Suggestions for the Wiki

Local Chapters, Wiki, and general Bogleheads community discussion, news, events, and announcements

Suggestions for the Wiki

Postby Barry Barnitz » Wed May 21, 2008 12:24 am

If you are not an editor of The Bogleheads Wiki, you can make your suggestions for a Wiki Topic, or present your text for a Wiki page in this Topic.
Last edited by Barry Barnitz on Thu May 29, 2008 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image | blb | December Birthday Celebration: Ludwig van Beethoven
User avatar
Barry Barnitz
Wiki Admin
 
Posts: 2666
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:42 pm

Postby retiredjg » Sun May 25, 2008 2:07 pm

One of the things I hope happens is a "clean up" of the incredible amounts of information available here. It is absolutely overwhelming.

An example: There are several lists of recommended books. They could be combined. And it seems like newer books (e.g. Little Book of Commonsense Investing) don't always get added.

I'm willing to do some grunt work if there is no rush on these things. jg (I'll probably regret saying that....)
retiredjg
 
Posts: 18186
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:56 pm

Postby mikenz » Sun May 25, 2008 2:29 pm

mikenz
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:33 pm

books

Postby pkcrafter » Mon May 26, 2008 11:46 am

retiredjg,

I agree with you and I'll step right up to the plate and second your suggestion.
I'm willing to do some grunt work if there is no rush on these things. jg (I'll probably regret saying that....)

Yes, that's what I'm backing. :D

Seriously, I think you are right about the books. They need to be organized and it would be very helpful if there was a list of books most beneficial for beginners.

The organized list might be integrated with the reviews mikenz is working on.

Paul
When times are good, investors tend to forget about risk and focus on opportunity. When times are bad, investors tend to forget about opportunity and focus on risk.
pkcrafter
 
Posts: 8277
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:19 pm
Location: CA

Re: books

Postby retiredjg » Mon May 26, 2008 12:37 pm

pkcrafter wrote:retiredjg,
I'm willing to do some grunt work if there is no rush on these things. jg (I'll probably regret saying that....)

Yes, that's what I'm backing. :D

Gee Paul, you probably will come back me up by serving lemonade while I dig out that dying tree in my front yard, won't you? Oh thank you , thank you for the support! :?

Anyway, it appears to me that mikenz does have a list. I don't think it is finished yet. What he needs is reviews on the books on his list. Since I KNOW you've read more than I have and since I KNOW you know more than I do, why don't you do some reviews yourself? Meanwhile, I'll be in the yard with my poor dying tree...it should not be alone during this trying time. jg
retiredjg
 
Posts: 18186
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:56 pm

Postby mikenz » Mon May 26, 2008 2:45 pm

Yes, that list came from old M* board and the new forum (see links at bottom of page). I didn't include every last book I came across, but stuck with the well-known ones and ones that were mentioned multiple times mainly.

As far as writing reviews, what I did is try to do an objective look at the book and what it contains. Not too wordy, mainly a table of contents and brief overview. Then at the bottom put personal opinions about the book - that way a number of people can add their view on the book at the bottom without having to write a separate review. We could instead use the discussion feature for that?
mikenz
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:33 pm

Postby retiredjg » Mon May 26, 2008 3:22 pm

mikenz wrote:Yes, that list came from old M* board and the new forum (see links at bottom of page). I didn't include every last book I came across, but stuck with the well-known ones and ones that were mentioned multiple times mainly.

As far as writing reviews, what I did is try to do an objective look at the book and what it contains. Not too wordy, mainly a table of contents and brief overview. Then at the bottom put personal opinions about the book - that way a number of people can add their view on the book at the bottom without having to write a separate review. We could instead use the discussion feature for that?

Mikenz, I'll try my hand at a review in the next few days. We'll see what comes of it. I'll be on the steep part of the learning curve with the software. Unfortunately, I've mostly read the same books as everyone else, so I don't know how helpful I'll be on this. I'll be back in touch. jg
retiredjg
 
Posts: 18186
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:56 pm

Postby mikenz » Mon May 26, 2008 7:33 pm

Not a problem, there are only 2 reviews and so many books. It's amazingly time-consuming (for me) to write a review, so help would be appreciated. Try to copy my format if it helps. PM any of us if you need help creating and linking a page.
mikenz
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:33 pm

books and Wiki

Postby pkcrafter » Tue May 27, 2008 8:26 am

Mikenz and retiredjg,

I will see if I can learn how to work with the Wiki and then contribute something useful to the book project.

