No. of Recommendations: 7
Yes, make the change
No, keep them as they are

Click here to see results so far.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I feel like I've fallen through some kind of tear in the fabric of space time:^)

A poll was taken on this very subject in March.

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=12182250

Sometime prior to that thread the idea was proposed and discussed.

There wasn't much interest back then to change the names. Its only two hours since the most recent poll and the results are currently the opposite.

best,
mrb
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=12182250

There wasn't much interest back then to change the names.

___________

Actually, it's not accurate to say there wasn't much interest. 54% favored keeping the current names; 46% favored changing them.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Another reason that the March 11 vote (http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=12182250) shouldn't be taken to have settled the issue is that it wasn't a genuine poll. Whether inadvertently or by design, the question was put in a strongly biased way that both disclosed the poster's own view and solicited agreement with it.

The opening phrase, "With all respect to Stu3q (post#6172)," tips us off that Stu3q doesn't know what he's talking about. And to discourage us from looking up Stu3q's argument for ourselves before voting, there is no hyperlink and an incorrect post # is given. Finally, the careless and hurried way the poll alternatives are stated and typed (e.g., "Yes,MI-Advanced &MI-Begineer") subtly insinuates that the proposed change itself is a half-baked, ill-considered proposal (a "risky scheme"?).

I don't want to single out cklan for crticism on this point. Many of the so-called polls on this board are likewise not genuine attempts to find out what people really think, but rather a way of stating more or less obviously the poster's own view and inviting everybody else to agree with it. There's not necessarily anything wrong with that, but we shouldn't take the resulting numbers very seriously as measures of opinion. If you can tell from the poll question what the pollster thinks, it's not a real poll.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Another reason that the March 11 vote shouldn't be taken to have settled the issue

The July 14, 1999 Poll preceeded the introduction of message board based polls, so you must read through the thread to see the results. But it seems like a legitimate poll to me. It wasn't biased by suggestions of the "proper" decision. It was preceeded by extensive threads that discussed the issues. The old points are being made all over again, but I haven't seen any new ideas brought to the discussion since that time. The only difference I can detect is that the anticipated drawbacks of this choice are being realized, while the anticipated drawbacks of other choices are being ignored. In the absence of new information, I will be supportive of the status quo. Emotional flip-flopping isn't something I condone.

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=11048409
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 29
I support the idea (of whom, I forget in all the bandwidth -- TMFSynch?) that the board names should reflect topics, rather than beginner/advanced.

How about:

Mechanical Investing - Q&A

and

Mechanical Investing - R&D
or
Mechanical Investing - Numbercrunching
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
A new registrant though a longtime companion, I can't imagine how they got the names they currently have. Both focus on MI, yet one does not even contain the name MI! This seems truly foolish (lc).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
How about Mechanical Investing for the newbie board and MI Statistics for the advanced board?
NO ONE goes to stat boards unless they're very brave <g>

-V.

Print the post Back To Top