Take this with a grain of salt because I'm responding on the fly & haven't thought too deeply about how the incentive might play out in reality.

One of the things I find most engaging about this forum is detailed company analysis & valuations. Its one of the main draw cards that enticed me to join from the start. So would it be possible for adding or updating valuations to be given a weight in addition to generally posts?

There's a lot of discussion that can be interesting to follow; there's also an amount of banter that doesn't always add much value, but would still push you up the ranks. Equally, if I was chasing a badge I could just give a thumbs up to every post I see without care to what I'm actually liking.

Does liking my own post give me a benefit? ;)

I don't think you can like your own post can you?

Edit: just tried it, no you can't.

No you can't. I was being facetious.

The detailed company analysis is definitely a drawcard, and for a novice at valuation like me, there are invaluable insights into disaggregating and reconfiguring a P&L and balance sheet that are not found anywhere else.

But I think I find the greatest value in the non-company specific threads. Threads about portfolio construction, finding your own style, not getting sucked in by hype, knowing why you're investing and sticking with it, to be the most valuable threads in the forum. There was a thread by solvetheriddle on lessons learned from 40 years of wealth accumulation and a subsequent meeting that is almost mandatory viewing for anyone hoping to make a go of this investing gig.

When it comes to the rankings, I feel uncomfortable when I'm in the top 30 or so. I know my place in these forums and it's not as an expert on company valuation or portfolio construction. I am here to to learn as much as I can and ask/prompt as much valuable discussion as I can so hopefully we can all take giant steps as investors.

Having said all that, I do agree that a well considered straw should get a higher weighting than a general forum comment, regardless of likes.

Thanks for the look in the black box @Strawman , I have been confused how I ended up in the top 10 with my horrendous All Time performance (timed my SM portfolio with @Strawman perfection)… but it seems that negative performances don’t act as a drag to ranking, they just don’t add to your ranking score (if my take is right).

I have two suggestions:

1.     Negative performance does act as a drag, doesn’t have to be huge but portfolio performance is a credibility factor for following anyone’s ideas. Will encourage more attention to SM portfolio management (something I lacked until a few years ago), providing more value in reviewing member portfolios as they will better reflect current outlooks.

2.     On the back of @Unsophisticated and @Bushmanpat’s thought that there is an opportunity to provide a weighted vote, I agree. I support any comment that gives me some value, new information, good alternative view, even a good laugh. However, that detracts from some of the great posts where I can only give the same single thumbs up. So, my suggestion is that either a “double” thumbs up is available, of with a bit more coding complexity, everyone gets a once a day “super” thumbs up which is worth 3-5 votes… or whatever you think. Supporting a good banter is nice but good analysis and insights deserve more.

Overall great as is, but if your open to tweaks, they are my suggestions.

Cheers

My understanding @Tom73 is that negative performance in terms of negative returns DOES affect rankings just not as much as liked (appreciated) content posted here, so the algorythm is correctly weighted towards those people who receive the most likes for their posted content, because that's what adds the most value here, not performance. So it is my understanding that your suggestion #1 is already in place and has been for years.

“…because we want a fair ranking system that isnt purely about performance- market volatility can unfairly make fools (or heroes) of anyone…”

FWIW, as a solid middle ranked Strawperson with a low return portfolio.

I do appreciate seeing it shift as I contribute comments, assessments etc.(as it’s not my portfolio shifting that ranking) as it does make this feel (to me) more of a community of like minded people in lieu of just a cash making ranking system.

To some of the other points raised around different ways to show appreciation for a post (beyond the single thumbs up). While there are times I do think a post etc deserves more than a single thumbs up. I do like the fact that it’s a basic binary response. Keeps it simple and direct.

If I was to suggest a slight tweak, I would split the likes you receive into a few different buckets. Likes on a valuation, likes on a straw and likes on a forum post. Weightings would be something like forum post 1, straw 1.1, valuation 1.2 (numbers are made up to demonstrate the intent). I would also add a base point for any valuation (or even a straw) as there are some companies that people have followed for years before they are picked up by the Strawman community, who then benefit from the years of research that may have gathered maybe 6 likes in total.

@Strawman is there a world where we add an anonymous "this helped me" button, along-side the like button to give greater weight to the insights within the post? Essentially discriminating between encouragement on a good valuation or straw and value-add information that may change our view or investment thesis. Someone pointing out something I've missed or explaining something I don't know is far greater than a like from someone agreeing with you.

To remove any negative effects of discouragement or group think, this could be all be added together displayed as a number of likes on the forum. Essentially using the "this helped me" button adding a disproportionate lift on the community ranking. It would be good to see if your own post got the vote and helped someone, but the number of people it helped and who could be anonymous.