Paul
When times are good, investors tend to forget about risk and focus on opportunity. When times are bad, investors tend to forget about opportunity and focus on risk.
pkcrafter
 
Posts: 8277
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:19 pm
Location: CA

Re: books and Wiki

Postby retiredjg » Tue May 27, 2008 10:47 am

pkcrafter wrote:Mikenz and retiredjg,

I will see if I can learn how to work with the Wiki and then contribute something useful to the book project.

Paul

You take the hard books that I haven't read yet, ok? :lol:
retiredjg
 
Posts: 18186
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:56 pm

Postby veryamusing » Thu May 29, 2008 12:58 pm

retiredjg wrote:Unfortunately, I've mostly read the same books as everyone else, so I don't know how helpful I'll be on this. I'll be back in touch. jg


Hey, retiredjg. When I read the above, I thought to myself just because we Bogleheads have read largely the same books, I bet we each take away something different. That's what I think could be great about the book reviews, if each person who has read the book chimed in on how it helped them (think: Amazon, how each book has many reviews).

Just a suggestion. I know this could get overwhelming fast.
veryamusing
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:42 pm
Location: Orlando, FL

Postby retiredjg » Thu May 29, 2008 1:41 pm

veryamusing wrote:Hey, retiredjg. When I read the above, I thought to myself just because we Bogleheads have read largely the same books, I bet we each take away something different. That's what I think could be great about the book reviews, if each person who has read the book chimed in on how it helped them (think: Amazon, how each book has many reviews).
You're absolutely right. Just that some books have been read by so few people, I hope those books will get a review or two rather than none. In fact, for those of you who have read some of the less read books, you should consider it an obligation to review them! (Anyone out there subject to being guilted into action? Nah, I didn't think so...)

And we do take away different things. Example, 4 Pillars would have been a terrible book for me if it had been my first book. However, since it was my about the 4th or 5th, I thought it was great. Others have had a completely different reaction. New people need to know these things.

Now, should I cut the grass or start a review...jg
retiredjg
 
Posts: 18186
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:56 pm

Postby mikenz » Thu May 29, 2008 4:13 pm

First, if you are not comfortable with the wiki, PM me with a review and I'll format and post it for you.

Second, if you look at the two reviews I did, I tried to be objective at the top: brief overview, table of contents, brief summary of each section/chapter of the book.

Then at the bottom there is a final section Reader Comments (I think), where I started it off putting mikenz - I though this book was really good.... etc. So the idea is rather than having to write a whole new review, people can chime in with their impressions, yes sort of like Amazon. If there is something more factual they want to add, they could edit the original review if they like (that's the point of trying to make the main section of the review factual and objective as possible). Having multiple reviews of the same book would be ok too if it works better, but it's a big job to write one IMO. Far easier to just put at the bottom - retiredjg - I liked this book, but not suitable as a first investment book...

Finally, if you have a book in mind that you plan to review, mention it here and I'll do other ones. I have many of the books in the list and plan to start writing more reviews any day now...
mikenz
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:33 pm

Suggestions Solicited for Current Events wiki page

Postby Ken Schwartz » Sun Jun 08, 2008 1:35 am

I've begun maintaining the Current events page on the Bogleheads Wiki. I'm interested in receiving suggestions on a continuing basis for specific content items. (Bogleheads who obtain wiki access may, of course, add stuff themselves. Just PM me with your access request.) Please see the current events talk page for my initial thoughts on what we might include.
User avatar
Ken Schwartz
 
Posts: 2314
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:36 am
Location: USA

Wikify our reference library?

Postby PiperWarrior » Sun Jun 08, 2008 10:27 am

Shall we "wikify" our reference library?

For example, I don't think it makes sense to have both of

- Treasury Inflation Protected Securities in the wiki and
- TIPS in the reference library.

We can just merge them. (Currently, the former points to the latter.) Barry and others do a great job, but without them, we cannot even fix broken links or typos in the reference library. Also, it's possible that somebody might have a great idea about reorganizing a list of papers (say, categorizing them into "for" TIPS and "against" TIPS or whatever). He/she cannot do that right now.

The forum interface is nice for live exchanges, but they are not really great for library purposes. (Yes, I do understand that the reference library predates the wiki.)

I apologize in advance if this has been suggested before.

