The inverse proportional relationship

[Baa_Baa]

Is it just me, imagining things, or is there an inverse proportional relationship between the vast number of posts on the threads of companies who have the least probability of success versus the few numbers of posts on the threads of the companies who are already achieving sustainable success?

BAA

[blackcap]

Is it just me, imagining things, or is there an inverse proportional relationship between the vast number of posts on the threads of companies who have the least probability of success versus the few numbers of posts on the threads of the companies who are already achieving sustainable success?

BAA

Anecdotally speaking I would agree with you wholeheartedly :):)

[Beagle]

Is it just me, imagining things, or is there an inverse proportional relationship between the vast number of posts on the threads of companies who have the least probability of success versus the few numbers of posts on the threads of the companies who are already achieving sustainable success?

BAA

If you look at the likes of for example NZO and PEB you'll see they attract the most traffic by miles. I think this has a lot to do with people trying to understand companies that have highly questionable strategies and / or dubious management and / or a dubious business plan. Maybe if some company isn't working there some very good reasons why and just leave them well alone...just my 2 cents.
Companies like for instance GMT, AIA or FPH are far easier to understand, hence much lower level's of posts.

[BIRMANBOY]

This is a reflection of the types of posters on this forum...no disrespect intended.. The higher adrenalin, endorphin and blood pressure kicks are more available on threads where there are highs and lows of opinion, results and interpretation and rhetoric. The highs are higher and the lows are lower creating an "exciting" dynamic. Risk/reward junkies". Extremes of opinion always create high interest/multiple posts. Thus the success of talk back radio....(and online share forums.)
Is it just me, imagining things, or is there an inverse proportional relationship between the vast number of posts on the threads of companies who have the least probability of success versus the few numbers of posts on the threads of the companies who are already achieving sustainable success?

BAA

[Schrodinger]

This is a reflection of the types of posters on this forum...no disrespect intended.. The higher adrenalin, endorphin and blood pressure kicks are more available on threads where there are highs and lows of opinion, results and interpretation and rhetoric. The highs are higher and the lows are lower creating an "exciting" dynamic. Risk/reward junkies". Extremes of opinion always create high interest/multiple posts. Thus the success of talk back radio....(and online share forums.)

Nothing like a good talk back radio session. Always have time for the first time callers.

To comment on your observation, the high octane threads attract the attention and inflated expectations. My motivation for posting is to stop the newbies buying something on bad information.

[winner69]

In that picking competition somebody entered Dogs of the NZX which apparently were the 5 worst performers on the NZX50 last year

The picks included XRO, PEB NZO and ATM (band KMD) which are the most posted and read threads on sharetrader

Where is dogs in the competition .....197th ...down 10% ......and if it wasn't llofor CRP and seaweed dogs would be in last place

BaaBaa .....your hypothesis looks like it is right .....on recent performance anyway ...buttery dog has its day

[nzspeak]

"Amazing how little attention this stock gets on these forums" I've often wondered that myself. Perhaps a strategy of only investing in stocks which don't get mentioned a lot in this forum could be the legendary 'holy grail' of investing! Maybe our posts, or lack of them, will feed the quants of the future.

I've said the same thing last year.

[Cricketfan]

I've noticed that too. And I'm a bit worried that HNZ is getting more attention now that I've bought in! FPH is my best holding - it just keeps going up and I hardly see any posts about it.

[Baa_Baa]

I was surprised to see quite how many posts and views some of the threads have racked up, though of course date started makes a difference. See what you make of the top 20:



Share
Replies
Views
Started


NGO
14,924
1,866,545
04-08-2007


PEB
12,868
2,120,350
25-08-2005


PRC
9,311
1,263,163
07-03-2007


XRO
6,040
807,746
11-05-2007


DIL
5,602
817,731
01-11-2007


HNZ
4,534
505,176
01-06-2011


HGD
4,374
510,280
02-04-2004


PLT
4,354
465,314
06-08-2007


SNK
3,857
461,582
08-11-2012


PGW
3,364
437,953
22-10-2005


SUM
3,258
368,267
20-07-2007


GPG
3,106
436,515
26-11-2004


ATM
3,020
400,149
25-05-2005


RYM
2,315
282,579
14-06-2004


AIR
2,275
254,298
19-09-2004


CNU
2,268
333,680
18-01-2012


FTX
2,085
228,962
16-09-2004


PPP
2,067
262,052
10-06-2005


RBD
2,054
205,690
26-01-2006


WHS
1,821
176,085
07-05-2004



7109

[Snow Leopard]

http://assets.amuniversal.com/1cd711b085c90132c101005056a9545d

Best Wishes
Paper Tiger

[BIRMANBOY]

