 links a day for any member and a self-controlled ban on any linking without commentary. I also suggest using quote marks for any words that are being quoted. That way there is no confusion as to whose opinion is being read, that of the person who posted the link or the person who wrote the linked article.

    To his credit, Ted long ago started adding text to his links, so that others could have some idea of what the linked item was really about. ISTM that this text, plus (a) the ability to ignore threads with no comments, and (b) the ability to mouse over the thread and see the intro text without clicking on the thread, already give users a reasonable amount of help in filtering out what they don't find useful.

    That said, I definitely agree that excerpts should be quoted, either using quotation marks or presenting the excerpts as quoted (blockquote) text. Also, while Ted posts with text, there are others who post with no commentary whatsoever. It would be helpful if they too would state explicitly what about their links makes them worth a click.

    Finally, there are links and there are links. I tend to use links as footnotes, as sources for what I've written (or quoted). Should this sort of link be limited as well? They are presented as evidence, not with the expectation or hope that many readers will follow them.

    For example, how else could I write that there's proof, PROOF I say, that millions of illegal votes were cast for Hillary? In Investors Business Daily no less. :-)
    https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-is-right-millions-of-illegals-probably-did-vote-in-2016/

    For anyone who might think that the above endorsement of a "proof" was meant in earnest, it was a joke I say, a joke. Though one with a point. That links can serve different roles.

  • larryB
    The problem with the links,imho,,,is not the format, or even the quality of them. It is just the raw quantity of them. Call it visual pollution if you will. Just too many of them. If a board member wanted to actually start a discussion about a mutual fund,,,, like " short term bond FUND vs C.D.ladder, " it would get lost in the clutter. This is not a discussion board,,,, it is a links collection with comments,,,, some of which end up a discussion. But mostly links that are generally ignored
  • Old_JoeOld_Joe
    Link pollution. Somewhere out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean is a huge pool of unread MFO links, slowly circling around forever.
  • Ben
    @msf: good point about supporting links. I agree with others who have said that posts that are merely links have been too many. I am suggesting self-discipline rather than rules.
  • Old_JoeOld_Joe
    Candidly, the self-discipline with respect to link posting is actually quite good, except for the glaring exception of just ONE person. And that person has now taken to artificially and dishonestly "boosting" his links into the "Comments+" section, in willing and blatant violation of the accepted rules and customs.

    Ironically, that person fancies himself as the "protector" of MFO, when in reality he has caused more dissension over the years than almost anyone else. The "Comments+" section was specifically designed to insulate the flood of primitive "copy and paste" posts which receive no comments from those posts that do. The person involved is quite aware of this, and resents it to the point that he is now attempting to artificially force his traffic to our attention.

  • Old_Skeet
    I find good value in the discussion board and would hate to see it go.
  • larryB
    edited September 2018
    QUESTION: How many new posting here are links? And how many are members posting a question for the group or a topic for discussion? Of course we all know the answer.Its almost all links from the linkster. I for one also frequently check out the Boglehead boards as well as the M* boards. Say what you want to about those boards but the posters there have opinions to share and questions to ask. Not so many links .And from those two types of posts come dialogue and the exchange of ideas. If David is reading this,,,,,why not have a new section called THE LINKSTER'S LINKS? Ted could post all the links he can find. The discussion board could come back to life and blossom with a real exchange of ideas. Just a thought.
  • katman
    Old Skeet+1
  • Ralph
    And just FYI, rants against M* are totally justified.
    Old_Skeet
    7:17PM Flag
    I find good value in the discussion board and would hate to see it go.

    -- I fully agree with Old Skeet
  • VintageFreakVintageFreak
    Old_Skeet said:

    I find good value in the discussion board and would hate to see it go.

    Yes, because sometimes we have to take the good with the bad. If common sense could be purchased everyone would have it. That's never going to be the case.

    While it is hard, I am doing my best to ignore "link pollution" (good one @Old_Joe)

  • Old_JoeOld_Joe
    edited September 2018
    "If common sense could be purchased everyone would have it."

    @VintageFreak- I'm not so sure on that. Seems to me some on a limited budget would opt for beer. :-P
  • VintageFreakVintageFreak
    Old_Joe said:

    "If common sense could be purchased everyone would have it."

    @VintageFreak- I'm not so sure on that. Seems to me some on a limited budget would opt for beer. :-P

    You are making my point!

    Buying beer would be the common sense thing to do. I should have bought a lexus in late 90s. Instead I invested and lost 50% of my portfolio. I never bought a lexus. I never will.

    A beer in hand is worth tuppence in the bush.

  • Old_JoeOld_Joe
    Getting back to the main topic here:

    Would MFO be better off without the Discussion board?

    OK, We remove the discussion boards. What, then, is left?
  • BenWPBenWP
    @Old_Joe: what would be left would be the links. Better to keep discussing.
Sign In or Register to comment.