I'm willing to do the conversion work, but I'd like some general agreement before I do that.
User avatar
PiperWarrior
 
Posts: 4068
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:55 am
Location: right on course

Re: Wikify our reference library?

Postby Barry Barnitz » Sun Jun 08, 2008 1:45 pm

PiperWarrior wrote:Shall we "wikify" our reference library?

For example, I don't think it makes sense to have both of

- Treasury Inflation Protected Securities in the wiki and
- TIPS in the reference library.

We can just merge them. (Currently, the former points to the latter.) Barry and others do a great job, but without them, we cannot even fix broken links or typos in the reference library. Also, it's possible that somebody might have a great idea about reorganizing a list of papers (say, categorizing them into "for" TIPS and "against" TIPS or whatever). He/she cannot do that right now.

The forum interface is nice for live exchanges, but they are not really great for library purposes. (Yes, I do understand that the reference library predates the wiki.)

I apologize in advance if this has been suggested before.

I'm willing to do the conversion work, but I'd like some general agreement before I do that.


Wikifying the Reference Library is a good long range project. Tonight, after work, I will try and draft an administrative page on the wiki that will list reference posts and provide a checklist for wiki migration.
Image | blb | December Birthday Celebration: Ludwig van Beethoven
User avatar
Barry Barnitz
Wiki Admin
 
Posts: 2666
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:42 pm

Re: Wikify our reference library?

Postby PiperWarrior » Sun Jun 08, 2008 1:56 pm

Barry Barnitz wrote:Wikifying the Reference Library is a good long range project. Tonight, after work, I will try and draft an administrative page on the wiki that will list reference posts and provide a checklist for wiki migration.

Excellent! I'll monitor Recent changes. Thanks!
User avatar
PiperWarrior
 
Posts: 4068
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:55 am
Location: right on course

Postby PiperWarrior » Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:30 pm

Barry and others,

After we wikify one Reference Library topic, what shall we do? I am afraid that somebody might add to a Reference Library topic after I finish wikifying the topic.

Shall we lock the topic?

Shall we put a note in the topic, saying that "This topic is now maintained at Such Such Wiki Page"?

Shall we do both?

Shall we continue to accept contributions to wikified Reference Library topics?

One thing that's marginally an issue is that the Reference Library can accept any additional message to the existing topics from any forum member. In contrast, the wiki seems to have an additional hurdle. Specifically, you have to become a forum member first and then apply for a wiki user account. I am hoping that this hurdle is minor. Thoughts?
User avatar
PiperWarrior
 
Posts: 4068
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:55 am
Location: right on course

Postby UKbloke » Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:28 pm

Why is it a problem that both TIPS and Treasury Inflation Protected Securities have a Wiki page? Some people search for TIPS, other for Treasury Inflation Protected Securities... let it be!

A wiki may seem chaotic, but so is the market. Chaos is order!
UKbloke
 
Posts: 311
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:42 pm

Postby PiperWarrior » Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:37 pm

UKbloke wrote:Why is it a problem that both TIPS and Treasury Inflation Protected Securities have a Wiki page? Some people search for TIPS, other for Treasury Inflation Protected Securities... let it be!

Well, we don't want to have two wiki pages on the same subject. FWIW, TIPS is redirected to Treasury Inflation Protected Securities these days.
User avatar
PiperWarrior
 
Posts: 4068
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:55 am
Location: right on course

Postby CyberBob » Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:56 pm

UKbloke wrote:Why is it a problem that both TIPS and Treasury Inflation Protected Securities have a Wiki page? Some people search for TIPS, other for Treasury Inflation Protected Securities... let it be!

A wiki may seem chaotic, but so is the market. Chaos is order!

There isn't any problem with that kind of thing at the wiki. The wiki handles that situation quite smoothly. I believe what PiperWarrior is trying to avoid is confusion between this library forum and the wiki. And he brings up a very good point. Where should people be directed for reference material? Here or the wiki? The wiki is actually much better suited for a library-type reference than is a forum. But, the library forum is right here and available and many people probably don't even know about the wiki.

Bob
User avatar
CyberBob
 
Posts: 2931
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:53 pm

For the Present

Postby Barry Barnitz » Mon Jun 30, 2008 1:26 pm

PiperWarrior wrote:Barry and others,

After we wikify one Reference Library topic, what shall we do? I am afraid that somebody might add to a Reference Library topic after I finish wikifying the topic.

Shall we lock the topic?

Shall we put a note in the topic, saying that "This topic is now maintained at Such Such Wiki Page"?