I believe this would encourage people that are "turning over stones" rather than gravitating on popular companies or topics (he says as he chimes in on a 3 day old straw).

These are all really great points and help a lot in terms of how we can proceed to improve things.

Bookmarking is probably the best way to have a "super-like". One that has utility for the user in being able to save posts they like, but also signaling a more weighty approval.

I know ive been a bit absent on the site lately, but it's only because im spending every spare moment on developing the new user interface. It's really coming together and I think members are going to love it. And if anything misses the mark, fixing/tweaking/removing will be a super fast process going forward.

Exciting times!

Any chance of adding a link on each company page to the ASX site that has the announcement list? Or adding the ability to zoom the chart out to 1 year and 3 years?

Sometimes when reading a straw it would be good to go to company page then link to the announcements, mainly a timesaver on when viewing on mobile...

I like the idea of the "super-like". It always seemed strange that one's ranking should get the same boost for a smart comment on a "funny" as a post summarising many hours or even days of deep research into a company or market.

I'd also favour more weight for portfolio returns. It is frankly an embarassment to me to be so highly ranked in the community, when my Strawman returns are so poor! I think 3m, 6m and 12m returns almost irrelevant. But returns since starting do mean something over time!

I'm with @Bushmanpat in feeling a bit uncomfortable getting up in the rankings due to not feeling like I'm contributing properly. If you're embarrassed to be up there with the consistent quality you put up @mikebrisythen we're all in trouble. I think generally speaking you need a fair bit of humility in this game, and the sample pool probably skews towards careful, considered people who don't necessarily want to showboat. That potentially leads to a bit of imposer syndrome and self censorship creeping in. A community takes all sorts though, if it was only valuations it'd read like a Morningstar newsletter and get boring outside of earnings season. If it was all funnies and macro chat it'd read like twitter and become trivial (still can't use the new name). To my original point, if everyone is equally unhappy-ish flying up the rankings it suggests that maybe the balance isn't too far off where it should be?

At any rate, being part of the community, learning, sharing experiences and having somewhere to chat investing whilst not driving close friends and family mad is the reward. The incentive has an impact and is meaningful (as it should be, thanks Charlie). But, no one is earning a living posting content here, so the cart shouldn't lead the horse.

Well said @Lewis

Value is in the eye of the beholder. If you're ranking so well @mikebrisy despite an unlucky run it's only because the community clearly values your content (I certainly do).

fwiw, you have outperformed the market for the majority of your membership, as the new Portfolio charts im building show:

I agree @mikebrissy about the "super-like" concept.

I don't mind too much about how much portfolio returns are treated towards the awards system, as a great idea and analytical post that can get you thinking in a different way about a company to add value may well come from a member that sits lower on historical performance. Obviously you want to encourage people to share more of such thoughts, hence the "super-like" idea.

In terms of the performance history there was one small change I would find useful, I am not sure currently it is easy to filter for. Many members have very different approaches to myself, and I was curious to look at some of the better performing members over more meaningful time frames. I see that the leaderboard defaults to a "12 month plus" ranking. Is it possible to be able to have a look at longer term numbers, perhaps 3 yrs plus? To me a high annualised return for one or two years might just be more due to riding a short term sector theme in the market.

Not a bad idea at all @stevegreenycom and like the others in this forum have already said, you just need to go with the title @mikebrisy, irrespective of your current portfolio performance. I'm sure, like me, most premium SM members join and stay as members for the online ideas, company reviews, financial analysis, left-field thoughts, years of business acumen accumulated by the members and the guidance by our fearless leader, @Strawman. A very long way down the list of my SM membership requirements is simply following the highest performing members or actually trying to be that member myself. Much as I appreciated (and was a little shocked) that I was the highest performer in the CY2025, it was never the goal or the reason to be a SM member, it was more to find the @mikebrisy's of the world and to try and glean any snippets that can be found in the great posts and analysis that they and all the other online submitters of SM premium produce.

Besides, one year of outperformance does NOT a portfolio make!! Hopefully we are all looking long-term made up by a combination of sound fundamentals, strategy, persistence, some screamingly good out-performers to offset the horrors and the inevitable large dose of right time, right place (luck).

Ahhh, bugger it, let's also brag as it will likely not happen again in my SM lifetime!!

Best of 2025

@stevegreenycom @lowway

I have already implemented a bookmarks feature in the new build and these will act as "super likes" when it comes to our rankings.

Kills two birds with one stone without complicating the UI. We'll trial it for a bit and tweak if necessary.

As for time range, the new site allows you to select ANY timeframe for member portfolios when looking at performance charts. I'll see if I can make other standards filterable.

And, hell yeah @lowway, you have to celebrate the wins when they come! Congrats to you sir!