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.
........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.
I agree and will edit a quote down to the sentence or two that are important.
The block quote is a useful tool here that allows to define a body of text with muted high lighting, which identifies to readers a particular area of interest. Hank, your use of block quote just prior, in my view; is an excellent example of using block quote to separate various comments in this thread. One may move through the text with the full understanding of "where/who" a subject/comment arrived; and then your comment/observation. I like it !!! My personal complaint would be that I don't think it necessary to block quote a large block of text, to be used for further discussion. To pick a particular small group of words should suffice to pinpoint a discussion. 'Course, this is only how my brain functions when reading and digesting words. On the other hand, I do have those times when I forget where I left my reading glasses, too.
I find the "follow up" comments on this thread interesting. It is clear to me that if I had not vigorously protested the arbitrary closure of my thread, the thread would have stayed closed. There were a significant number of posters, who joined me in requesting the thread be restored, and I think the volume of positive support allowed the thread to be restored. Interestingly though, I started immediately getting posts from other posters, telling me to not continue the thread, that I should start a new thread, leaving me feeling very conflicted with what I will do going forward. It seems the theme of how to prevent a thread from becoming "too long and unwieldy" continues to be a strong discussion point in how to post, and how to generate a successful thread. My experience has been that, short specific topic threads, don't live very long, quickly die, and go to the junkyard of dead posts, that no one ever visits again. My experience has been that when I start a more general thread topic, that lends itself to a large number of subtopics, it lives much longer, becomes very valuable to many posters, but there are posters who start criticizing me for allowing it to get "too long and unwieldy".
I am clearly not going to please everyone, with such diverse points of view. I am conflicted and will have to evaluate my motivation in starting any new threads, or to even continue supporting my existing thread. I try to find some motivation and personal joy in threads I start--I am having a hard time achieving those personal objectives right now.
I, for one, requested that the OEF Bond thread not be extended by introducing a new topic. I did not request that *this* thread not be extended. But I do prefer that this or any other thread not stray from its subject. Is that not sensible? If I start a thread on topic A and then after 7 pages I introduce topic B how will be people who are interested in topic B and not interested in topic A even know that the new topic is being discussed? The posting of a new topic, (which might become a new thread) is a public service announcement, and a friendly gesture, and I think it is better than hiding the new topic in an unwieldy multi-page thread.
Hi @dtconroe. I've somewhat revised my comment which now reads. Nice to have you with us at MFO as I enjoy reading your post covering selected types of income funds along with commenting on the better performers based upon the metrics used. I'm thinking you should carry on as you feel best. However, I'm with Ben in that trying to cover multiple topics in a single thread gets, at times, confusing. I'm thinking as you continue to post you will find a style that works both for your readers as well for yourself. Personally, though, I'd like to have seen the thread broken into multiple threads with each thread covering a specific bond fund type. In this way when comments are made they can be more easily followed and not mixed all together in a hodge podge fashion. But, that is just me. Take care; and, I sincerely wish your the very best in the coming days.
Hi, dtconroe, I am delighted that you are posting here. One possible solution to increasingly lengthy threads is to start a new thread with the same title, call it "Part 2," and in the inaugural post note that it is related to the earlier thread, provide a link, and perhaps give a short description, e.g., "In that thread I described my philosophy of investing, why the topic is important to me, and X, Y, and Z were discussed. In this thread I do the following ... "
That said, I too hope you will continue posting and will find a workable solution within the physical parameters of the discussion forum.
Since I protested the decision of David Snowball to close the thread, partially because it had become too long and unwieldy to navigate, he finally agreed to restore it, even though he stated: "the argument that it is unwieldy strikes me as valid".
Then Snowball's son Rhaegon, who was very instrumental in getting my thread restored, made the following statement in his last post: "I must agree with splitting up the thread into smaller chunks. I've moderated many forums over the years. You reach many more readers via small concise threads than you do with a broad overarching thread that runs for 50 pages."