Shall we do both?

Shall we continue to accept contributions to wikified Reference Library topics?

One thing that's marginally an issue is that the Reference Library can accept any additional message to the existing topics from any forum member. In contrast, the wiki seems to have an additional hurdle. Specifically, you have to become a forum member first and then apply for a wiki user account. I am hoping that this hurdle is minor. Thoughts?


For the present, I have done the following for Library posts that have been incorporated into the Wiki:

1. On the Reference Library page, I have placed a (-->Wiki) marker in the title of each Topic which has been transferred or incorporated into the wiki.

2. I have placed a prominent announcement and link in the heading of each wikified Reference Library page. Example
Image | blb | December Birthday Celebration: Ludwig van Beethoven
User avatar
Barry Barnitz
Wiki Admin
 
Posts: 2666
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:42 pm

Re: For the Present

Postby PiperWarrior » Mon Jun 30, 2008 1:45 pm

Barry Barnitz wrote:For the present, I have done the following for Library posts that have been incorporated into the Wiki:

1. On the Reference Library page, I have placed a (-->Wiki) marker in the title of each Topic which has been transferred or incorporated into the wiki.

2. I have placed a prominent announcement and link in the heading of each wikified Reference Library page. Example

Great! Thanks you very much!

I think the note at the top of each wikified topic is very clear.
User avatar
PiperWarrior
 
Posts: 4068
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:55 am
Location: right on course

Postby linenfort » Tue Jul 29, 2008 10:09 pm

Are there plans to include initials as searchable terms? For example,
in the future will someone be able to type TLH into the wiki search box
and be re redirected to the Tax Loss Harvesting Page?

Thanks.

(Sorry, PiperWarrior, I PM'ed you about this just now b/c I hadn't
found this thread).
User avatar
linenfort
 
Posts: 1314
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 10:22 am
Location: Cardiff Electric

Postby PiperWarrior » Tue Jul 29, 2008 10:35 pm

linenfort wrote:Are there plans to include initials as searchable terms? For example,
in the future will someone be able to type TLH into the wiki search box
and be re redirected to the Tax Loss Harvesting Page?

Mediawiki has something called "redirect", but so maybe we can use that to redirect TLH to Tax Loss Harvesting. Do you know something in this area?

linenfort wrote:(Sorry, PiperWarrior, I PM'ed you about this just now b/c I hadn't
found this thread).

No problem.

By the way, if you would like to be a wiki editor, please send a PM to Barry. You can contribute to the wiki in a variety of ways. Investment contents are of course welcome. Fixing typos, making constructive criticisms, reorganizing things, etc are also welcome, too. You don't have to be an investment expert to contribute to a wiki. If you fell the TLH page needs more contents for example, you can leave notes on the talk page of the TLH page.
User avatar
PiperWarrior
 
Posts: 4068
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:55 am
Location: right on course

Postby linenfort » Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:31 am

I think you can infer from my posts thus far that I am not qualified
to add to investment content. :oops: But, simple editing for spelling
and grammar is a possibility.

Mediawiki has something called "redirect"

Haven't used it, but I'll definitely look into it.

Thanks!
The key is not so much what couch you choose, but that you stay on it. -- boglehead Random Musings. | Wolde ye bothe eate your cake, and haue your cake?(1546)
User avatar
linenfort
 
Posts: 1314
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 10:22 am
Location: Cardiff Electric

Postby linenfort » Wed Jul 30, 2008 3:05 pm

linenfort wrote:...
in the future will someone be able to type TLH into the wiki search box
and be re redirected to the Tax Loss Harvesting Page?
...


Implemented, I see. That was fast!
User avatar
linenfort
 
Posts: 1314
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 10:22 am
Location: Cardiff Electric

Postby SamLJ » Tue Aug 26, 2008 1:06 pm

With regards to TLH, how about including a list of recommended/similar funds that do not trigger a wash sale for commonly held VG mutual funds? The forum seems to have a heavy load of people asking TLH related questions.
User avatar
SamLJ
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:06 am

Postby PiperWarrior » Tue Aug 26, 2008 1:21 pm

SamLJ wrote:With regards to TLH, how about including a list of recommended/similar funds that do not trigger a wash sale for commonly held VG mutual funds? The forum seems to have a heavy load of people asking TLH related questions.

Thank you for a suggestion.

I'm hesitating about listing TLH options. There are no definite guidelines about substantially identical securities. I'm happy to mention on the forum what I personally do, but I don't want to make it sound official. Sure, the wiki comes with a disclaimer, but I am a bit uncomfortable taking advantage of it to say not very credible things.
User avatar
PiperWarrior
 
Posts: 4068
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:55 am
Location: right on course

Postby SamLJ » Tue Aug 26, 2008 1:31 pm

PiperWarrior wrote:I'm hesitating about listing TLH options. There are no definite guidelines about substantially identical securities. I'm happy to mention on the forum what I personally do, but I don't want to make it sound official. Sure, the wiki comes with a disclaimer, but I am a bit uncomfortable taking advantage of it to say not very credible things.


Maybe we could have a general thread on the subject in the forum that might include these suggestions that we can refer people to in this case.

It is clear that some strategies definitely will not trigger a wash sale, such as exchanging Total Stock Market for S&P 500 and Extended Market in a 4:1 ratio, but I guess the line between FTSE All-World Ex-US and Total International is blurrier. TSM and FTSE All-World Ex-US are the two main funds suggested for taxable portfolios here so I think this is an important point that would be great to have some kind of official IRS clarification on (especially for the case of TLHing FTSE All-World Ex-US).
User avatar
SamLJ
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:06 am

Postby retiredjg » Tue Aug 26, 2008 1:51 pm

PiperWarrior wrote:
SamLJ wrote:With regards to TLH, how about including a list of recommended/similar funds that do not trigger a wash sale for commonly held VG mutual funds? The forum seems to have a heavy load of people asking TLH related questions.

Thank you for a suggestion.

I'm hesitating about listing TLH options. There are no definite guidelines about substantially identical securities. I'm happy to mention on the forum what I personally do, but I don't want to make it sound official. Sure, the wiki comes with a disclaimer, but I am a bit uncomfortable taking advantage of it to say not very credible things.

I've wondered about this too since this is one of the frequent questions that simply cannot be answered. I've wondered about suggestions for replacement funds that would satisfy the different arguments. By this I mean present an argument and then follow that with a chart of replacement funds that would be acceptable under that argument. Follow that with the next argument and another chart. Basically, just presenting the facts of each argument and let each investor pick what s/he is comfortable with.

It would be helpful to many, I believe, if the wiki contained a collection or summary of the "substantially similar" discussions. Especially containing LH2004's input on the Supreme Court and Cottage Savings. I believe LH's opinion is probably most likely to be correct, but it seems to get forgotten and people keep trying to find a common sense definition of "substantially identical" rather than a legal definition. Especially when the Fairmark author expressed the opinion about graphs laying on top of each other! A good example of trying to use common sense rather than legal precedent.

It is so frustrating to see the "substantially identical" dead horse being flogged on a regular basis without ever reaching a conclusion. I'm sure many would like to just say "read this discussion in the Wiki" rather than go through it again and again.

While I'm here, I'd like to express appreciation to the many people who have made these incredible contributions to the Wiki. It is a very impressive body of knowledge and you folks should be commended! jg
retiredjg
 
Posts: 18186
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:56 pm

Postby PiperWarrior » Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:32 am

retiredjg wrote:It would be helpful to many, I believe, if the wiki contained a collection or summary of the "substantially similar" discussions. Especially containing LH2004's input on the Supreme Court and Cottage Savings. I believe LH's opinion is probably most likely to be correct, but it seems to get forgotten and people keep trying to find a common sense definition of "substantially identical" rather than a legal definition. Especially when the Fairmark author expressed the opinion about graphs laying on top of each other! A good example of trying to use common sense rather than legal precedent.

Would you like to take a stab and create a wiki page, listing various interpretations from IRS Publications, LH2004, fairmark, etc? For a starter, you could create a page containing links to relevant things. You don't have to write much beyond headings.
User avatar
PiperWarrior
 
Posts: 4068
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:55 am
Location: right on course

Postby retiredjg » Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:05 am

PiperWarrior wrote:Would you like to take a stab and create a wiki page, listing various interpretations from IRS Publications, LH2004, fairmark, etc?

Groan. I don't really think I'm the best person to do this. LH2004, are you around?
retiredjg
 
Posts: 18186
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:56 pm

Wiki

Postby Barry Barnitz » Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:53 pm

retiredjg wrote:
PiperWarrior wrote:Would you like to take a stab and create a wiki page, listing various interpretations from IRS Publications, LH2004, fairmark, etc?

