As of this morning I am getting tons of emails from previous forum responses to my posts, which is awesome.
I have never seen a forum post response emailed to me.
Is this a new feature or was there a glitch preventing their deliveries?
Either way, I love the notifications. I hope they continue.
I get the same thing but also a huge amount of emails saying my posts are hidden because it’s flagged by a member? But when I go to the forum are all the posts there?
I got responses from May, 2022. Am I a beta tester ? 
Anyway, this is good feature but please allow us to enable it, allow to select daily/weekly digest.
FYI. No point in debugging this. We’re in the process of replacing the current forums software (which is no longer being developed by the community) to a more modern solution (Discourse.org ) with many more features: tagging, likes, notifications, chat, summarize, badges, plugins, etc.
Looking forward to the update Marco, sounds interesting (and modern ;-)).
P123,
How do members get something label as SPAM? I would like to get something labeled as SPAM.
Miro (Parker) who is (or was) a member who also runs a large group of professional funds. In 2014 he made a feature request for the information ratio and made some comments about how he used it.
Marc Gerstein, at the time thought that the information ratio metric might not be a bad thing to have as a metric and wanted to make it a feature: a mistake I believe. Others on staff at P123 correctly pointed out how useless that was as a metric and how it could easily be calculated using downloads into an Excel spreadsheet anyway.
Thankfully, Marc left before this could be adopted as a feature.
It was an unnecessary debate about something we do not need at P123. We have more important things to focus on at P123. I would like to request that Miro (Parker’s) posts regarding the information ratio be marked as SPAM and be hidden.
For sure any debate about the information ratio as a feature was settled a long time ago–the request was made in 2014–and discussion of it was pointless and a waste of time now. The threads about this are cluttering up the forum (whatever your personal views of he information ratio are). Please mark any request for the information ratio as SPAM and hide them.
It should have been marked as SPAM at the time. It is really a good thing and represent real progress for P123 that we can mark it as SPAM and remove the debate on this now.
Jim
Discourse has many features including Community Moderation https://www.discourse.org/features
Marco,
Will moderation CONTINUE to include removal of some questions about which data is PIT? BTW, is that properly categorized as SPAM or is that something else that needs to be removed for a different reason?
Just me: I would have provided a direct answer to the question and left up the question (and answer.)
-Jim
Jrinne, SPAM is advertising Viagra. Debating IR is exactly what the forums are for.
New forums will be self regulated… unless it’s egregious.
Marco,
You make my point. I deleted all my emails from P123 about “SPAM” in my posts as completely useless. But I can assure you that I have absolutely never posted anything about that word starting with a V, even here. In fact, I have had exactly zero commercial interest in anything I have ever posted on P123.
I do think deleting questions about what data is PIT (which was done but somewhat difficult to document completely, since it was deleted) crosses some sort of line–however you decide to define things or whatever spin you want to place on this.
But you are aware that this happened I hope? You were part of that decision? It is was a real question with only some comments as to why I thought it was a valid question.
Left in the forum is a very long, contentious debate about FactSet’s earnings estimates data being PIT (or not) and whether P123 should even care. P123 finally conceded there was an issue and addressed it.
Any other debate about what is PIT is now just being deleted. I get there is are a bunch of people that do not care. Personally, I think some do care and it should not be deleted. Period.
If for no other reason because it smacks of censorship purely to protect P123. Or having the purpose of avoiding having to address any feature requests that could make things more PIT.
This topic is very important to us. I do not recall the specific instance you seem to recall. A focused discussion re. PIT will never be deleted. What I do recall is some long threads that got out of hand and the only way with existing software was to delete the entire thing. Perhaps there were embedded discussion about PIT.
Long threads become useless over time but to a few. Akin to Godwin’s Law : As an online discussion grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a comparison to Nazis or Adolf Hitler approaches 1
The new forum software will hopefully alleviate the problem of long threads since sub-threads can be started that are off topic.
Marco,
Out of control not just because of the members, IMHO. And P123 did finally admit that there was a problem and address it.
But I will try to show you the thread where one single post by me was deleted and not too surprisingly, Yuval had the final word about whether there was a PIT problem (or not).
Take this seriously or not but I think you already are shooting yourself in the foot with the forum (especially the feature requests) and the idea that just deleting people’s feature request–including Miro’s (Parker’s) about the informant ratio–could be taken seriously is a real problem.
Greater censorship would forever make me wonder about the quality of P123 data (not just the PIT issue that was already deleted).
I think this is a problem. Perhaps you do not.
Jim
Not sure which side you are taking anymore. This is a fine line. Might as well be called censorship because the end effect of something flagged SPAM is that it will not be seen by 99% of the people.
I don’t know if the self regulating SPAM feature of Discourse will be what we want. If it’s not we will disable it.
We have wide open discussion here. We do not delete posts except in exceptional circumstances.
It may not have been your intent but I respectfully disagree that this is the present situation.
BTW, again, my posts being called SPAM now is somehow done by members as stated in my email? Again where does this member do that? Sorry about the confusion in how I had to make that point. But I think members cannot do that now. It is pure P123 if I am not mistaken. Some of it not entirely appropriate, IMHO. I have given you an example: address it or not.
I do not much care about some deletions. But feature requests should not be deleted or any questions about the data.
Feature requests are often about a problem: real or perceived and some suggestion as to how the problem might be mitigated to some extent.
Hello everyone,
As Marco stated earlier we are in the middle of migrating our forums to a more up to date platform and we are actively working on importing all the existing forum posts into it. While doing it we have mistakenly sent email notifications about SPAM or deleted posts, please disregard them, we are not deleting posts nor marking them as SPAM. We apologize for this and we’ll make sure it doesn’t happen again.
Marco,
Thank you for your response. And thank you for your assurance that P123 will not be censoring posts going forward and that you were not aware of any censorship in the past. I believe that.
I have no interest in pursuing this any further and I trust your assurance.
I would like to document that I was not making things up, however. And be done with this after that if you wish. Also I do not completely exclude the possibility that there was some sort of technical glitch occurred somewhere (like the email glitch I suppose) causing a deletion of my post.
Understand from my point of view that I only posted this when P123 emailed me to say they were hiding some of my posts. Had the emails from P123 been correct that would have been a second time that a deletion had occurred. With the second clearly being purposeful.
But a deletion did happen. In this thread, I took Yuval up on what he said: “But if you find out otherwise…”
After that there was a post (by me) responding with some evidence giving me concern. I do not pretend that my evidence was conclusive. The next morning my post was gone. Not a blank box with my delete or an X (I made no deletions). Just nothing. Notice this comes in the context of multiple statements by P123 about the FactSet data that turned out to be incorrect in hindsight. And perhaps some hesitancy to address this issue.
In my response, I provided evidence for why I was asking the question now about CapitalIQ and why it MIGHT BE a concern. But is was just a question of trying to be sure the FactSet was different that CapitalIQ. Why one needed to be lagged but the other does not. Some assurance that FactSet and CapitalIQ handled the data and time-stamps differently for earnings estimates. I understand that CompuStat is different but that it is also true that there may be difference between CapitalIQ and CompuStat regrading their time-stamp methods. There are actually (at least) 3 sets of data that handle time-stamps differently. Some are PIT and some are not. I just wanted clarification of which are PIT and which are not.
I no longer need an answer to this question about CapitalIq and again I accept that censorship will not happen and deletions will be rare going forward. But there was a deletion (whatever or whoever caused it) and I was not making that up. I was aware of a specific deletion regarding a question about the data–just as I said. As I already said I have no knowledge as to how this deletion occurred.
Thank you very much for your response.
Jim
Its been a month or so since I received a forum email. It sure was nice.