After the thread was restored, I get the following comment from Mark: "You might reconsider breaking up the post as was suggested sometime ago. Granted the total post refers to OEF bond investing but it contains information on several different bond classes. As it stands I think your post is highly unwieldly. You got a concession, make one of your own." Hank then responds to this statement from Mark with: "Good idea. Most threads refer to more specific investments. For example, a thread examines a particular stock, bond, fund or manager."
I have just received the recent comment from Ben:"I, for one, requested that the OEF Bond thread not be extended by introducing a new topic."
I have received many recent private messages, as well as posted comments, expressing support and encouraging me to continue my thread, and to those individuals, I will express my gratitude for your positive comments and support. The other messages clearly express a willingness to "tolerate" the continuation of my thread, but they do not come across as very encouraging or supportive, as they reflect a message of wanting me to voluntarily modify my posting approach.
I started the thread "Bond OEF Investing for More Conservative Investors" to evaluate MFO, as a potential website to post threads on. I feel like I have reached the point where I need to think about what I have experienced, before I make any other posts on my existing thread, or choose to start any new threads. Not sure what I will decide, or how long it will take me to decide, so I will just leave it at that.
I wonder if there may be some conflation regarding "thread" and "category". Evidently other forums have separate categories for different types of investments. MFO does not, although given the current situation and the very wide interest in and response to the "Bond OEF Investing" post this might be something to consider.
The "Bond OEF Investing" thread has seemingly taken on a life of it's own, in effect acting almost as a separate "category". Unfortunately, that has also caused it to become very long and unwieldy. If there were a distinct category for things "bondish" then it would be much more natural to have separate threads on various bond issues, all contained within one grouping.
Might be worth consideration, if not beyond the resources of the management. The thing is, if that were to happen, it would only be logical to consider further splitting the "Fund Discussions" category into separate categories for stock fund related posts, and, I suppose, a category for "everything else funds".
To reduce category clutter a bit perhaps the two "bullpen" categories could be combined, since the number of orphan "link posts" has greatly diminished.
To be honest what I really believe I am hearing you say is that you want this discussion board to operate the way you want it to or you will not participate.
@Mark made the above comment on the bond thread but I thought I would bring it here for comment. I couldn't agree more with that comment. That quote that I borrowed is how I have been feeling about this whole discussion as of late because of comments like these:
...other messages clearly express a willingness to "tolerate" the continuation of my thread, but they do not come across as very encouraging or supportive, as they reflect a message of wanting me to voluntarily modify my posting approach.
I need to think about what I have experienced, before I make any other posts on my existing thread
Maybe I'm reading you wrong dtconroe and I apologize if that's the case, but it seems like you are saying 'if you don't play my game I'm going to take my ball and go home'. To that I say, just post if you want, don't post if you don't want to. Change your style or don't change your style. Really the only one who has say over any of this is David and his team and he has said continue. The MFO team does all the work and pays the bills. Pretty simple. Everyone else is just offering polite suggestions and trying to help as a community.
I fully support all of dtconcroe's comments and hope he will continue to share his insight and knowledge with the MFO community. "Bond OEF Investing for More Conservative Investors" is the single most interesting topic I have read on this website since I became a member.
I don't see a problem with a topic being 7 pages long - or 10 or 20 for that matter. You just skip forward to the last page to read the latest posts. Where's the problem with that?
MikeM: "Maybe I'm reading you wrong dtconroe and I apologize if that's the case, but it seems like you are saying 'if you don't play my game I'm going to take my ball and go home'. To that I say, just post if you want, don't post if you don't want to. Change your style or don't change your style. Really the only one who has say over any of this is David and his team and he has said continue. The MFO team does all the work and pays the bills. Pretty simple. Everyone else is just offering polite suggestions and trying to help as a community."
You and Mark have made your opinions very clear. They are not accurate, but I am very clear on your opinions. I just made a detailed post on my Bond OEF thread, and I have no desire to make any additional posts beyond that latest post I made.
Seems that there are more comments on censorship, length of threads, politics and other misc rather than on mutual funds. A nice clean thread on mutual funds gets shot down again. Where have all the good posters gone?
I fully support all of dtconcroe's comments and hope he will continue to share his insight and knowledge with the MFO community. "Bond OEF Investing for More Conservative Investors" is the single most interesting topic I have read on this website since I became a member.