Groan. I don't really think I'm the best person to do this. LH2004, are you around?


jg, check your pm's :D

regards,
Barry
Image | blb | December Birthday Celebration: Ludwig van Beethoven
User avatar
Barry Barnitz
Wiki Admin
 
Posts: 2666
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:42 pm

Postby JustAsking » Thu Aug 28, 2008 12:26 am

Folks,

I'm new to the forum (within the past few days) and am working my way through the wiki. Although it's great to have the info in one place, the first thing I notice is that the structure is really burdensome--there are category pages and subcategory pages and sub-sub-category pages, each with links to click. It's like a maze, and you spend a comparatively large proportion of time on overhead (clicking and navigating) rather than reading. This discourages users.

It might not be so bad (not good, but not so bad) if it were possible to go from one page to the next sequentially. As is, to get to the next page at any level, you have to go up one level and then back down. This is slow, inconvenient, and a recipe for RSI.

I know you're using a CMS that imposes certain limitations, but would it be possible to do something more like a Windows Explorer setup, with a tree in the left nav bar that makes the organization self-evident and allows us to just click directly on topics we want to see? I understand that you're trying to provide expansion room for the future, but a) it should be convenient to use now too, and b) if it's cumbersome and people abandon it, options for the future will be irrelevant.

I also want to mention some related issues about this site's search function, which doesn't seem to work the way it does on other forums (even those using the same software). First, I'm not clear on the difference between "Search for any terms or use query as entered" and "Search for all terms." Doesn't "query as entered" mean "all terms"? I've tried with and without quotes, but it doesn't seem to return exact phrases. Neither option seems to make a difference. Also, most search engines now search for all terms by default, since this is the most common type of search and eliminates the need to enter Boolean operators (AND, OR). If you just want a single term, you can enter it (or them, sequentially).

Second, on other boards, the search typically highlights the terms in yellow and takes you to the first one. Here, even if you select "Display Posts" and 1000 characters, it doesn't do that--you still have to open each one and scroll to find the term.

Third, I like see 1000 (or more) characters of each post rather than just the titles. This is often the default on other boards, but not here--I have to choose it each time. I also can't set it in my Profile. Is it possible to give us the option to do that?

Thanks,
JA
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is." -- Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut (1953-1994), late of CalTech
JustAsking
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 4:01 am

Postby PiperWarrior » Sat Aug 30, 2008 3:43 am

JustAsking wrote:I'm new to the forum (within the past few days) and am working my way through the wiki. Although it's great to have the info in one place, the first thing I notice is that the structure is really burdensome--there are category pages and subcategory pages and sub-sub-category pages, each with links to click. It's like a maze, and you spend a comparatively large proportion of time on overhead (clicking and navigating) rather than reading. This discourages users.

It might not be so bad (not good, but not so bad) if it were possible to go from one page to the next sequentially. As is, to get to the next page at any level, you have to go up one level and then back down. This is slow, inconvenient, and a recipe for RSI.

How about something like this?

If you go to Oxygen and scroll down all the way down to the bottom, you can see the periodic table. This lets you navigate "horizontally" without having to go back up to a parent page.

This kind of box is very useful for things "at the same level" like a bunch of mutual funds, various forms of indexes (market cap, fundamental, socially responsible, etc), but it's tough to group logically unrelated things this way.

JustAsking wrote:I know you're using a CMS that imposes certain limitations, but would it be possible to do something more like a Windows Explorer setup, with a tree in the left nav bar that makes the organization self-evident and allows us to just click directly on topics we want to see? I understand that you're trying to provide expansion room for the future, but a) it should be convenient to use now too, and b) if it's cumbersome and people abandon it, options for the future will be irrelevant.

I understand what you mean. I'll take notes. I know we can add a flat list to the left pane. I don't know if we can have a tree-like structure there.

JustAsking wrote:I also want to mention some related issues about this site's search function, which doesn't seem to work the way it does on other forums (even those using the same software). First, I'm not clear on the difference between "Search for any terms or use query as entered" and "Search for all terms." Doesn't "query as entered" mean "all terms"? I've tried with and without quotes, but it doesn't seem to return exact phrases. Neither option seems to make a difference. Also, most search engines now search for all terms by default, since this is the most common type of search and eliminates the need to enter Boolean operators (AND, OR). If you just want a single term, you can enter it (or them, sequentially).

