Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
NexusFi site changelog and issues/problem reporting
Yes. But with a modification: the same person can't be awarded over and over again. For instance, if they win in one month, then they are not eligible again for x number of additional months.
This is not just for the sake of letting someone else have a chance, although in fairness this is important, too. It's also about what a "Thanks" means. In a way, the more "Thanks" means more people recognize the value of a post, so it's a good gauge of community judgment. But, if you look at a lot of posts every day, as I do, some people tend to get a Thanks every day from the same group of members. It's not unusual for a certain subset of the membership to particularly like that person's approach, or style, or personality, or whatever, and so they are there every day with the Thanks button.
I do still like the idea of using the Thanks as a measure of value, and my observation over time has been that it does tend to work out. This is more so with someone who makes posts about a wide variety of topics and threads, and/or who is given Thanks by a wide number of different people. But the Thanks count does matter, and it is also really just about the only quantitative measure we have of general appeal, and hopefully of quality.
So I am saying yes to your idea, with the addition that the same people can't always win it, within a set number of months. We need to see others who are considered outstanding, perhaps by other members.
I am very familiar with the three top Thanked members you listed, by the way, and understand and agree with how they have been ranked by the membership. However, they are also very different, and the value they each provide is not the same. Which is another reason the same people should not always be eligible month after month. We're looking for different people who have made contributions in a particular month or other timespan, and this will change.
Bob.
When one door closes, another opens.
-- Cervantes, Don Quixote
Just read this addition. I think this should be thought about before being implemented.
I do not think this is the best idea, because of the fact that sometimes a member will just have a group who particularly likes their posts, and always reads and Thanks them.
I'm not saying it's wrong, but I'm saying that this matters.
Bob.
When one door closes, another opens.
-- Cervantes, Don Quixote
This is a good point Bob. What if the previous winners are brought into the judges panel. So they’re not excluded, just now on the other side. Say the journals are done quarterly. You would get 4 new winners that year. At the new year it starts over and all journals can compete again. Just some ideas to throw in the hat.
I've run into some problems getting the new search engine up and running. The semantic search / vectorizing of data is problematic (so far).
I may have to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and just do a partial upgrade that will still be a substantial improvement but won't have semantic search -- it would be keyword based.
I agree with @bobwest's comments on the limitations of a metric based solely on the number of "Thanks". Here are some suggestions with his comments in mind.
1) Award the prize once a month but you can only win once per year. Why: my benefit from this challenge would be discovering useful journals that I didn't know about. This scheme will reveal the 12 most appreciated journals in a year.
2) Consider a metric that blends number of thanks with number of different thankers. It could be a simple weighted product of the two. This will offset the dynamic of a few daily thankers propelling the journal to the top.
3) I gravitate toward the thoughtful journals that reflect on their process and challenges in trading and an analysis of market dynamics. Consider also weighting the metric by the amount of text, to highlight thoughtful journalers.
I don't mean to step on any toes. All journals are good! I'm expressing what would be most useful to me.
Personally, I think some of your ideas are potentially good, but I also think it can get hard to actually quantify how to evaluate a post. The "Thanks" criterion has some merit, and it also may be too simple. On the other hand, you can get too complicated too. More complicated may not be better, just more complicated.
Also, what's being measured is not just the most Thanked journal, it's all the Thanks a person had for the month, in all their posts. I think that can make it a more valid measurement of value, or at least a wider one.
We're going to try a new monthly challenge that rewards the member with the most "Thanks" received during posts made that month. The reward is choice of $50 Amazon gift card, or $149 Free Elite Membership coupon (if you are …
We may just have to see how it all works out, as with everything else.
Bob.
When one door closes, another opens.
-- Cervantes, Don Quixote
I'm expressing what would be most useful to me.