I don't see a problem with a topic being 7 pages long - or 10 or 20 for that matter. You just skip forward to the last page to read the latest posts. Where's the problem with that?
I was going to comment on this point, but you beat me to it. But I will add to it.
My knowledge of websites goes back to the late '90s-early 2000s, when I learned HTML coding and built a few websites, just for the knowledge. I don't think the basic technology has changed since then, but a thread doesn't know how long it is, it doesn't know how many pages it has, and it doesn't know how many posts it has.
If a thread with a lot of pages seems (literally) "unwieldy," then the problem is with your computer.
Each page in a thread (or anywhere on the web for that matter) is a stand-alone separate web page. They are linked together by the page numbers shown, but each number is simply a hyperlink, and clicking it and loading the linked page is no different than clicking any other hyperlink (as far as what's going on in the background).
Maybe the basics have changed, but as far as I know they haven't.
@dtconroe, I would like to congratulate you for the content of the thread “Bond OEF Investing for More Conservative Investors”, I have enjoyed reading and particularly benefited from your posts.
David’s guidance was clear “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.”
In other words, I understand him to be proposing that you continue to post and let others decide whether to participate or click on it or not.
The decision to continue is yours, all others can decide to participate or not. I for my side, hope you will continue.
Lastly, I agree with @Simon and @Low_Tech, on my computer and internet setup - I have no difficulty or find any inconvenience accessing the thread.
A few words about the "unwieldy" nature of the Bond OEF for Conservative Investors thread.
I made that comment early on in the thread. It had absolutely nothing to do with the page count at that time and the coding of websites. What it had to do with was the introduction of multiple categories within the general heading of bond OEF's. Period.
A gentle suggestion was made to the poster that s/he start separate category threads so that those who might be interested could find the appropriate topic quickly rather than having to remember what page that topic fell on within the longer thread and/or re-read the entire thread. In addition to the general topic "six" separate topic categories have been initiated within that one long post. Do you know what they are? Do you know what page they fall on? I fully admit that maybe no one cares and I am in no way trying to diminish the overall usefulness and relevance of the post. What I am saying is that my old fart brain finds in hard to follow and sort i.e. unwieldy.
But it's not the kind of thing that should have been moderated. Seems to me like a lot of old moderating habits are artifacts of the days of dial-up modems, and similar constraints.
I agree with Mark. My comment about the length of the OEF thread was addressing the increasing difficulty of finding a specific post or point within a collection of too many posts to keep track of. It had nothing to do with how well my computer or ISP functions.
I would still agree with David that the best solution is likely to allow for revealed demand (by clicking and participating or not) to determine the outcome. Instead of running the risk of closing the door in an on-going thread that had a significant enthusiastic participation – as it seems to be occurring. If indeed participants find an “increasing difficulty of finding a specific post or point within a collection of too many posts to keep track of” then lower participation will likely reflect these facts – without a need to regulate this market.
I agree, but "lower participation” has not occurred. Quite the opposite, participation has been excellent. We seem to be preventively trying to solve a problem, and as a consequence limiting service.
Participation is an interesting subject. You can get a large number of more narrowly focused threads, with very few comments, and they will then go into a category of participation with minimal poster participation. You can get another thread that generates a large number of posts, large number of viewers, that lasts a long time, and generates as much participation as a 100 of those small and more focused threads. What works for some is different than works for others.
dtconroe, why do want so badly to hang around people who are known by universal reputation to be so, so, so "shallow" and "focused"? Actually, I've been here for years and years and I think Anna is the only poster that is "shallow" but she isn't all that "focused".
Why don't you go back to Morningstar where, obviously, you were worshipped and presiding over the alter of dtconroe, the savior. Who asked you to save MFO from itself?
I hope you read this before it is deleted and Anna is put in detention for the first time.