Second, on other boards, the search typically highlights the terms in yellow and takes you to the first one. Here, even if you select "Display Posts" and 1000 characters, it doesn't do that--you still have to open each one and scroll to find the term.

Third, I like see 1000 (or more) characters of each post rather than just the titles. This is often the default on other boards, but not here--I have to choose it each time. I also can't set it in my Profile. Is it possible to give us the option to do that?

I think your best bet is google and use "site:bogleheads.org blah" for now.
User avatar
PiperWarrior
 
Posts: 4068
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:55 am
Location: right on course

Postby PiperWarrior » Sat Aug 30, 2008 2:46 pm

JustAsking,

I've discovered something called Extension:TreeAndMenu, which lets you have a Windows Explorer-style navigation.

As a test bed, I added "horizontal" navigation at the bottom of all 529 pages like Alabama 529 Plan. What do you think? You don't have to go back to the category page to navigate "horizontally."
User avatar
PiperWarrior
 
Posts: 4068
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:55 am
Location: right on course

Postby tetractys » Sat Aug 30, 2008 4:44 pm

How about pointers to important IRS.gov info?

Just noticed this good news for those in the <25% tax bracket: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ar01.html#d0e67

The IRS wrote:What's New for 2008

Maximum tax rate on qualified dividends and net capital gain reduced. In tax years beginning after 2007, the 5% maximum tax rate on qualified dividends and net capital gain is reduced to 0 (zero)%. Thus, qualified dividends and net capital gain are not taxed if the regular tax rate that would apply to them is lower than 25%.


Thanks for the Wiki, BTW! -- Tet
User avatar
tetractys
 
Posts: 4198
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 4:30 pm
Location: Along the Salish Sea

Postby PiperWarrior » Sat Aug 30, 2008 5:49 pm

tetractys wrote:How about pointers to important IRS.gov info?

Just noticed this good news for those in the <25% tax bracket: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ar01.html#d0e67

The IRS wrote:What's New for 2008

Maximum tax rate on qualified dividends and net capital gain reduced. In tax years beginning after 2007, the 5% maximum tax rate on qualified dividends and net capital gain is reduced to 0 (zero)%. Thus, qualified dividends and net capital gain are not taxed if the regular tax rate that would apply to them is lower than 25%.

Thanks. I think we've got that covered in Tax News Sources, which links to Publication 553 (4/2008), Highlights of 2007 Tax Changes, which in turn contains:

Maximum Tax Rate on Qualified Dividends and Net Capital Gain Reduced

For tax years beginning after 2007, the 5% maximum tax rate on qualified dividends and net capital gain (the excess of net long-term capital gain over net short-term capital loss) is reduced to 0%. This reduction applies for both regular tax and AMT. The 15% maximum tax rate on qualified dividends and net capital gain has not changed.

The problem is that it may not necessarily be easy to get to the wiki page.
User avatar
PiperWarrior
 
Posts: 4068
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:55 am
Location: right on course

Postby Ducks » Tue Nov 11, 2008 7:02 pm

I suggest a list of boglehead recommended podcasts. I'd be happy to create a list if others also think this is a good idea.
Getting our Ducks in a row since 2008.
User avatar
Ducks
 
Posts: 515
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:01 pm

Postby Ducks » Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:06 pm

I added the list of podcasts, gleaned from this recent thread:
viewtopic.php?p=314938

I am ridiculously happy that I'm able to help with this wiki. So if anybody has anything else they'd like me to wikify, I'd be glad to.
Getting our Ducks in a row since 2008.
User avatar
Ducks
 
Posts: 515
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:01 pm

Postby Mel Lindauer » Thu Nov 13, 2008 3:17 pm

Ducks wrote:I added the list of podcasts, gleaned from this recent thread:
viewtopic.php?p=314938

I am ridiculously happy that I'm able to help with this wiki. So if anybody has anything else they'd like me to wikify, I'd be glad to.


Hi Ducks:

Thanks for helping make the wiki even more useful/helpful. I'd like to suggest that you become a regular contributor to the wiki, since it's such a great asset to both forum members and other investors in general, and Barry needs all the help he (and his small crew) can get.

Best regards,

Mel
User avatar
Mel Lindauer
Moderator
 
Posts: 22334
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:49 pm
Location: Daytona Beach Shores, Florida

Postby Ducks » Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:15 pm

You bet, Mel. I'm in. :)
Getting our Ducks in a row since 2008.
User avatar
Ducks
 
Posts: 515
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:01 pm

Postby Mel Lindauer » Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:19 pm

Ducks wrote:You bet, Mel. I'm in. :)


That's great, Ducks. Hopefully more and more members will become contributors to what will certainly be one of the Boglehead community's lasting legacies.

