Hi all,I have not been active on the wiki in some time, so I looked back through the posts here to see if anything was mentioned about the name, and I couldn't find anything (cursory look).I assume a problem turned up with Touchstone? (I really liked that one!) Or was it decided it just wasn't the right name?I'm okay with that... but "TMF Investing Wiki"?????Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's... um... boring.Can I cling to the hope that this is a transitional name of some kind?My fear is that it is "out there" and active on the web now, and therefore set in stone (although not Touchstone, unfortunately).Please, please, please, pretty please... can we come up with something better than the equivalent of the generic "C" Street in a town? We're all about fun... amusement... education... how is that evidenced by the current moniker? Aside from that, it doesn't roll off the tongue. It's certainly no Google, Yahoo, or Wikipedia.Even worse, when I google "investing wiki," the first link is for "Wikinvest," and I quote, "Aug 12, 2009 ... The largest investing wiki with research on hundreds of companies, investment concepts, and more."Not good. The first reference to our wiki is three links down from the first one, and I suspect it's not very inspirational to non-Fools: "Help: Investing Wiki Quick Start - Wiki" ..."The Motley Fool Investing Wiki will be edited and maintained only by some of the world's best investors, who also happen to be complete Fools. ..."We've simply got to have some kind of fab differentiator to our name if we're going to be serious contenders, IMHO.Of course, we've also got to have seriously more content (my bad for not contributing more -- so I'm certainly not throwing stones, here). But I know that will come with time.OR... and this just occurred to me as I was typing... are we flying under the radar on purpose right now, simply because our wiki isn't quite ready-for-prime-time?Oh! Brilliant! We'll make it better, bigger, and then, when it's ready for a real red-carpet debut, we'll change the name to something snazzy that will take the world by storm.I get it! I love it!(Please tell me that's the real skinny.)Okay, I decided to look through each and every post since last November, looking for some hint about the name, and I found this recent one by David (which short thread I had originally passed by, since I already knew that the wiki was available): The wiki will really accelerate in its progress when we release our improved Search capabilities in the early fall -- then people will discover the Wiki when they're typing in terms. For now, it's still a bit buried, but very much open for business.Soooooooooo... it would appear that perhaps my intuition about flying under the radar might be correct??? Or, conversely, it's simply buried because Search isn't throwing it out there as readily?I still didn't find anything about a name change, though. :(Best regards,Kathie
Hi Kathie -- Thanks for the excellent post! Prepare to have your question over-answered. ;) Regarding the next steps on the wiki, you are right that we have been a bit under the radar, or more precisely flying in a holding pattern for the last few months. Two things have been holding us up: 1) search and 2) other projects on Fool.comAs for search, I'm happy to say that we're currently testing the new search solution in live environments. It's been a long time coming! I expect us to close the chapter on our infamously lame search very soon. You may be in the test group randomly but if you're not, shoot me an email and I'll put you into it: email@example.com. The other hold-up on the wiki is that, well, it's siloed off from the rest of Fool.com which limits its reach greatly to new readers and editors. The team who developed the wiki is also the one works on most of the improvements to www.fool.com, and they've largely been allocated to making improvements to the homepage, article page, and site navigation elements.That said, we currently have some heavy integration projects in the design process, and hope to move them into development soon. Those include "related terms" links from each article to the relevant terms in the wiki, a "term of the hour" box for the home page, and some other placements that will appear near community interaction areas on the site. Once we can execute some or all of those, the spice will begin to flow once again on the wiki.Now on to the name, which was the main point of your post (told you'd I'd over-answer,) our legal Fools told us Touchstone could not be used. :( So we're once again without a name.There are four options as I see it:1) We put our heads together and come up with a new name 2) Go back to the joke name Anand (TMFBomb) and I came up with during a Happy Hour - Flossary 3) Be boring and call it "Motley Fool Investing Wiki"4) Give it no name. Integrate it so that it's part of the Fool.com site. To readers it'd be like an article, but with many authors instead of one.Which option do you Fools think we should go with? Or is there something we're not considering?Jeremy
Jeremey, I said back when y'all first launched this question that Touchstone would be an infringement. My suggestion, which gained no traction, was simply Foolosary.FuskieWho wisely withheld the suggestion of Foolicki...