I think NGO should be NZO....however if one takes all of Balances posts out the number probably halves:eek2: Although I"m happy WHS and RBD are at the bottom..must be time to buy some more. Pervasive and perverse inversion is the new strategy.
I was surprised to see quite how many posts and views some of the threads have racked up, though of course date started makes a difference. See what you make of the top 20:



Share

Replies

Views

Started



NGO

14,924

1,866,545

04-08-2007



PEB

12,868

2,120,350

25-08-2005



PRC

9,311

1,263,163

07-03-2007



XRO

6,040

807,746

11-05-2007



DIL

5,602

817,731

01-11-2007



HNZ

4,534

505,176

01-06-2011



HGD

4,374

510,280

02-04-2004



PLT

4,354

465,314

06-08-2007



SNK

3,857

461,582

08-11-2012



PGW

3,364

437,953

22-10-2005



SUM

3,258

368,267

20-07-2007



GPG

3,106

436,515

26-11-2004



ATM

3,020

400,149

25-05-2005



RYM

2,315

282,579

14-06-2004



AIR

2,275

254,298

19-09-2004



CNU

2,268

333,680

18-01-2012



FTX

2,085

228,962

16-09-2004



PPP

2,067

262,052

10-06-2005



RBD

2,054

205,690

26-01-2006



WHS

1,821

176,085

07-05-2004




7109

[Baa_Baa]

Another perspective which might inform is aligning members post-counts against the threads with the most, or least activity. This doesn't do exactly that http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/memberlist.php?s=&securitytoken=1424573081-5108cad874aaedcc80f56ca2d5c6b3c9a392783f&do=getall&ausername=&homepage=&field1=&field2=&field3=&field4=&icq=&aim=&msn=&yahoo=&skype=&postslower=1&postsupper=&joindateafter=&joindatebefore=&lastpostafter=&lastpostbefore=&sort=posts&order=DESC, but it is enlightening to see who has the most to say, how long they been saying it, and whether they have 'reputation' as a result.

[winner69]

Baabaa the counters are pretty unreliable

[BIRMANBOY]

Working on the new improved inversion system...W69 as the most prolific is therefore the least likely to add value to the forum:scared: However the moderator could probably rewind your clock for a small "administration fee". Moosie probably outnumbers you however when you add up all his re-incarnations. Maybe next time he could be "the phoenix". Just kidding of course W ..you are the epitome of value even if your avatar name always reminds me of lubricants (of the wholesome sort of course).
Baabaa the counters are pretty unreliable

[winner69]

Working on the new improved inversion system...W69 as the most prolific is therefore the least likely to add value to the forum:scared: However the moderator could probably rewind your clock for a small "administration fee". Moosie probably outnumbers you however when you add up all his re-incarnations. Maybe next time he could be "the phoenix". Just kidding of course W ..you are the epitome of value even if your avatar name always reminds me of lubricants (of the wholesome sort of course).

Spot on mate

Most posts are reminders to myself that the subject is really a dog and don't waste your money, just stay out

Several threads where I talk to myself .....they are where the real 'value' has been

[Baa_Baa]

Why is the count of the number of posts per member unreliable?

The only thing I've seen that's unreliable about the post counts is the automatic link to 'Member', 'Senior Member', 'Legend', 'Guru' etc, where somehow those with the most to say are automatically implied as having the most credibility. The Reputation count and comments seems a better indication of members credibility, or value, as they arise from other members giving votes of confidence. Nevertheless it is also intriguing to note some members with enormous number of posts who have no or low reputations, unlike your good self.

I don't think it is possible, or I wouldn't know how, to correlate the number of posts on threads with number of posts from members minus the members with no reputation and ranked by the members with highest reputation.

My head hurts, I need a new hobby LOL.
:confused:;)


Baabaa the counters are pretty unreliable

[BIRMANBOY]

I often tell my wife that the only time I get a decent conversation is when I talk to myself so I know what you mean. Red bars under the stars is SPECIAL with kar-lost being the only other criminal to achieve that status ..believe he had 3 at one point. Think Shawshank Redemption here W...you may or may not be guilty but when you ultimately are released into the general populace again you will have boosted your "street cred". Forum participants will speak in hushed tones of your indomitable spirit and uncanny ability to release rusty nuts.
Spot on mate

Most posts are reminders to myself that the subject is really a dog and don't waste your money, just stay out

Several threads where I talk to myself .....they are where the real 'value' has been

[BIRMANBOY]

