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.
I wonder if you could limit links to 10 a day for each person? There's so much good talk here, but it's hard to see with 20 links all bunched together.
To whom it might concern, "Take two aspirin, no make that six, log in to your links and review the articles. Then, give us a full report in 500 words or less."
Mindy- it is possible to consolidate multiple links within one post, but it does require a significant amount of extra work. There is already a lot of work involved in just finding the various links... a fair amount of research time is certainly required... and some posters may justifiably feel that additional work/time is not warranted.
Personally, I prefer the consolidation approach because it makes it easier to actually investigate and use the links, and cuts down on the posting clutter also. But all things considered, I'd still rather have the links made available, even as they are now, rather than not have them at all.
I recall this issue being discussed a few weeks ago. Personally, I find many of the links to be useful. If not, I just scroll past them. Thanks, Ted, for taking the time to provide this useful service.
Reply to @Bitzer: Thank you, Bitzer for the kind words. The MFO Discussion Board provides fund investors with the most current news and views regarding the world of mutual funds found anywhere on the web. Regards, Ted
However, I would not dismiss the comment from Mindy out of hand for this reason...if I look at the current threads, ones just from today extend beyond page 1.
I would guess that many people miss very important links as human nature would normally cause one to not go beyond the initial page. Not sure what the solution is, but wanted to point this out.
Reply to @PRESSmUP: You point is well taken, however; over time those who frequent the MFO Board on a regular bases are aware of that and look past page 1. Regards, Ted
Generally I don't click on the link threads unless others have commented on them. With that said, if the links are to sites like Marketwatch, I won't visit since most of their stuff is fluff and drivel. If there are several comments saying it is a good read and it spurs conversation then it must be informative and I'll check it out.
Mutual Fund Observer ... A Site in the Tradition of Fundalarm
Now I understand that some folks never visited Fundalarm, but let me inform you that Ted was an integral part of Fundalarm and was instrumental in making Fundalarm and now MFO awesome websites. At Fundalarm, he was affectionately referred to as the "Linkster," but now I get the feeling that there is less affection for all of his efforts. That is unfortunate.
I have always -- and I mean always -- appreciated his hard, uncompensated work on behalf of Fundalarm and MFO. Even when the markets were down and other folks were not posting, his links were able to elicit some discussions. And if the links were of little interest, no discussions ensued. No big deal. Believe it or not, members of this forum are able to move to page 2 if there are too many uninteresting links on page 1.
As to why David has remained silent on the "Ted's Linking" issue, I suspect that David realizes that Ted was an invaluable asset to Fundalarm and is now to MFO, and that MFO would be less without his contributions. And I would totally agree with this assessment.
Ted, thank you for all of your past contributions at Fundalarm and to your continuing contributions at MFO.
This shouldn't be about Ted. Without Ted's continuous feeding, I think the forum would look dead most of the time.
At the same time, there is a usability problem and people are directing this at Ted as if it is his problem. This is not right. It is not an either or between status quo and making Ted jump through hoops. It is better solved by a technology solution (see the technical thread with feature request) if logistically feasible to implement.
I agree Ted brings useful information to the board with his links. I have been on the board dating back to the fundalarm days. There were times when Ted was gone and the board was very slow with activity. I'd rather have the many post that he makes over not having them at all. And, form time-to-time I find one that is most useful.
For those that do not wish to read all of Ted's post there is the option to skip over them. One of the things though is that sometimes the topics of discussion get burried deep down in the stack ... but, with this, when someone makes a comment on the post it comes back to the front of the lineup again in the topic listings. So, is the system really broke? From my thinking, I don't think it is as it lets the topics that are no longer drawing comment(s) fade along with those post that contain links only.
I also think Ted will make comments to spark activity and draw comments even when it comes at the expense of others. With this, I wish he would lighten up in this area so there are less flair-ups with other posters. I have myself found, Ted likes to challenge you and call you out at times. It is ok to say you don't agree with someone but let's do it in a manner that does not cause conflict. I think back on some of the exchanges I've read in the past and felt that it has caused one poster "Catch22" to step back away form the board. I read most of Catch's post because he brought a different perspective to the board than that of my own. It made me think someone is seeing something here that I am discounting and I'd might wish to revisit my own thinking and review this one more time. I did not attack Catch for his thinking and perspective on being heavy in fixed income as I felt he was light in equities. What he was doing was working for him and that is what counts most. If what you are doing is working for you and is meeting your investment goals and needs then it is not broke in my way of thinking. And, writting about what you are doing should not draw hard abrasive comments. Thanks again Catch for expressing your past thinking inspite of your critics.
And, thanks again Ted for all the links. They are most appreciated.
Reply to @Old_Skeet, katman, cman, kevindow, Junkster, DavidMMP, Bitzer, Roy Weitz:
After seeing this, I calling my lawyer and having my will rewritten. You are all-in for a piece of the action when I die in 2075. Do worry there's plenty to go around, I've made a fortune by investing in a few funds and holding them fir a long time. Regards, Ted
If my math is correct and you are now of age 77 (born 1937) that will make you 138 in the year 2075; and, I will be ten years your junior at age 128. I have printed your above comment and placed it in the family Bible. Thanks for the beneficial interest. And with my benefical interest now granted I need to talk with you about your risk tolerance. From my thinking it needs to be dialed downward.
When I first came to this site, I found the volume of information overwhelming. But, now it is as comfortable as an old hat. Please keep up your posts Ted, and keep us all informed.
Several months ago, I introduced a discussion about managed ETF (index) portfolios to this forum. A few participants attempted to quash this discussion, stating that MFO is for mutual fund discussion only. The thread remained and I'd like to thank Dr Snowball and his colleagues on this forum for permitting a wide range of discussion and opinions.
Reply to @Bitzer: I'll need your address so I can have the lawyer contact you when I die. Please, its David not Mr. Snowball. David and I go back a long ways--FundAlarm & Marla Brill's Website. Regards, Ted
A quick search for Marla Brill turn up this freebie...thanks Ted.
"For a limited time, visit our homepage, scroll down, fill out the form and recieve a free copy!
Written by Marla Brill
The purpose of this book is to help you organize your financial and legal affairs, so that your loved ones and others will be able to step in and help with minimal difficulty if you are not able to manage things yourself. It will also be helpful to anyone who wants to “get on track” by reviewing where they stand and bringing together key information on the financial and legal aspects of their lives into one centralized place."
Comments
Regards,
Ted
Personally, I prefer the consolidation approach because it makes it easier to actually investigate and use the links, and cuts down on the posting clutter also. But all things considered, I'd still rather have the links made available, even as they are now, rather than not have them at all.
Regards,
Ted
Regards,
Ted
However, I would not dismiss the comment from Mindy out of hand for this reason...if I look at the current threads, ones just from today extend beyond page 1.
I would guess that many people miss very important links as human nature would normally cause one to not go beyond the initial page. Not sure what the solution is, but wanted to point this out.
Regards,
Ted
P.S. Mindy knows how to both pitch and catch.
Mutual Fund Observer ... A Site in the Tradition of Fundalarm
Now I understand that some folks never visited Fundalarm, but let me inform you that Ted was an integral part of Fundalarm and was instrumental in making Fundalarm and now MFO awesome websites. At Fundalarm, he was affectionately referred to as the "Linkster," but now I get the feeling that there is less affection for all of his efforts. That is unfortunate.
I have always -- and I mean always -- appreciated his hard, uncompensated work on behalf of Fundalarm and MFO. Even when the markets were down and other folks were not posting, his links were able to elicit some discussions. And if the links were of little interest, no discussions ensued. No big deal. Believe it or not, members of this forum are able to move to page 2 if there are too many uninteresting links on page 1.
As to why David has remained silent on the "Ted's Linking" issue, I suspect that David realizes that Ted was an invaluable asset to Fundalarm and is now to MFO, and that MFO would be less without his contributions. And I would totally agree with this assessment.
Ted, thank you for all of your past contributions at Fundalarm and to your continuing contributions at MFO.
Kevin
At the same time, there is a usability problem and people are directing this at Ted as if it is his problem. This is not right. It is not an either or between status quo and making Ted jump through hoops. It is better solved by a technology solution (see the technical thread with feature request) if logistically feasible to implement.
I agree Ted brings useful information to the board with his links. I have been on the board dating back to the fundalarm days. There were times when Ted was gone and the board was very slow with activity. I'd rather have the many post that he makes over not having them at all. And, form time-to-time I find one that is most useful.
For those that do not wish to read all of Ted's post there is the option to skip over them. One of the things though is that sometimes the topics of discussion get burried deep down in the stack ... but, with this, when someone makes a comment on the post it comes back to the front of the lineup again in the topic listings. So, is the system really broke? From my thinking, I don't think it is as it lets the topics that are no longer drawing comment(s) fade along with those post that contain links only.
I also think Ted will make comments to spark activity and draw comments even when it comes at the expense of others. With this, I wish he would lighten up in this area so there are less flair-ups with other posters. I have myself found, Ted likes to challenge you and call you out at times. It is ok to say you don't agree with someone but let's do it in a manner that does not cause conflict. I think back on some of the exchanges I've read in the past and felt that it has caused one poster "Catch22" to step back away form the board. I read most of Catch's post because he brought a different perspective to the board than that of my own. It made me think someone is seeing something here that I am discounting and I'd might wish to revisit my own thinking and review this one more time. I did not attack Catch for his thinking and perspective on being heavy in fixed income as I felt he was light in equities. What he was doing was working for him and that is what counts most. If what you are doing is working for you and is meeting your investment goals and needs then it is not broke in my way of thinking. And, writting about what you are doing should not draw hard abrasive comments. Thanks again Catch for expressing your past thinking inspite of your critics.
And, thanks again Ted for all the links. They are most appreciated.
Old_Skeet
After seeing this, I calling my lawyer and having my will rewritten. You are all-in for a piece of the action when I die in 2075. Do worry there's plenty to go around, I've made a fortune by investing in a few funds and holding them fir a long time.
Regards,
Ted
If my math is correct and you are now of age 77 (born 1937) that will make you 138 in the year 2075; and, I will be ten years your junior at age 128. I have printed your above comment and placed it in the family Bible. Thanks for the beneficial interest. And with my benefical interest now granted I need to talk with you about your risk tolerance. From my thinking it needs to be dialed downward.
Old_Skeet
Regards,
Ted
Regards,
Ted
+10
Regards,
Ted
"For a limited time, visit our homepage, scroll down, fill out the form and recieve a free copy!
Written by Marla Brill
The purpose of this book is to help you organize your financial and legal affairs, so that your loved ones and others will be able to step in and help with minimal difficulty if you are not able to manage things yourself. It will also be helpful to anyone who wants to “get on track” by reviewing where they stand and bringing together key information on the financial and legal aspects of their lives into one centralized place."
Sign up link:
https://aier.org/node/7944