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.
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 definitionsThat's something we're thinking about. Sort of how we have tickers linked in articles, we'd have certain terms linked. The balance of course is annoying people who don't need or want "free cash flow" defined for the 1000th time and breaking up their reading with at best another link and at worst a flashy icon designating a wiki link. 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.What we don't want is for the wiki to be separate from the Fool entirely. CAPS, boards, wiki readers/editors, and article commenters are all a part of the same community, even though members on each choose to interact with the community in different ways. We can and will do a lot better with mingling the communities where appropriate. What do you think are the downsides of wholesale integration? Thanks for your thoughtful replies. Fool on!Jeremy
Np happy to help, wish I could do more more often. But I just launched my new business this summer, so I'm a little pressed for time. :)"The balance of course is annoying people who don't need or want "free cash flow" defined for the 1000th time and breaking up their reading with at best another link and at worst a flashy icon designating a wiki link."No doubt, you could link virtually every other word if you really wanted too. I'd probably only link basic terms and companies if it were me. Still a huge job and major balancing act no mater how you slice it."What do you think are the downsides of wholesale integration? "Well the primary downside to integration would be visibility, there's a good chance it will take a tremendous amount of time to build up pageviews and edits since unlike investopedia and wikipedia I would wager 90% of fool.com's visitors are here for something other than financial term database. It doesn't mean they shouldn't be coming to Fool for that (I actually think they should come to the Fool first since the Fool is very new investor friendly) it just is going to take serious effort to let them know that A) they can now and B) that it's still here when they undoubtedly forget.The Fool.com is almost too big and too comprehensive, even I being probbaly a power user rarely use all the tabs. I love having the choice to do so but it douses mean there are areas of the Fool I rarely ever encounter. Considering how large the site is, it's going to be hard for users to find to discover the wiki and I don't know how much valuable front page the fool is willing or even should surrender to it.So the specialist sites like investopedia.com have an advantage there. Their 'pedia hits you right in the face when you go to their site's homepage. definition search is probably a high % of their user's intentThe other drawback I could think of right now is it sounds like a lot more work for you guys. :)
yeah so on one hand increased visibility over time but on the other probbaly much slower ramp up to critical mass (w/a lot of legwork along the way)to condense what I'm trying to say
Prepare to have your question over-answered. ;) - JeremyOver-answered??? I loved it!!!Thanks for letting us in on the behind-the-scenes stuff. As for the options, I'm with Tastylunch. I like how he thinks. :o)Please, I'm begging you... do not go with Door #3. Boring doesn't begin to describe that option. Since when is The Motley Fool about boring??????? Seriously. I can live with Option #2 (gag me with a spoon), but I don't want to. No offense intended. And since you came up with it at Happy Hour, and alcohol must have been involved, I'm assuming none will be taken. It took my dentist years to get me to floss regularly. I'm willing to associate that with tooth hygiene, but investing knowledge? Please. I know, I know. We've been there, discussed that, bought the postcard. Nuff said. :o)I'm unsure about Option #4. On the one hand, if it is integrated, it brings googlers to the site who might otherwise not have come. (Good) OTOH, it muddies the waters to completely integrate it so that it is all but invisible (which is how I am interpreting your description). (Bad)Unlike Tastylunch, I like the idea of yet another tab for the wiki. Integration without subsumation. Conversely, is it possible to put it on a tab within Fool, and at the same time have it be a stand-alone site? Sort of? With reverse links back to TMF for cross-pollination of new readers? Note that I know less than zero about website creation, so I don't know if what I am asking for is even do-able.Which leads us back to Door #1... OR... some yet-to-blossom intriguing idea from outside the box. I'm not very good at outside-the-box thinking, so that one will have to come from someone else.I still like Touchstone. Can't we just fire the "legal Fools"? (She said oh-so-sweetly.)Assuming that doesn't fly (and I might note that some of my best friends are lawyers -- well... not really, but I know someone who knows someone), I'll start thinking about possible names again.Best regards,Kathie
How about call it the Foolipedia AND integrate it into the site so that whenever you post an article it is automatically scanned for words in the wiki and links are made into the Foolipedia. You are already providing links for company tickers, so this should not be too much of a stretch.FuskieWho would suggest doing it for user posts as well but thinks it might make them more difficult to read...