Anna, it was not my intent for my previous post to be interpreted the way you have. I was simply attempting to state that there are different kinds of threads on MFO--some are very narrowly focused threads, such as newspaper or magazine articles, that generate minimal posts and views. Some are more general topic threads, with subtopics, that are intended to help posters/viewers decide how to approach their personal investing choices for their portfolios. I am attempting to offer MFO posters and readers the opportunity to discuss their unique investing issues and engage other posters in helping them gather information that will be helpful to them. The type of thread I have offered MFO members, will lead to a longer thread, with a lot of participateion, with a level of discussion impacted by poster questions. My approach to threads is the latter, and that has generated over 220 posts and over 11,000 views, which is a major level of "participation", that is different than the limited participation and views that has been most typical with threads on MFO. Posters should be able to choose which kind of thread to "participate" in.
I hope this edited version of my previous post, helps clarify what I was attempting to communicate.
@Anna - if MFO was idiotic enough to have a kudo button I'd lay on that thing the rest of the day. Thankfully they don't but I hope you'll accept my "attagirl" instead.
Like you I'm always dumbfounded when someone comes to a discussion board and then pouts, whine's, has hissy fits and complains when said board doesn't conform to their wishes and demands. They take no effort to blend in, to compromise, feel suggestions to their mannerisms and/or style are beneath them and continue to piss and moan. You'd think a psychologist might know better but then I'm not very well trained.
Maybe what you need for all honor and glory dtconroe is your own board/blog/website to gather the flock you feel agrees with you. You may be well versed in bonds but your social skills leave a lot to be desired.
p.s. Not everyone here is as dumb and lost as you think they are. This is a community for sharing not a kingdom for dictators.
@dtconroe, I see you have edited the post I replied to and the offensive attack on MFO has been deleted. Thank you for removing those words.
I never complained or said a word about your long post. Not ever. I reacted to the insults you lashed at the long term MFO members and at your arrogance. I don't care how you want to post.
Anna, I apologize for not doing a better job of explaining my thoughts on types of threads, that produces different levels of participation. Again it was not my intent, for my previous post to be interpreted the way you did. Hopefully my edited post does a better job of reflecting my original post intent. There are clearly a large number of MFO members, who value the kind of thread I have started--220 posts and over 11,000 views. If MFO is truly interested in "participation", the kind of thread I have offered, clearly has value for a large number of MFO members, and that will produce a different level of participation.
Anna’s umbrage deserves to be accompanied by the post that elicited it - not a slimmed-down edited version. Based on a screen-shot made at the time, here’s a complete and accurate transcript of the post Anna was reacting to.
Post by dtconroe @ 12:05 PM on February 22:
“The concept of participation is an interesting one. MFO has a reputation of being a site, predominately focused on shallow and very focused thread topics. Thread topics that are so narrow and shallow, that they rarely generate much indepth (sic) discussion and guidance for very specific poster needs. So, just like the latest investing article from Kiplingers, you read it, think about it, and then throw the magazine and the article into a trash can, and wait for the next Kiplinger publication. I am a psychologist by background, with a history of starting support groups for general topics, that have a large number of subtopics, related to the general topic. The support groups are designed for individual participants to participate and help find answers to their unique needs and decisions, by engaging in conversation from the support group. Answers will not be the same for all members of the support group, and it may involve rather lengthy discussions, to finally start seeing what makes sense to a given individual. I approach threads, like I do with support groups - I expect relatively long and ongoing participation in my threads. The participation in my threads are designed for a very different process, than threads that are designed for short focused engagement, and then buried in the trash bend of old articles. Because of my approach to threads, it is easy to see why a large number of posters find value in them and feel loss if the thread is closed, while other posters like the sterility of focused but shallow threads, that have short life expectancies. So, participation is interesting, but means different things for different posters - quantitatively it can mean one thing, and qualitatively it can mean something very different.”
Comments
The block quote is a useful tool here that allows to define a body of text with muted high lighting, which identifies to readers a particular area of interest. Hank, your use of block quote just prior, in my view; is an excellent example of using block quote to separate various comments in this thread. One may move through the text with the full understanding of "where/who" a subject/comment arrived; and then your comment/observation.
I like it !!!
