Welcome All!

Thursday, May 21 2009 by

Hi,

Just a test really to play with this facility. Spent half hour finding my way around and building watchlists etc and I'm well impressed so far.

I have a feeling many Fools may arrive in the next few days. Maybe you can use this thread to announce your presence and just to test out your first post and any other OT comments.

Obviously this area may in time become as active as the Fool O&G companies board. Perhaps we will need to request an O&G markets board? Maybe we don't need a separate E&P board?

And I like the power I have by starting this thread ;-)

In authoring a new thread, you become responsible for moderating and maintaining discipline and order to the discussions.

 Special Offer: Invest like Buffett, Slater and Greenblatt. Click here for details »

I like the Italics button!

And the bold one ;-)

Cheers

And now I also like the "edit" button. I hope! Trying this out approx 3 hours after original post to see if there is any notification of the update given or change in time stamp against the OP.....


Disclaimer:  

As per our Terms of Use, Stockopedia is a financial news & data site, discussion forum and content aggregator. Our site should be used for educational & informational purposes only. We do not provide investment advice, recommendations or views as to whether an investment or strategy is suited to the investment needs of a specific individual. You should make your own decisions and seek independent professional advice before doing so. The author may own shares in any companies discussed, all opinions are his/her own & are general/impersonal. Remember: Shares can go down as well as up. Past performance is not a guide to future performance & investors may not get back the amount invested.


Do you like this Post?
Yes
No
0 thumbs up
0 thumbs down
Share this post with friends




266 Posts on this Thread show/hide all

promethean 5th Jun '09 167 of 266
1

rpc - I was thinking about competing wikis... it's hard to tell what would work without trying it. 

At the moment, wikis are available on all stocks, but nobody seems to be taking ownership of any.  If someone chose  to start a wiki they might take ownership of it and therefore be more likely to upkeep it.  The current set up may need to change to encourage contributions - any other feedback on this topic from the board?

| Link | Share
emptyend 5th Jun '09 168 of 266
3

In reply to doverbeach (post #164)

Personally I think it is better to get people to work on the stock wiki and accept that most threads should have limited lives. Sure ee could keep updating the Aminex Tanzania header - but surely it is better to have a Tanzania section in Aminex's wiki that is updated instead?

Hi db,

I've started a number of threads that deal with specific geographical assets in both the AEX board and the SIA board. My reason for this is to try to keep the threads running for as long as possible, with the information on those assets being found in one place only, rather than split up amongst a number of threads. Updating the Tanz header for Aminex is no problem - easily done as the drilling campaign evolves.

Most assets like this for E&Ps are potentially subject to be sold on eventually - at which point the need for them will cease.  You'll notice I haven't (yet) bothered to start a SIA Vietnam thread ......just in case  ;-)

I think this is a better way of dealing with discrete geographical areas in E&P companies than by starting multiple threads just to be current. In many cases assets will be "sleepers" for months or even years (eg DNX in Mauritania or AEX in DPRK) between periods of interesting activitity and I don't see any advantage at all in starting a completely new thread when nothing will have changed since the last post on the topic.

cheers

ee

| Link | Share
promethean 5th Jun '09 169 of 266
3

PS - rpcroft & doverbeach especially - hope you noticed the spellchecker on the text editor toolbar!  You can spellcheck in Polish if you want to.

| Link | Share
SW10Chap 5th Jun '09 170 of 266
3

At the moment we have a situation where people tend to carry on using existing threads, advfn style.

Regarding threads - I think it's more than just thread 'etiquette.' I would also prefer to see more and varied threads and it seems to me that the S'pedia design mitigates against that.

The problem is that there seems to be no way to see threads interleaved so that one is moving through (say) SIA posts and following a timeline. Stepping through posts on TMF takes you from a drilling analysis to a news tidbit that someone picked up to a discussion on the Directors' emoluments. In other words, it's time that takes precedence, rather than thread title. Of course, it's possible to change views and focus on a thread once it grabs your attention.

I'm really happy with the changes that have been made so far to the threads - the Show/Hide thing is great - and I hope you guys can find a way to downplay the dominace of the thread and allw us to see something more akin to a timeline for a stock/sector/theme.

SW10

| Link | Share
SW10Chap 5th Jun '09 171 of 266
1

In reply to promethean (post #167)

At the moment, wikis are available on all stocks, but nobody seems to be taking ownership of any.

OK, here goes. I find it hard to get excited about wikis - especially for stocks. (Although, er, I have fiddled with a Theme wiki hereabouts!) Perhaps I'm not alone?

If someone chose  to start a wiki they might take ownership of it and therefore be more likely to upkeep it.

Doesn't that also create a bit of a problem in that the 'owner' gets precious about her wiki and may then react badly to changes? Bluntly, I think the problem with getting people to contribute to wikis on a site such as this comes down to WIIFM - what's in it for me?

SW10

| Link | Share
doverbeach 5th Jun '09 172 of 266
1

In reply to SW10Chap (post #170)

I agree with this.  I sort of felt the TMF approach was better but couldnt quite put my finger on why but I think SW10 has nailed it. 

db

| Link | Share
emptyend 5th Jun '09 173 of 266
1

In reply to SW10Chap (post #170)

Stepping through posts on TMF takes you from a drilling analysis to a news tidbit that someone picked up to a discussion on the Directors' emoluments. In other words, it's time that takes precedence, rather than thread title. Of course, it's possible to change views and focus on a thread once it grabs your attention.

If, of course, it becomes possible to "change view" in relation to all threads/posts on a stock (ie within a forum category) to flip between "thread priority" and "time priority" (anchored at a post of one's choosing) then one would have the "best of both worlds" - just defaulting to the thread option, rather than the time option as applies elsewhere??

Personally I'm not so bothered about the time view - especially if there are fewer threads within a forum category (eg individual stock) . There is no special merit IMO in having to sort through hundreds of completely disconnected threads within a category. And I might also argue that a discipline that comes with fewer (but more meaningful!) threads for each stock may well lead to better-quality posts and less time-wasting dross. I'm coming round to the view that "less is more".

ee

| Link | Share
promethean 6th Jun '09 174 of 266
1

SW10 et al... I entirely agree... and we are definitely going to be moving towards that kind of model.  I'd like users to be able to customise the view as they wish ... so they can browse every post on a topic in chronological order (regardless of thread as you say)...or read the individual threads... or just highlight the top rated posts in a certain timeframe etc.

The important thing to get right is simplicity... i.e. make the interface powerful, but intuitive enough that first timers don't get confused.  Please bear with us while we get there!

| Link | Share
doverbeach 6th Jun '09 175 of 266
2

re the stock wikis -  the idea of having 2 (or more!) for the same stock seems to me to be daft. My instinct is that having competing wikis would be highly confusing, a gift to rampers/de-rampers and go contrary to the whole idea of a wiki as a collective pool of knowledge.

There can be no need for debate on many of the things in a stock wiki. The directors and their history. The history of the company. Financial facts. Of course people can and do disagree on the colour they give to some of these things - are the directors immensely experienced industry captains or a bunch of old farts playing around with one last company etc.  But most of the disagreements will come on the outlook for the company. If necessary it should be possible to have a Bull Case Outlook and a Bear Case Outlook in a wiki - this could I think usefully replace the current SWOT bit, which to me sounds like all the rubbish management meetings I am happy never to have to attend anymore :)

In any case, this is the sort of thing that could be introduced a lot later if there is perceived to be a need for it.  For now, what we need is is some proper stock wikis being done so people can get a feel for how they could work.

I'll have a go at doing Serica this seekend - it is a nicely blank canvas :)   I intend to ignore large chuncks of the current straightjacket format... I think this is highly discouraging to newbies who may feel they couldn't start a wiki because they have no idea what to put in half the boxes.

Any other volunteers? I don't see why doing one of these should be any more work than a company write up on TMF. You don't have to get it right first time as you can add later and so can others.

db

| Link | Share
MrT 6th Jun '09 176 of 266
1

In reply to doverbeach (post #175)

Sounds good. I have already started on Aminex, although I am sure the likes of DearLeader could vastly improve this as I don't know the business that well. I also added a bit on Salamander  & Soco some time back. I will keep going on these three companies but contributions & corrections from others very welcome. Cheers, Mr T

http://www.stockopedia.com/wiki/view/AEX

http://www.stockopedia.com/wiki/view/SIA

http://www.stockopedia.com/wiki/view/SMDR

| Link | Share
Murakami 6th Jun '09 177 of 266

In reply to doverbeach (post #175)

Hi, we take your point about the Wiki format potentially putting off newcomers. Our intention was to avoid the Wikis just becoming a dumping ground for unstructured comments about companies or, even worse, unrelated spam and we thought that it would be quite nice if all the Stock Wikis were in a broadly similar format to aid comparability,  hence this suggested format, but it sounds like it's a bit much at this stage and is having a chilling effect on contributions which we obviously don't want. Another concern was to prevent a new user unaware  of site etiquette coming on and messing up the whole article. One option to address this would be to just open up the article structure to "oldtimers" on the site (i.e. Top Contributors which we might define as either users that have posted or edited OVERALL, say, 25 times (for now - this limit would increase over time), or we could even make stock-specific so that someone has to have posted or edited on a specific stock,say, 5 or 10 times, before they get access to that article's structure). However, as they say, that's a "quality problem" which frankly we don't have right now since the Wikis are very quiet, so, in the interests of getting things going, we will open the article structure now to all users and keep an eye on how it goes. We have the history so we can revert changes, if unconstructive. If it starts getting messy/problematic, then we can reimpose some limitations on who gets to edit what. Sound ok?

I think it would be nice to develop a kind of template structure so we can all collectively brainstorm on what the "ideal" Wiki article might look like (sector differences notwithstanding) so perhaps we can set up a "sandbox" for this in due course or just pick a stock to use as an ongoing experiment.

We also plan to offer the ability for users to create new Wikis for new topics on which we haven't already "initiated coverage" but that's a bit more complicated as we need to improve the database design to handle this properly - that work is going on in the background so we'll keep you posted.

Cheers, M

| Link | Share
doverbeach 6th Jun '09 178 of 266
1

In reply to Murakami (post #177)

Sound ok?

sounds perfect

I think it would be nice to develop a kind of template structure so we can all collectively brainstorm on what the "ideal" Wiki article might look like (sector differences notwithstanding)

mmm I suspect sector differences are too important for that.  But lets see what the first few dozen look like and then review.   I can't see this as a priority for you at the moment.

db

 

| Link | Share
Murakami 6th Jun '09 179 of 266
1

Ok, the article structure should now be open. If you click "Edit" next to a section, it will just open that section but if you click the "Edit" tab at the top of the article (next to "History"), then it will open the whole article with all of the sections. Please use this carefully/sparingly but you can delete a section if needed, or add a new one by copying/pasting an old section header and changing the text. Any user-specific problems, please email, otherwise let us know of any additional feedback on how to improve the Wikis via this thread or the red button.

Happy wiki-ing! :-)

Cheers,

M.

| Link | Share
Murakami 6th Jun '09 180 of 266
1

Re: wikis, one other thing - we set up some time back a couple of examples of how we'd hope to see the Wikis working eventually, assuming sufficient interest and critical mass of contributions...

Clearly, it's all up for discussion and may evolve into something different, but that's what we originally had in mind. Thoughts welcome...

| Link | Share
nigelpm 6th Jun '09 181 of 266
2

interest and critical mass of contributions...

 

Very impressive indeed.

 

However, I'd say why re-invent the wheel when it might be preferable to just use Wikipedia - and link to it from here :

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WS_Atkins

| Link | Share
doverbeach 6th Jun '09 182 of 266
1

In reply to Murakami (post #180)

Lovely articles. However they don't look to me like the sort of thing that enthusiastic stock followers are going to knock up in an evening.  If your budget extends to paying employing someone to write these for you, I am sure it will be much appreciated :)

db

| Link | Share
Murakami 6th Jun '09 183 of 266
1

In reply to doverbeach (post #182)

Hi, agreed 100% that it would take a single user MONTHS to write a meaningful number of articles like this and keeping them updated would be a real task but, if a site had 1000 or 10,000 or 50,000 motivated users, each doing a bit at a time in the areas they know best and are interested by, well, who knows what could emerge. That's the beauty of a Wiki! We can dream, at least. :-)

Anyway, just to reassure, my post wasn't meant to be somehow prescriptive - feel free to disregard the examples entirely as everyone will and should use the wikis in the way they see fit, naturally. They were put together more as a thought experiment about what a stock wiki COULD look like one day with sufficient scale and critical mass. There's at least one site in the US that is beginning to do something like this and the results are quite impressive.

In reply to nigelpm (post #181)

Wikipedia's great for many topics but, IMO, it's actually pretty limited when it comes to investment/company/finance related information, particularly for the UK. The Atkins article you cited lacks, for example, much on the competitive position of the business, its recent financial performance or relevant valuation parameters. We think there's a place alongside it for a user-generated investment encyclopedia for the UK but maybe we are delusional...  Comments welcome!

| Link | Share
promethean 6th Jun '09 184 of 266
2

As an example of a successful Investment focused wiki site across the pond look at http://www.wikinvest.com

| Link | Share
nigelpm 7th Jun '09 185 of 266
4

In reply to Murakami (post #183)

The Atkins article you cited lacks, for example, much on the competitive position of the business, its recent financial performance or relevant valuation parameters. We think there's a place alongside it for a user-generated investment encyclopedia for the UK but maybe we are delusional...  Comments welcome!


In which case I'd suggest making the changes to the wikipedia article - that way everyone in the world can colaborate on the article to and lead from your excellent example - I don't like having lots of different sites to go to for info - one thing I love about wikipedia - but you are right it is lacking in certain areas and company article are definitely one.

There's no point IMHO in repeating information - it's probably more useful to concentrate on forum stuff as that's where this site has a clear edge over others.

 

| Link | Share
nigelpm 9th Jun '09 186 of 266
11

Another suggestion - brought about by Isaac moderating ee on the Soco AGM board ! - disrputive posters should have their right to moderate removed for a period of time - even if they start a thread?

| Link | Share

What's your view on this thread? to Comment Now

 
 
You are feeling neutral

Use the £ sign in front of a ticker to turn £VOD into Vodafone PLC

You can track all @StockoChat comments via Twitter



Stock Picking Tutorial Centre


Related Content
Stockopedia Coverage
Stockopedia Coverage
Feature Requests 24th Jun '09

Site Usability Discussion and Feedback
Site Usability Discussion and Feedback
Site Orientation 24th Jun '10

Forums
Forums
Feature Requests 29th Jan '10

Other
Other
Feature Requests 16th Mar '10

Site Announcements
Site Announcements
Site Orientation 12th Jun '09


Stock Picking Simplified

Stockopedia takes your stock picking to the next level with cutting edge Stock Reports & Screening tools.


Get started
or Take a Tour to find out more.