Kathie,I think the wiki as another tab idea is actually a very good idea.It would probably let the wiki be far more successful than say if it were submenu Under the "investing" or "home" tab (which was more where I thought it was getting placed). I don't know if the Fool is willing to devote such valuable real estate to the wiki, but if the Fool is going to make the effort to have a comprehensive wiki it's probably worthwhile.But having the wiki as tab does play into the naming issue since if it is Fool subdomain like that it might pay to have a readily universally interpretable name instead of more whimsical name like CAPS. Otherwise the the new user may not think/know to click on it. So maybe a straightforward name might actually be what's best. When I think of the typical potential wiki user I tend to think of the very experienced minority (contributors) and the very inexperienced (readers). Those two groups would be the bulk of your users would be my guess. The contributors would probbaly find the wiki no matter what you called it where you placed it, but the reader might need more direction.If the wiki really takes off I could see it becoming what I'd call the "4th community" at the Fool (the first three being Newsletter subscribers, the free msg boards and CAPS). There does seem to be different groups in each place with minor overlap and I'd think you'd find the same would become true for the wiki.I really think before we try to name this we need to know where it's intended to be placed in the Fool.com hierarchy, because that could change the potential branding opportunities a lot.At least it would change how I would think about it.
The view we've been approaching it with is that integration rather that making it its own thing is the way to give it the prominent presence it deserves.The reasoning behind this is that no-one knows they need an "investing wiki" or a "CAPS" but they know they need the definition to margin call because they're reading an article about it right now. If we as wiki editors can answer that question for other members, then something like 1 out of 200 will decide to either add to that definition or find another place in the wiki where they can help out.To your point of prominence, something we're considering right now is a reorganization of the top tabs on the site. One of these new tabs would be "How to Invest" which would largely consist of two things: 1) The new 13 Steps to Investing Foolishly, which will walk you through picking a broker, valuing stocks, etc.2) The wiki - which will define every major investing termWe think this tab will give Fools the guidelines (13 steps) and tools (wiki) to become superior investors. So yes the wiki is a core part of our strategy, and will fulfill on the "educate" portion of our mission. Does that help advance your thinking combined with some of the other integration steps I mentioned above? Thanks for the feedback. Please keep it coming! -- Jeremy
Yes it doesSo this will be part of the new "Fool School" basically?It sounds like the Wiki would be a submenu on this new tab, basically the same spot in the current architecture as it is now on the Home tab. basically being more of a tool than a community. That's perfectly fine imho there are multiple ways you can achieve what you want. .The only real downside on where it would be placed is that I would think it's growth would be considerably slower (contributors might have to be continually recruited etc), but that means it would also be much easier to manage/monitor so that may not be entirely a negative (certainly entry vandalism/inaccuracies is an ever present threat to wikis). There are pluses and minuses either way.In that case I think a distinctive name is far less important than a readily understandable name. Something along the lines Fuskie's "Foolopedia" suggestion.if it had been it's own tab or own site then I think a more distinctive name might be more appropriate akin to CAPS (cuz you might need [and benefit from] the branding punch to attract eyeballs and the potential community would be larger). Since it's a submenu the communicability of the name I think should take precedence since it will be treated/viewed as a utility by the Fool.com visitor." The reasoning behind this is that no-one knows they need an 'investing wiki'... "I strongly disagree with this reasoning Jeremy, sites like investopedia and wikipedia would not exist (and be so popular) if people did not view the internet as a source of information.What may be true is that current users and potential of Fool.com may not think to look for one at the Fool.com When I first started perusing the Fool.com in 2007 I was actually very surprised the Fool did not have a dictionary/wiki/encyclopedia since the site is so new investor friendly. I think once people know that it can be found here you could potentially a very enthusiastic response assuming it's good quality and reasonably complete (which I believe it will be). I do think the wiki once mature will prove to be a very valuable asset to Fool.com and to the Fool itself. It's nature certainly fits with positive public perception of the Fool (small investor friendly, educational, community driven, honest etc). If Nothing else it strongly enhances the unique "one stop shop" aspect of the site (this being the biggest content hole I can see in the site currently) and could keep Fools from wandering off if you know what I mean.
my apologies Fuskie I misspelled your suggestion I believe you said "Foolipedia" not "Foolopedia".
"no-one knows they need an "investing wiki" or a "CAPS" but they know they need the definition to margin call because they're reading an article about it right now."Jeremy, I think the power of the Wiki is its instant availability.Almost anything you can name is in Fooldom's massive files somewhere. The FAQs. The excellent articles. But you can spend much time looking for what you need when you want it. And sadly, many users don't bother to look. They just post a question--if they dare.But Wiki gives you instant answers for what does that mean. Tell me more. The links to referenced articles, links to related terms, and category entries give access to as much detail as the reader needs and if appropriate can take you all the way to the beginners level. Or it can take you to the expert level and the most esoteric aspects of the subject.It's all extremely available, convenient, fast and efficient. A very powerful tool.
I completely agree with you Paul, well said.
I strongly disagree with this reasoning Jeremy, sites like investopedia and wikipedia would not exist (and be so popular) if people did not view the internet as a source of information.I think you're absolutely correct for repeat users. I am thinking upstream for the first-time user, where they just want a term defined quickly and accurately. Or as David G puts it more broadly: what job are you trying to help me get done? In this case we're telling you what an investing term is and how you can use it.I think once you help a new member get that job done by explaining their term of interest, then comes the branding side of bringing them back to help them get subsequent jobs done. That's where wikipedia and sites like it got its popularity.Let me explain a little further and then I'd love to know if you agree with the reasoning or if I'm still off the mark.basically being more of a tool than a communityOne thing I'd like is greater inter-mingling and aggregation of communities within the Fool. I would love a scenario where there wasn't a boards community, a CAPS community, and a article comment community, but just one motley community with different tools (CAPS, boards, articles, wiki) to help people get their job done. For example, on our site we have 3+ communities that all do things with the concept "Netflix" (disc: long NFLX) but there is very little overlap. If they were all tied together as one "world's greatest investing community" then our collective knowledge about Netflix would be much greater.Being the guy who's responsible for it, I can say that to date we have done a very poor job of threading CAPS and the boards throughout our articles and homepage. With the tab reorganization I hope we can change that, so more Fools can benefit from the valuable knowledge created every day on the boards and on CAPS. And we will not repeat that mistake when we integrate the wiki.So I don't view the fact that the wiki won't have a tab as a relegation. I view it as embracing the fact that our site and community are about two things: investing and community, and every page on our site should reflect that.Jeremy
Sorry -- missed this one:So this will be part of the new "Fool School" basically?Yes, very much so. We want people to invest Foolishly, and think this is an integral part of that mission. FWIW, the throwback names Fool School and FoolU were both discussed early on as names for the wiki. What do you Fools think about those?Jeremy
Jeremy, I would like to see Fool School resurrected as the whole educational section as opposed to just the Foolipedia. I think that somewhere along the way of the roll out of new services and web design improvements, the content of Fool School got pushed to the back burner. I think it was an opportunity missed over the last year as people were forced to take a hard look at their money that TMF did not have a central and prominent public education section.FuskieWho acknowledges that a lot of Fools wanted to know in what to invest but just as many were looking for basic survival information and not sure where to go...
Fuskie -- Is this the page you're talking about: http://www.fool.com/school.htmIf we update the content, design, and navigation of this page, does it get after your very valid point?Jeremy
Yes, Jeremy. I would love to see that page more prominent in the public section and fleshed out a bit more into a newbie destination. And not just one intended to push people into the premium services but one with a primary focus of education. You can draw content from Greenlight which I thought had the right idea even if the execution faltered.FuskieWho thinks getting a handle on your personal finances is a key starting point before one can begin to invest for their retirement or for fun...
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |