Folks, while I understand there's some weaknesses in the forum implementation (or any Internet social community for much the same reasons) let's not let this devolve into denigrations of individual posters. I think most of us are aware of why this discussion is occurring.
I understand it's fustruating, I'm likely more fustruated by it than nearly anyone else judging from my volume of posts on the topic in a private forum for mods; however, that doesn't mean that everything out of some of the people referenced is utter drivel necessarily.
Personally I don't think the sort of verification vis a vis CK would fix it (my Amex charge card looks like everyone else's on a credit report until you get to open date and balance information... pretty laughable Centurion if I claimed it); and I completely agree with Open123's assessment that I tend to judge posts by their merit (and admittedly I'm biased by writing style) rather than the tradelines listed in one's signature or anywhere else; financial success doesn't necessarily imply smart, or insightful, or otherwise worthwhile posts.
That said, if there's constructive ideas, I'm confident that the myFICO staff will give it due consideration.
@CC365 wrote:
@j_casteel wrote:
@bs6054 wrote:
@CC365 wrote:
@bs6054 wrote:How does CK do it? As far as I can see from my credit report, you can tell that I got a credit card from the WrongSideofTheTracks Bank in May 2011, with a credit limit of $900 (and of course my payment history), but is there anything there that says if it is the SteelRazorShaaarp card or just the plain InYourFaceClassic?
Knowing that a user has *a* Citi card doesn't really help you judge if his/her statements on the CLI proccess for the Citi Forward are likely to be correct
CK allows you to set up your account info via preferences for the bank but I believe they also have some specific way of linking it through which link you apply through. Judging from your registered date you weren't here when we had a few "posters" claiming to be 20 something years old with a million dollars in CLs and a Centurion Amex. The issue isn't about the statements they make on a specific account/etc but rather if they even have any personal knowledge. For example, we have a poster that has been crying AA, banks are the worse, etc but goes around to others stating a low score, etc and claims to have been with PenFed and so on. This person probably has nothing other than a shattered ego while bashing others and encouraging others that he knows all. Therefore, if a new member were to see someone who is verified to have a bank relationship they would be more inclined to compare profiles as opposed to someone claiming they are "in with said bank", etc just applying at random which in turn hurts them when they get bad results from applying based on the recommendations of a liar.
Right, so basically unless the user applied for the card through CK there is no way to link to a specific card. I guess your threshold is lower, better to know that they have SOME credit experience. Not sure. (I know at least some of the individuals you refer to)
I really don't like the idea of "forcing", even optionally, some form of registration. People's views are just that, people's views. I often disagree with equally experienced people here, and I don't know how verifying accounts would make it any easier to know who is right (the one who got the card the earliest?). And, to be frank, a LOT of what is discussed here is not based on any facts (Barclays will close your account if you apply for other cards, card X is harder to get than card Y ALWAYS etc). Most of it is unscientific inference from small biased samples. And THAT'S FINE because it can be a lot of fun round here. But anyone who is making serious credit decisions based on a bunch of anonymous posters of unknown credentials is being very foolish. [Edit" To be clear, credentials doesn't mean "what cards I have". You can be a total jerk and have any set of cards!] Just like most other places on the internet.
I agree...I'm not sure what would be accomplished by having members register their cards to "validate" they have them and have first hand experience to discuss them in the forum. It would be nice if people just used the common sense they were given and allowed the moderators to do their jobs in taking care of "trolls" etc. So what if people come on here stating whatever. Use your best judgement and don't feed the trolls. There's already a "ranking" system on this forum to show others their contributions to the forum. It doesn't show how authentic or accurate those members are but usually members with higher posts and have been around longer have done so for a reason, and they are not just here to spread nonsense.
Okay, Since the 2 of you seem to be in agreement on "validation" would it be fine if myFico were to set a limit on how many times a poster can cause trouble until they are suspended or banned? If a poster is brewing trouble on almost every post...he/she isn't being productive and should be warned about it. If they continue as this specific poster has been for quite some time...there should be a hard limit of lets say 3 strikes and you are out. BUT at this time we just have trolls galore.
Wouldn't they just re-register with a different name? Don't get me wrong I agree with you- the whole thing is exhausting, troublesome and nonproductive.
I thought we were here to help, share and motivate.
@beb86 wrote:Okay, Since the 2 of you seem to be in agreement on "validation" would it be fine if myFico were to set a limit on how many times a poster can cause trouble until they are suspended or banned? If a poster is brewing trouble on almost every post...he/she isn't being productive and should be warned about it. If they continue as this specific poster has been for quite some time...there should be a hard limit of lets say 3 strikes and you are out. BUT at this time we just have trolls galore.
I mean there is a TOS and if we were to go the way you are suggesting we are opening up a whole new can of worms and headaches for the mod squad..
For reference, much like good managers, we don't (usually) dress people down in public.
We're volunteers and admittedly we're not completely effective at times; however, we do have a ToS which we do enforce, but borderline behavior is a decidedly grey area much like it is almost everywhere else in life.
My personal opinion, and not that of a mod but since I've told members privately, I try to sort things out with minimum interference. If I can solve or change a behavioral issue with a quiet word rather than a public execution then I'll do it that way... much the way I do when I referee soccer matches. This doesn't always work, and if the behavior escalates then so does the response.
While I admit there are posters out there I don't like as much as others from an individual or a mod perspective (sue me I'm human) if we were to ban everyone who caused headaches we wouldn't have much of a community honestly. 
@Revelate wrote:
@beb86 wrote:Okay, Since the 2 of you seem to be in agreement on "validation" would it be fine if myFico were to set a limit on how many times a poster can cause trouble until they are suspended or banned? If a poster is brewing trouble on almost every post...he/she isn't being productive and should be warned about it. If they continue as this specific poster has been for quite some time...there should be a hard limit of lets say 3 strikes and you are out. BUT at this time we just have trolls galore.
I mean there is a TOS and if we were to go the way you are suggesting we are opening up a whole new can of worms and headaches for the mod squad..
For reference, much like good managers, we don't (usually) dress people down in public.
We're volunteers and admittedly we're not completely effective at times; however, we do have a ToS which we do enforce, but borderline behavior is a decidedly grey area much like it is almost everywhere else in life.
My personal opinion, and not that of a mod but since I've told members privately, I try to sort things out with minimum interference. If I can solve or change a behavioral issue with a quiet word rather than a public execution then I'll do it that way... much the way I do when I referee soccer matches. This doesn't always work, and if the behavior escalates then so does the response.
While I admit there are posters out there I don't like as much as others from an individual or a mod perspective (sue me I'm human) if we were to ban everyone who caused headaches we wouldn't have much of a community honestly.
You should like my new comment as it address that borderline issue. If you look at the first 2 pages of this thread most people agree something has/should be done about this on going issue. I created this thread with the hopes of having a discussion about these issues and hopefully to improve the experience of not only the current members on this forum but also those that may be looking to sign up for it.