My personal complaint would be that I don't think it necessary to block quote a large block of text, to be used for further discussion. To pick a particular small group of words should suffice to pinpoint a discussion. 'Course, this is only how my brain functions when reading and digesting words. On the other hand, I do have those times when I forget where I left my reading glasses, too.
Have a good remainder.
Catch
I am clearly not going to please everyone, with such diverse points of view. I am conflicted and will have to evaluate my motivation in starting any new threads, or to even continue supporting my existing thread. I try to find some motivation and personal joy in threads I start--I am having a hard time achieving those personal objectives right now.
Old_Skeet
I am delighted that you are posting here.
One possible solution to increasingly lengthy threads is to start a new thread with the same title, call it "Part 2," and in the inaugural post note that it is related to the earlier thread, provide a link, and perhaps give a short description, e.g., "In that thread I described my philosophy of investing, why the topic is important to me, and X, Y, and Z were discussed. In this thread I do the following ... "
That said, I too hope you will continue posting and will find a workable solution within the physical parameters of the discussion forum.
Then Snowball's son Rhaegon, who was very instrumental in getting my thread restored, made the following statement in his last post: "I must agree with splitting up the thread into smaller chunks. I've moderated many forums over the years. You reach many more readers via small concise threads than you do with a broad overarching thread that runs for 50 pages."
After the thread was restored, I get the following comment from Mark: "You might reconsider breaking up the post as was suggested sometime ago. Granted the total post refers to OEF bond investing but it contains information on several different bond classes. As it stands I think your post is highly unwieldly. You got a concession, make one of your own." Hank then responds to this statement from Mark with: "Good idea. Most threads refer to more specific investments. For example, a thread examines a particular stock, bond, fund or manager."
I have just received the recent comment from Ben:"I, for one, requested that the OEF Bond thread not be extended by introducing a new topic."
I have received many recent private messages, as well as posted comments, expressing support and encouraging me to continue my thread, and to those individuals, I will express my gratitude for your positive comments and support. The other messages clearly express a willingness to "tolerate" the continuation of my thread, but they do not come across as very encouraging or supportive, as they reflect a message of wanting me to voluntarily modify my posting approach.
I started the thread "Bond OEF Investing for More Conservative Investors" to evaluate MFO, as a potential website to post threads on. I feel like I have reached the point where I need to think about what I have experienced, before I make any other posts on my existing thread, or choose to start any new threads. Not sure what I will decide, or how long it will take me to decide, so I will just leave it at that.
The "Bond OEF Investing" thread has seemingly taken on a life of it's own, in effect acting almost as a separate "category". Unfortunately, that has also caused it to become very long and unwieldy. If there were a distinct category for things "bondish" then it would be much more natural to have separate threads on various bond issues, all contained within one grouping.
Might be worth consideration, if not beyond the resources of the management. The thing is, if that were to happen, it would only be logical to consider further splitting the "Fund Discussions" category into separate categories for stock fund related posts, and, I suppose, a category for "everything else funds".
To reduce category clutter a bit perhaps the two "bullpen" categories could be combined, since the number of orphan "link posts" has greatly diminished.
@dtconroe, what you said: Maybe I'm reading you wrong dtconroe and I apologize if that's the case, but it seems like you are saying 'if you don't play my game I'm going to take my ball and go home'. To that I say, just post if you want, don't post if you don't want to. Change your style or don't change your style. Really the only one who has say over any of this is David and his team and he has said continue. The MFO team does all the work and pays the bills. Pretty simple. Everyone else is just offering polite suggestions and trying to help as a community.
I don't see a problem with a topic being 7 pages long - or 10 or 20 for that matter. You just skip forward to the last page to read the latest posts. Where's the problem with that?
You and Mark have made your opinions very clear. They are not accurate, but I am very clear on your opinions. I just made a detailed post on my Bond OEF thread, and I have no desire to make any additional posts beyond that latest post I made.
My knowledge of websites goes back to the late '90s-early 2000s, when I learned HTML coding and built a few websites, just for the knowledge. I don't think the basic technology has changed since then, but a thread doesn't know how long it is, it doesn't know how many pages it has, and it doesn't know how many posts it has.