Regards,

Mel
User avatar
Mel Lindauer
Moderator
 
Posts: 22334
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:49 pm
Location: Daytona Beach Shores, Florida

A heartfelt thanks:

Postby Barry Barnitz » Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:00 am

Ducks:

Thank you very much for the contribution.

regards,
Barry
User avatar
Barry Barnitz
Wiki Admin
 
Posts: 2666
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:42 pm

Postby Ducks » Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:53 am

You're welcome, Barry. I'm looking forward to doing more. If you have a project for me, I'm all ears.
Getting our Ducks in a row since 2008.
User avatar
Ducks
 
Posts: 515
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:01 pm

Asset Location

Postby travelfar » Tue Nov 18, 2008 5:04 pm

It would be helpful to organize information on Asset Location.

A few resources to start with (I cannot post links yet):

Investopedia "The Importance Of Asset Location"
by Ken Hawkins

Money "3 rules of investing: Location, location, location:
Choosing an asset allocation is only the first step. Your asset location can be just as important to your investments."
By The Mole, Money Magazine's undercover financial planner
April 9, 2008: 6:05 AM EDT

Morningstart "The Beauty of Asset Location: Where to hold stocks and bonds for maximum benefit."
By Sue Stevens, CFA, CFP, CPA | 01-19-06 | 06:00 AM

FPA Journal "Asset Location: A Generic Framework for Maximizing After-Tax Wealth"
Gobind Daryanani, Ph.D., CFP®, and Chris Cordaro, CFP

THE JOURNAL OF FINANCE • VOL. LIX, NO. 3 • JUNE 2004
"Optimal Asset Location and Allocation with Taxable and Tax-Deferred Investing"
ROBERT M. DAMMON, CHESTER S. SPATT, and HAROLD H. ZHANG

Robert M. Dammon and Chester S. Spatt, Carnegie Mellon University
Harold H. Zhang, University of North Carolina
"Optimal Asset Location and Allocation with Taxable and Tax-Deferred Investing"

Jennifer Huang, MIT - Sloan School
"axable or Tax-Deferred Account? Portfolio Decision with Multiple Investment Goals"

Hayne E. Leland, Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley
"ptimal Portfolio Implementation With Transaction Costs and Capital Gains Taxes"

John B. Shoven and Clemens Sialm, Stanford University
"Asset Location in Tax-Deferred and Conventional Savings Accounts"

Brad M. Barber and Terrance Odean, Graduate School of Management, University of California, Davis
" Are Individual Investors Tax Savvy? Asset Location Evidence from Retail and Discount Brokerage Accounts"

Daniel Bergstresser, MIT
James Poterba, MIT, Hoover Institution, and NBER
" Asset allocation and Asset Location Decisions: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances"

The Blogeheads wiki "Principles of Tax-Efficient Fund Placement"
travelfar
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:31 pm

Postby Mel Lindauer » Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:50 pm

Hi travelfar:

Welcome to the forum!

Perhaps you'd like to volunteer to help out with the Wiki. You could start by doing what you've suggested. All help with the wiki is really appreciated. You can PM Barry for more information (simply click on the "PM" button in his post above).

Regards,

Mel
User avatar
Mel Lindauer
Moderator
 
Posts: 22334
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:49 pm
Location: Daytona Beach Shores, Florida

FundAnalyze

Postby maxrottersman » Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:35 am

Hi, I believe many people on Bogleheads would find fundanalyze dot com useful. I'm hoping someone here, if they agree, can put a link to it in the Wiki.

FunAnalyze takes any fund and finds matching low-cost alternatives. If you're a Boglehead and a friend asks you to give a Vanguard alternative to any fund in their portfolio, then fundAnalyze dot com can answer that for you.

Thanks!
Max
maxrottersman
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:30 am

Postby speedbump101 » Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:51 am

I'd like to suggest that Jason Zweig's paper on updating Benjamin Graham's 'Intelligent Investor' ((for Harper Collins) be added to the Wiki http://www.usd.edu/business/coyotecapit ... essons.pdf
"Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal" -Robert A. Heinlein
User avatar
speedbump101
 
Posts: 978
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:54 pm
Location: Alberta Canada

Next

Return to Local Chapters and Bogleheads Community

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest