Morningstar.com

Re: M* Darrin - Please Stop This

meyerr — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:33:26 GMT

Darrin,

I don't mind that you edited my post for formatting. Those dratted things that come along with the ratings boxes have messed up a few threads. But, I deliberately did not use a link to the post b/c by the time other people get to the post the rating has changed or been "fixed".

Roberta

Re: M* Darrin - Please IGNORE This

LynnC — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 22:00:18 GMT

pjstack:
M* Darrin said that they were going to "modify" the ratings system!
Good grief!!
Don't you get it?
ELIMINATE the ratings boxes entirely! Why do you persist? What possible benefit has M* garnered from the system at all? Name ONE positive thing M* has received from this goofy system.
pjstack

Hi Paul,

I totally agree with you and the others. It is a negative system designed to be negative to others. We have beaten this horse to death and I honestly think that M* Darren's hands are tied. I would like M* Joe to make a reply. If Jack can reply to us here then maybe M* Joe will too. M* Joe, what say you???????????

Will you be in San Diego?

LynnC

Re: M* Darrin - Please IGNORE This

pjstack — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:02:29 GMT

M* Darrin said that they were going to "modify" the ratings system!

Good grief!!

Don't you get it?

ELIMINATE the ratings boxes entirely! Why do you persist? What possible benefit has M* garnered from the system at all? Name ONE positive thing M* has received from this goofy system.

pjstack

Re: M* Darrin - Please IGNORE This

etfhound — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 18:14:11 GMT

pining4Lenore:

Negative ratings don't bother me in the least.   Sometimes posts ARE stupid, poorly thought out, and a waste of readers' time (OK, MORE of a waste of time than other psots :)
I never saw the particular thread, before the complaint was lodged, so have no particular axe to grind.    But it seems to me, the complaint is like a little 6-y/o on a schoolyard complaining that his classmates called him some names.
Negative feedback does NOT always occur for a good reason; but often IT DOES occur for a good reason.     Examples: a)Questions which should be directed to one's broker/fund company. b) Threads posted on duplicate forums (wastes time). c)"Stupid" viewpoints - which I define broadly as viewpoints which the poster seems to have been "brainwashed" with from other sources, and then simply regurgitates them without thinking. Not using your bean is, well, stupid. Stupidity merits a "de-merit", IMO.   I don't think the original thread meets any of these criteria.   But frankly, why would you care about a negative rank?
If you have negative feedback from anonymous posters whom you have never met, will never meet, and who do not know you from Adam, and that bothers you, perhaps get a thicker skin?
I will issue myself a "negative" mark for this very post. In sympathy. I'm an adult (sort of) so I can take it.

That is not the problem. In other discussion boards, the ratings were a way of the strongest group, the most numbers, controlling the smaller groups. In some cases, some funds had their employees rating down competition. It just totally destroyed the info that we were getting.

Re: M* Darrin - Please Stop This

showme319 — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:39:03 GMT

I am not trying to be negative, but in this market it is hard to find the positives. I joined because I am not an expert and I needed to find a few positives in this market. My point is that the ratings have not led me to any of those positives.

Showme

Re: M* Darrin - Please IGNORE This

pining4Lenore — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:36:04 GMT

Negative ratings don't bother me in the least. Sometimes posts ARE stupid, poorly thought out, and a waste of readers' time (OK, MORE of a waste of time than other psots :)

I never saw the particular thread, before the complaint was lodged, so have no particular axe to grind. But it seems to me, the complaint is like a little 6-y/o on a schoolyard complaining that his classmates called him some names.

Negative feedback does NOT always occur for a good reason; but often IT DOES occur for a good reason. Examples: a)Questions which should be directed to one's broker/fund company. b) Threads posted on duplicate forums (wastes time). c)"Stupid" viewpoints - which I define broadly as viewpoints which the poster seems to have been "brainwashed" with from other sources, and then simply regurgitates them without thinking. Not using your bean is, well, stupid. Stupidity merits a "de-merit", IMO. I don't think the original thread meets any of these criteria. But frankly, why would you care about a negative rank?

If you have negative feedback from anonymous posters whom you have never met, will never meet, and who do not know you from Adam, and that bothers you, perhaps get a thicker skin?

I will issue myself a "negative" mark for this very post. In sympathy. I'm an adult (sort of) so I can take it.

Re: M* Darrin - Please Stop This

showme319 — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:19:44 GMT

I am not sure, but I think Jerry is referring to the M* ratings for stocks. I know it is a bear market, but the ratings have not led me to any pick any winners yet.

Showme

Re: M* Darrin - Please Stop This

M*_Darrin — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:05:12 GMT

Modifying the ratings is on our short-list of things to do. Issues with drive-by negative ratings and lack of clarify in the ratings are apparent and will be resolved.

Regarding the original question, retired-in-nj answers why he voted the thread down in a reply seen here.

Thanks,

M*_Darrin

Re: M* Darrin - Please Stop This

meyerr — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:51:33 GMT

Here's another one -

http://discuss.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/thread/2543738.aspx

A positive article in Barron's. Nice dividend (5.8%) and modest growth (~8%). Does anyone have any thoughts on this company or the Australian market at large?

Thanks - tony

What in the world about this post deserves a negative rating. This is game playing and a vote against the philosophy of that board.

Stop enabling these jerks.

Roberta

Post edited for formatting by M*_Darrin

Re: M* Darrin - Please Stop This

rpetrocelli — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:08:59 GMT

I agree 100%.

At a minimum, the rating should never go below zero.

Petrocelli

M* Darrin - Please Stop This

cudaman — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:04:25 GMT

For example from my own post:

http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/thread/2543563.aspx

It makes no sense. I ask again, please reconsider as ratings are of no good to any of us.

Jerry