If a thread with a lot of pages seems (literally) "unwieldy," then the problem is with your computer.
Each page in a thread (or anywhere on the web for that matter) is a stand-alone separate web page. They are linked together by the page numbers shown, but each number is simply a hyperlink, and clicking it and loading the linked page is no different than clicking any other hyperlink (as far as what's going on in the background).
Maybe the basics have changed, but as far as I know they haven't.
I would like to congratulate you for the content of the thread “Bond OEF Investing for More Conservative Investors”, I have enjoyed reading and particularly benefited from your posts.
David’s guidance was clear “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.”
In other words, I understand him to be proposing that you continue to post and let others decide whether to participate or click on it or not.
The decision to continue is yours, all others can decide to participate or not. I for my side, hope you will continue.
Lastly, I agree with @Simon and @Low_Tech, on my computer and internet setup - I have no difficulty or find any inconvenience accessing the thread.
I made that comment early on in the thread. It had absolutely nothing to do with the page count at that time and the coding of websites. What it had to do with was the introduction of multiple categories within the general heading of bond OEF's. Period.
A gentle suggestion was made to the poster that s/he start separate category threads so that those who might be interested could find the appropriate topic quickly rather than having to remember what page that topic fell on within the longer thread and/or re-read the entire thread. In addition to the general topic "six" separate topic categories have been initiated within that one long post. Do you know what they are? Do you know what page they fall on? I fully admit that maybe no one cares and I am in no way trying to diminish the overall usefulness and relevance of the post. What I am saying is that my old fart brain finds in hard to follow and sort i.e. unwieldy.
well said. And I agree.
But it's not the kind of thing that should have been moderated. Seems to me like a lot of old moderating habits are artifacts of the days of dial-up modems, and similar constraints.
Why don't you go back to Morningstar where, obviously, you were worshipped and presiding over the alter of dtconroe, the savior. Who asked you to save MFO from itself?
I hope you read this before it is deleted and Anna is put in detention for the first time.
I hope this edited version of my previous post, helps clarify what I was attempting to communicate.
Like you I'm always dumbfounded when someone comes to a discussion board and then pouts, whine's, has hissy fits and complains when said board doesn't conform to their wishes and demands. They take no effort to blend in, to compromise, feel suggestions to their mannerisms and/or style are beneath them and continue to piss and moan. You'd think a psychologist might know better but then I'm not very well trained.
Maybe what you need for all honor and glory dtconroe is your own board/blog/website to gather the flock you feel agrees with you. You may be well versed in bonds but your social skills leave a lot to be desired.
p.s. Not everyone here is as dumb and lost as you think they are. This is a community for sharing not a kingdom for dictators.
OJ
I never complained or said a word about your long post. Not ever. I reacted to the insults you lashed at the long term MFO members and at your arrogance. I don't care how you want to post.
Post by dtconroe @ 12:05 PM on February 22:
“The concept of participation is an interesting one. MFO has a reputation of being a site, predominately focused on shallow and very focused thread topics. Thread topics that are so narrow and shallow, that they rarely generate much indepth (sic) discussion and guidance for very specific poster needs. So, just like the latest investing article from Kiplingers, you read it, think about it, and then throw the magazine and the article into a trash can, and wait for the next Kiplinger publication. I am a psychologist by background, with a history of starting support groups for general topics, that have a large number of subtopics, related to the general topic. The support groups are designed for individual participants to participate and help find answers to their unique needs and decisions, by engaging in conversation from the support group. Answers will not be the same for all members of the support group, and it may involve rather lengthy discussions, to finally start seeing what makes sense to a given individual. I approach threads, like I do with support groups - I expect relatively long and ongoing participation in my threads. The participation in my threads are designed for a very different process, than threads that are designed for short focused engagement, and then buried in the trash bend of old articles. Because of my approach to threads, it is easy to see why a large number of posters find value in them and feel loss if the thread is closed, while other posters like the sterility of focused but shallow threads, that have short life expectancies. So, participation is interesting, but means different things for different posters - quantitatively it can mean one thing, and qualitatively it can mean something very different.”