| Author |
Message
|
| rnbaida |
 Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:48 am Post subject: volume |
 |
|
Investing Sr. Associate
|
| How can we get more people to post in the forums |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| $$bilyal |
| Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Investing Sr. Associate
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 57
This Month: 0
1139.58 e$
Net worth: 16,232.68
Portfolio Value: 15,093.10
Monthly Return: -0.38%
Trades this month: 0
Churn Rate: 0.00%Items
|
Promise them beer and pizza. It can't miss!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Dave Rathbun |
| Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
CFO
|
| Moved out of "stock" discussion forum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| yatesw84 |
| Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Investing Sr. Associate
Joined: 10 Apr 2006
Posts: 50
This Month: 0
43.83 e$
Net worth: 14,548.13
Portfolio Value: 14,504.30
Monthly Return: -5.08%
Trades this month: 0
Churn Rate: 0.00%Items
|
| people new to investing will soon find the forums helpful |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| vetelmo |
| Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
|
I think it's a great place!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Benjamin |
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Administrator
|
I think more people would post if we have a bigger prize. It would make more of an incentive to get active.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| frusnak |
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 5:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
CFO
|
| I agree with you Benjamin. In the "three word story" thread JD was rewarding for posting at random intervals. Is that what you had in mind? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Im Not Warren Buffett |
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
CFO
|
| Well I think the "Inside the Mind (and Portfolio) of INWB" has gotten fairly decent interest over an Easter weekend when most people probably aren't on... I think we should go back to some random games like "Hot Potato" and "Guess the DOW/S&P/NASDAQ" for the day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jdunn72 |
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Member of The Month
March
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1407
This Month: 0
11098.15 e$
Net worth: 11,098.15
Portfolio Value: 0.00
Monthly Return: 0.00%
Trades this month: 0
Churn Rate: 0.00%Items
|
| Benjamin wrote: | | I think more people would post if we have a bigger prize. It would make more of an incentive to get active. |
I think that is a good idea but, make the increase in prize money commensurate with the number of QUALITY posts required. I noticed that some people don't post at all unless they see they can win right at the end and then post incredibly useless short posts to get on the leaderboard, win the money etc.. I think it is pretty shameless for them to throw up ten useless posts just to get the money soo, if you increase the winnings substantially then you should also increase the number of posts and/or criteria for qualifying posts as well. I mean the goal of you spending prize money for active posting winners (I believe) is to increase quality content that search engines rank by, this goal is not achieved by useless "yeah me too" and going through the welcome thread and welcoming people from a year back etc. That's just shameless blatant abuse. Personally, I think qualifying posts whether it be ten or twenty should have at least a minimum of fifty words of original on topic information. I wouldn't pay for nothing less than that. This would make it so that a person would get started earlier and make better posts because if they tried to wait until the end the task could be daunting and unachievable yet at the same time protect your best quality posting members from this shameless poaching with incredibly uninformative posts. I really can't see a reason to try and gain/retain these sorts of posts anyway..... They are of no benefit to the site or anyone else for that matter, and that's my two cents worth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jdunn72 |
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Member of The Month
March
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1407
This Month: 0
11098.15 e$
Net worth: 11,098.15
Portfolio Value: 0.00
Monthly Return: 0.00%
Trades this month: 0
Churn Rate: 0.00%Items
|
| frusnak wrote: | | I agree with you Benjamin. In the "three word story" thread JD was rewarding for posting at random intervals. Is that what you had in mind? |
With the type of post scoring I mentioned frusnak's post would be worth .5 out of 10 or twenty required. I don't think that is asking too much to begin with.
It was on topic - it was original- it had 26 words. Two of these would equal one on topic original content post. It's pretty simple really but, at least it's something.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
 |
| jdunn72 |
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Member of The Month
March
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1407
This Month: 0
11098.15 e$
Net worth: 11,098.15
Portfolio Value: 0.00
Monthly Return: 0.00%
Trades this month: 0
Churn Rate: 0.00%Items
|
| Wow, I just had an even easier idea, make it so that the qualifying posts must be original and get a score of at least 3-400 in e$ for it to qualify. That way it could easily work into the existing system sparing our over-worked god of coding (Dave) from having to do too much to impliment it and, it would promote better posts as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Dave Rathbun |
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
CFO
|
I consider myself to be a fairly active poster and I hope that most of the posts I make are more relevant than frivolous, but I rarely see my posts in the 3-400 e$ range.
The main issue, as I see it, is that post size is really no more a measure of quality contributions than posting frequency. If the requirements are changed so that the minimum post size goes up in order to qualify, we'll just get more big spam posts rather than small ones.
It would be difficult, I think, to "qualify" posts for quality based on some sort of algorithm. A human (moderator) could read a post and decide fairly easily that it's useful and appropriate or not. To program something like that, at least the way I envision it would be done, would require some sort of context or pattern recognition system along with a learning "AI" or something.
For example:
| Quote: | | this phrase makes perfect sense when you read it |
| Quote: | | it read you when sense perfect makes phrase this |
Those two sets of words are identical. But the order of the words means that the first phase has meaning while the second one does not. And they're both the same size.
I am not trying to shoot down the idea, nor am I trying to say something like what you describe isn't needed here. I'm just trying to point out some of the considerations.
[Edit - For the record, this was a e$321 post, so it just made it over the e$300 limit you suggested, and would not have made it to e$400.] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jdunn72 |
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Member of The Month
March
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1407
This Month: 0
11098.15 e$
Net worth: 11,098.15
Portfolio Value: 0.00
Monthly Return: 0.00%
Trades this month: 0
Churn Rate: 0.00%Items
|
| Dave Rathbun wrote: | I consider myself to be a fairly active poster and I hope that most of the posts I make are more relevant than frivolous, but I rarely see my posts in the 3-400 e$ range.
The main issue, as I see it, is that post size is really no more a measure of quality contributions than posting frequency. If the requirements are changed so that the minimum post size goes up in order to qualify, we'll just get more big spam posts rather than small ones.
It would be difficult, I think, to "qualify" posts for quality based on some sort of algorithm. A human (moderator) could read a post and decide fairly easily that it's useful and appropriate or not. To program something like that, at least the way I envision it would be done, would require some sort of context or pattern recognition system along with a learning "AI" or something.
For example:
| Quote: | | this phrase makes perfect sense when you read it |
| Quote: | | it read you when sense perfect makes phrase this |
Those two sets of words are identical. But the order of the words means that the first phase has meaning while the second one does not. And they're both the same size.
I am not trying to shoot down the idea, nor am I trying to say something like what you describe isn't needed here. I'm just trying to point out some of the considerations.
[Edit - For the record, this was a e$321 post, so it just made it over the e$300 limit you suggested, and would not have made it to e$400.] |
These were just recommendations, the numbers I chose were in the range I see quite often but, I can believe that it wouldn't be to hard to set the number to 280 or whatever y'all could deem acceptable, and I don't think it would be too hard for one person to look over the winners list and check that they had at least 10 - 20 qualifying posts by content and length. I do agree that a programmatic approach is near impossible but, if the curd was separated from the whey by a simple numeric figure then a human could easily and quickly look over the winners qualifying posts and ordain that they also qualified by content specifications and then dole out the dollars or step down to the next on the list if they didn't meet content qualifications. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Dave Rathbun |
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
CFO
|
You make valid points. I would suggest, however, that the process should be ongoing rather than waiting until the end of the month. That would require a more active role by the moderators, or by whoever was responsible for the process. I would hate to get to the end of the month only to find out that if I had made one more "quality" posts I would have been in the running, especially if I thought I had met the minimum requirements.
I also don't care for the fact that it's a judgement call as to whether a post is "quality" or not. Even if it's a human (rather than code) doing the judgement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jdunn72 |
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Member of The Month
March
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1407
This Month: 0
11098.15 e$
Net worth: 11,098.15
Portfolio Value: 0.00
Monthly Return: 0.00%
Trades this month: 0
Churn Rate: 0.00%Items
|
| Dave Rathbun wrote: | You make valid points. I would suggest, however, that the process should be ongoing rather than waiting until the end of the month. That would require a more active role by the moderators, or by whoever was responsible for the process. I would hate to get to the end of the month only to find out that if I had made one more "quality" posts I would have been in the running, especially if I thought I had met the minimum requirements.
I also don't care for the fact that it's a judgement call as to whether a post is "quality" or not. Even if it's a human (rather than code) doing the judgement. |
Well, I don't really see how much human judgement is involved in that it only has to be original and on topic, the query would eliminate posts that were too short. The human element is really very minimal and only checks for two things - original (as in not a copied article or quoted article to meet content length requirements) and on topic it's not like it would actually be judged for it's value or anything like that so, what are your qualms exactly? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
stock market game on the web. At eInvesting you compete for monthly cash prizes while you interact, make virtual dollars, purchase items, and trade in the realistic stock market simulator. We make investing FUN!
