Just a thought. We get a lot of new members here and its getting far more prominent. So what I suggest is something like this.
The way we have WHAT THE PAPERS SAID is brilliant because if you read the whole lot, you feel as if you are experiencing it. So what about on the Wiki we have a section for each months media activity. In this section we have the BEAR NEWS and BULL NEWS for that month (let show impartiality here).
Then we can see how the media are reporting the market. We know that from January, its been nothing but BULL
So it might be
Markets great (Source: Halifax)
Flying off shelves (Source: Johnn Wigglebottom)
Mortgage Approvals soaring (Source: CML)
HPI up 6.8% (Source: Spring in the Air)
Economy Rosy (Source: Gordon Brown)
Prices went down 4% in Newmarket (Source: Land Registry)
Price up 0.1% this month (Source: Nationwide)
IR's need to rise (Source: IFA)
Property Sales plummet (Source: LR)
Properties per agent soar (Rightmove website)
BTL's selling up in London (Source: Sumwebpage)
Blatant ramping by K&P (Source: CH4 website)
So each month just make a section for BULL and BEAR and then we add a BULL headline with a link to that THREAD. Do the same for the BEARS.
Lets put JUST the most RELEVANT stories here. If we see that the majority of reports are bullish then we can see that sentiment in the media is BULLISH. Now we are starting to see a lot of BEAR articles, and we can feel that SENTIMENT in the MEDIA is going BEARISH.
It's a great indicator and if someone wants a quick summary of where we are, at any given time. I believe this is the best way of compiling it. So set something up similar to the what the papers said and make it "what the media say"
NOW the problem.
We need to delegate a few people to make these sections and links. No disrespect to realist bear but this section would be 12 pages long as he believes everything is relevant Same for TTRT on the Bull side. so this would mean some sort of moderation. Or it would just become a forum, within a forum - which is pointless. I also think it would be important to state the source in the title as above.
This will be a great starting point for newbies as well. Lets be fair now. Most people only get one paper or look at 1 website. They can get quick links to stories being published in MEDIA that they would never have come across. When dispelling myths to their 'mockers' they can point them to this section so they can read the online version of it. With it being a link to an external site they cannot discredit it as HPC spin.
I know this means a bit of work but I think its a good idea?
If you think its a pile of shyte, then fine, say so - I'm thick skinned.
This post has been edited by teddyboy: 28 April 2006 - 09:28 PM