Dear friends,
David W. has been doing a nice job of moderating the board; it strikes me that he's tried to be consistently present, reasonable in communicating with members of the board, and responsible in acting to limit the heat generated by some. I'm grateful for his efforts.
Nonetheless, I've moved several members of the board into "moderated" status. That typically happens when members are generating more heat than light, and the internal norms of the community - typically, requests by other folks to tone it down - haven't caused people to refocus on issues of substance rather than one real or imagined personal grievances.
I mention that for three reasons. (1) Members in moderation can still post, it's just that their posts have to be vetted individually before they appear on the board. Since we all have full-time jobs, that means there's sometimes a lag of several hours before comments appear. (2) The only ways out of moderation are consistently offering thoughtful, civil comments or choosing to go elsewhere. Ted, our departed friend, spent rather more time there than most but also was really good at cooling off, refocusing on issues of substance and returning to full engagement. (3) Some folks not yet in moderation need to reflect on whether they're now trying to provoke their nemeses with comments that are also in the range of personal rather than substantial. Please stop.
Finally, I closed the "Bond OEF" thread which was both the site of many of the spats, but also so long and intricate that it was becoming a bit unwieldy to navigate. I'm hopeful that some of the issues and recommendations occurring late in that threat generate separate discussions of their own.
Wishing you all the best, David
Comments
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/54803/bond-mutual-funds-analysis#latest
I for one would be very disappointed if dtconroe does not continue to contribute ideas and posts.
I have worked very hard to ensure that my thread was civil and positive. It was the recipient of a huge number of posts and views, and there were numerous posts on my thread, expressing gratitude for the value that posters were finding in the thread.
I for one would be very disappointed if dtconroe does not continue to contribute ideas and posts."
I start one of the most popular and valued threads that MFO has ever had, get repeated posts about the value of the thread, and I then have the thread closed with statements about "spats" that I worked very hard to prevent. That is not a recipe to encourage me to make any future posts. It is very insulting to me personally!
One of the reasons is inaccurate and should have been directed to another thread that is still open and running. The other reason is strange and confusing, as it has become long because of the popularity of the thread with posters and viewers. I have yet to find any written information about "length" of threads, and how popularity of a thread can lead to its closure.
I am truly disappointed by the closure of his thread, I was finding it extremely useful.
My request would be for the decision to be reconsidered.
I found good value in it's subject matter. I'm hoping that the thread's host, @dtconroe, will keep posting on open end bond funds.
Again, myself, being a stock guy I found this thread of good interest.
Old_Skeet
Just a brain fart here
Please don't speak ill of the dead.
I agree with Old_Skeet concerning the number of pages. The old CG post was an example of something too long. When it was first started, it was at least 15+ pages long; it was hard to navigate and to locate specific CG posts. There were some complaints concerning its disorganization. That is why the most recent version is several pages long. I agree that it was too long and disorganized; however, over time it was simplified to what you see today.
I also found this topic interesting and insightful, but there were a couple of posts that veered away from the original intent of the post.
While I do not moderate, we should respect everyone's belief provided it does not harm, degrade or embarrass someone else.
Check out the old thread again? It is open!
One of the charms and limits of MFO is its size: at base, three or four volunteers running it all as a public service. (Morningstar, by comparison, had Q3 revenues of $314 million with 5200 employees worldwide.) That's not a complaint. It's just the description of a constraint.
On the upside, it means we can be pretty responsive. The entire board was designed around the needs and preferences of its members; some might remember that we ran an entire parallel board using the FundAlarm software for a while. Too, many fund profiles originate with members of the community writing to express interest.
On the downside, it means we need to fit MFO in around more-than-full-time jobs (or, in some cases, multiple jobs). That might mean that we don't respond to a PM or public complaint for nearly 18 hours. It also means that I goof up from time to time as I try to sort through the surprising number of unhappy messages that might roll in.
I've reopened dtconroe's conservative bond thread, which I did indeed close without full consideration. No disrespect was intended by my "extremely shameful" action. The argument that it was the site of the spat seems incorrect; the argument that it is unwieldy strikes me as valid, but something more properly decided by folks' decisions to click or not click on it.
Take great care!
P.S., I still miss Ted.
Being old and 70% in bonds, they interest me.
Personally, I'm relieved that a preemptive move has been made to moderate the posting of one or two of the newer M* members, who were potentially spawning a reversion to some of the previous ill feeling. That's really the last thing that we need here.
With respect to a limitation on thread length, while really long threads are a bit unwieldy, if they are still generating interest and new posts there's surely no harm being done. If folks get tired of a long thread they can easily start another.
Thanks to both Davids for their work in holding all of this together for the common good.
Regards-OJ
- Yes - if you’ve been here for any length of time you’ve had posts deleted and threads you started or added to closed with no reason stated. I’m fine with it.
- Exactly. Members have been good at self regulating. @Old_Skeet" sets a great example in starting a new “Markets Barometer Report” every new quarter. Adds much value to the board.
- Good idea. Most threads refer to more specific investments. For example, a thread examines a particular stock, bond, fund or manager.
- Agree. Along this same vein, Ted would be right in the thick of this. He loved to roil the waters. One of his special targets was threads that persisted longer than a few weeks. At that point you could pretty much count on him shouting: “Its time to CLOSE this thread!
- Suppose it depends on your internet capability. Mine’s clunky. Anything beyond about 5 pages is tough to navigate.
That being said, as long as everyone stays civil, I'm happy. Cheers all, have a good night.
Obviously, some threads of any length may have short or long, but meaningful comments. I want to be sure my reply is identified towards an individual, if this is my intention. Also, to this point; is there are comments in a thread that are written as a general statement/comment, but seem to be directed towards another's comment, but is not fully clear. In these cases, I wish that the writer had directly identified to whom they are responding.