Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
No. of Recommendations: 1
As we break into the different content types (terms, books, people, companies,) feel free to suggest different additions or subtractions to the standard article template. Clearly a company and an investing term are very different things.

Better than suggesting is just doing something new and posting about it here to see what the group thinks.

I'll start:
What all do you think is important on a company page?
what they do?
their history?
related articles?
BOD / officers?
most recent articles?

The one I've started working on is:

I would love to hear everyone's thoughts (or see your improvements!) on this and any other "standard format" we have.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'll add to the list an important issue for company pages: Disclosures.

There's really 2 issues:
With the authors being semi-anonymous (you can look it up, but it's not readily apparent), I'm not sure how to handle author disclosures about if they own a company's stock or not. Being relatively fact (vs opinion) driven, maybe it doesn't matter. Then again, I'm a Dr. not a lawyer, so maybe it does.

For The Motley Fool we should disclose if a company is a newsletter pick (I would think, someone should talk to the legal department). But that leads to an updating issue when picks come in and out of newsletter favor -- especially since the disclosures will likely be 30 days later if the Fool doesn't own it.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
For books, I think there should be a "Related Books" section in addition to "Related Terms". I haven't given much thought to companies yet.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I spoke with the Legal Department, and they feel we should do a couple of things.

First, the disclaimer language on the site will include a line to the effect of "contributors to the Flossary may or may not have positions in companies discussed in the Flossary." That should take care of the need for contributors to disclose things.

Second, we should try to keep analysis out of the Flossary, and focus on facts. This may be a given, but I think it is important to mention.

Finally, they say we should not disclose newsletter picks in the Flossary for several reasons. It would make the newsletter picks too readily available for non-premium customers, and we couldn't guarantee that it was up to date, so the disclosure would be partial at best.

Fool on,
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Thanks for checking, Chris!
Print the post Back To Top