Baa Baa no-one needs that sort of hobby that badly..however I have contacted the Govt. Dept. of Statistics and after being on hold for three hours I did speak to someone who suggested the following formula.
* Divide the number of posts by years in harness..to arrive at an average monthly postal cost.
*Multiply this figure by 3 and then divide by 23 to allow for 15% Govt tax on right to free speech.
*Take the ensuing figure and subtract either 1,2,3,4,5,6 7, 8, 9, (or 100 if your Avatar is Karlos), dependant on number of negative comments as to your reputation. If the postal recipient has more positive than negative comments then add the number applicable. If the postee is either Paper Tiger, Hoop or others of similar ilk, then automatically add 100 as a grandfather factor.
*At this point, (if you are still awake), you will have a numerical rating of somewhere between -3.4567 and 4,287,981.675. If the figure falls outside those confines please ring the help-line.
PS I did run the figures myself but modesty prevents me from telling you the results...however you will be pleased to know that a certain poster ..ewe know who...did come out extremely well.[
Why is the count of the number of posts per member unreliable?

The only thing I've seen that's unreliable about the post counts is the automatic link to 'Member', 'Senior Member', 'Legend', 'Guru' etc, where somehow those with the most to say are automatically implied as having the most credibility. The Reputation count and comments seems a better indication of members credibility, or value, as they arise from other members giving votes of confidence. Nevertheless it is also intriguing to note some members with enormous number of posts who have no or low reputations, unlike your good self.

I don't think it is possible, or I wouldn't know how, to correlate the number of posts on threads with number of posts from members minus the members with no reputation and ranked by the members with highest reputation.

My head hurts, I need a new hobby LOL.
:confused:;)

[Biscuit]

Why bother. I can give you a simple strategy to sort the wheat from the chaff. Smart investors make money. Poor investors lose money. Simply stop reading the threads of companies that are in downtrends (losing money) and stick to reading threads of companies in an uptrend (making money). You won't find the smart investors barracking for a crappy share (although you will find them pointing out the fallacy of investing in it), as only "losers average losers" (my second favourite quote, after my own sig file LOL)

I think that there is room for more than one "winning strategy" and it can be a good idea to watch shares in a downtrend, understand why they are falling and whether or not it is based on misconceptions or trend following.

[Biscuit]

The cumulative wisdom of the crowd is better than the self belief of an individual (google that if you don't believe me).

I don't believe you. But if you can convince 50 other people, then maybe you are right.

[Biscuit]

Interesting result from Google:

THE WISDOM OF SMALL CROWDS 2
Abstract
Social psychologists have long recognized the power of “statisticized” groups. When individual
judgments about some fact (e.g., the unemployment rate for next quarter) are averaged together,
the average opinion is typically more accurate than most of the individual estimates, a pattern
recently dubbed the “wisdom of crowds.” The accuracy of averaging also often exceeds that of
the individual perceived as most knowledgeable in the group. However, neither averaging nor
relying on a single judge is a robust strategy; each performs well in some settings and poorly in
others. As an alternative, we introduce the “small crowd” strategy, which ranks judges based on
a cue to expertise (e.g., accuracy over several recent judgment trials) and averages the opinions
of the top judges, such as the top 5. Using both simulation and an analysis of 90 archival
datasets, we show that small crowds of 5 knowledgeable judges yield very accurate judgments
across a wide range of possible settings—the strategy is both accurate and robust. Following this
we examine how people prefer to use information from a crowd. Previous research suggests that
people are distrustful of crowds and of mechanical processes such as averaging. We show in
3 experiments that, as expected, people are drawn to experts and dislike crowd averages—but,
critically, they view the small-crowd strategy favorably and are willing to use it. The smallcrowd strategy is thus accurate, robust, and appealing as a mechanism for helping individuals tap
the wisdom of crowds.

[Biscuit]

I wonder, in this context of the wider market, if the "small crowd" would be equivalent to sharetrader forum?

[BIRMANBOY]

Needing to be right and wanting to be right are only differentiated by the strength of ones ego.
I don't believe you. But if you can convince 50 other people, then maybe you are right.

[Baa_Baa]

The problem would be in determining the top 5 most knowledgeable judges from the rest of the idiots :-)
ah yes but once you have … people say it time and time again about how helpful certain 'judges' here are.

[Biscuit]

I have a mate who continues to buy shares based on the fact that they have to be a bargain because I can buy them for 1/2 of what I paid for them 6 months ago...........he now has an ave buy in on RAK OF $1.03, ave buy in on BRL of 9.3cps and an ave buy in on TRY of 81 cps....great way to lose **** loads of money.

So, if RAK started trending up, you'd be in boots and all Snapiti?