Ah That's too bad. Well that's understandable.Of the four options presented I would "anything but number 3!" :)I agree with Kathie that having a distinctive name/brand will help draw people in so I propose we hold another name brainstorming session thread.If nothing comes up universally agreed upon better than Flossary than you can always go back to that Option 4 is actually kind of appealing in a way. If certain terms in regular fool articles could be linked to the Wiki definitions (and it should probbaly be denoted prominently that they are wiki definitions just so fool legal doesn't get all upset if say some day by accident some entry is horribly wrong). I would think that would draw tremendous amount of people to the wiki then.I really like how interlinked Investopedia's articles with their definitions.So in short I'm saying- first decide if you want the wiki to be named (and separate from the fool itself) then if you do try option 1 and if that fails got to option 2.I can see arguments for and against wholesale integration.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar<