Being nosey... How many Regular Saver accounts do you have?

Zekko

I'm up to 9 RS now. £2,350 PM and 5.25% min.

Newly_retired

15 still but updated figures :monthly input £4050.  Total £43550 ( includes RBS and NatWest, both full, Coventry HS1  soon to mature.

Bridlington1

clairec666 said:

I quite like how the "main" thread is the place to go for facts, T&Cs, news about new accounts, etc., and this one is for general chat about how many accounts everyone has.

I'm afraid I can not agree with you on that one, for the reasons I should like to outline below:

In my opinion it is one thing to have a no chat version of this thread with the list of how many regular savers people have on page 1 but it is an entirely different matter to then invite people to post their ``general stories about [their] RS acquisitions, anecdotes about RS's... anything fun or a bit "leftfield" about RS's" and for this to be a place for ``general chit chat" of any kind.

To my mind making this a discussion thread turns the thread into a defacto alternative regular saver discussion thread, which is not something I can support, not least because one of the core aims of the existing Top Regular Savers Discussion Thread is to provide one central place to discuss all things regular saver related, this thread now has the potential to split the discussion across two threads and undermine my own work on this forum. Whether it is intentional or unintentional I shall leave for those reading this to judge. If it is the latter then I would consider it to be ill-judged, if the former then it would seem a rather underhand way to go about changing the structure of the key regular savers threads.

I would like to make it clear at this stage that I have attempted to accommodate the demand for a list of how many regular savers people have, as I have done with a range of different demands and wishes of those who contribute to this forum. Indeed I have offered suggestions on how the aims of this thread could be achieved within the structure of my existing two regular saver threads, including suggesting that @Bobblehat launch a no chat version of the thread where people post only updates to how many regular savers they have, but was simply ignored when I approached Bobblehat directly, who instead chose to go behind my back on this occasion.

I could also note a certain irony at this stage in @Bobblehat and @Topyam's stated reasoning for structuring this thread in the way they have done, for in taking the ``if it ain't broke don't fix it" approach and stating a desire not "to complicate things with a 3rd thread" it seems they have themselves collectively created a scenario in which a third regular savers thread (i.e. this one) takes on part of the role of an existing discussion thread with no clear boundaries of where to draw the line between which discussion should be posted here and which should be posted on the main regular savers thread.

The boundaries on my threads alone are quite clear, all discussion about regular savers goes on the main regular savers discussion thread and the archived thread is for briefly mentioning when a regular saver is launched, withdrawn or sees a change in interest rate only. By introducing a third thread into the equation such as this and inviting it for chat in this way, it leaves those boundaries rather ambiguous.

I can not say I have ever had much sympathy with the approach of ``if it ain't broke don't fix it" in general, indeed for an anecdote many might've taken that approach with branch banking at one time and said "well our customers can do everything they need in branch, so why should we bother with changing our processes and rolling out a new fangled online system for opening and managing accounts? Why should we bother investing time and money in producing an app when branch/post will do? We shouldn't try to confuse matters by changing the way we operate." I would be surprised if the majority on here now wish the banks had taken that approach then, indeed it might've been somewhat difficult to hold such large numbers of regular savers if each required a branch visit to open and manage.

My approach more generally is that those managing anything have a duty first and foremost to serve the best interests of those who use their service. In the case of the regular savers threads I run, I would consider my aim therefore to be to provide a set of regular savers threads that is as useful as possible to as many people as possible whilst being careful not to undermine its usefulness to others. I therefore take a different approach to what has been taken here, which is more along the lines of "it may not be broken but that doesn't mean it can't be further improved to better serve those who use it." Indeed I have often tweaked my own threads as I've gone along for this reason, and more thought has gone into each aspect than might initially appear, even the titles of my threads were chosen very carefully, I would hope my threads are better off as a result of my my efforts to improve them. But I digress.

I would consider it worth acknowledging at this point that attempting to please all people at all times is an impossible task, to give a pertinent example over the last 24 hours alone I have received several private messages from a number of different users of this forum, their views have ranged from wishing to divide regular saver discussion into many different threads and have expressed their support the this thread in its current but stated it should go further than it currently does. Others have expressed a view that they feel this thread has gone much too far, should never have been allowed to get to this stage and should be closed with immediate effect with Bobblehat's work discontinued as part of this.

I must confess I find myself increasingly beginning to sympathise with those in the latter category and suspect my life might have been easier had this thread not been launched in the first place. I think it's a pit that I have had to come to this view, but it is what it is.

I should've thought that my suggestion of having a no chat version of this thread, in which Bobblehat's list is on page 1 and people post with only updates to their totals, with any discussion surrounding regular savers kept on the existing top regular savers discussion thread, as it has been for many months (and years if you include Special_Saver2's versions of the thread), would've been a fair compromise. It would've satisfied the demand for Bobblehat's list to exist, kept the posts of "I've got x number of regular savers" in one place on a separate thread, thus decluttering the main thread, whilst simultaneously keeping any discussion about regular savers in general in one place, satisfying the demand to have one thread they can subscribe to to get all the details of people's regular savers experiences. Everything would've been clearly defined, well organised and we could've all got on with our forum activities without further issues had this idea been entertained and I feel both threads might've been able to complement each other. I find it regrettable that this has not come to pass.

Instead we now have a scenario in which there are in effect two regular saver discussion threads with the boundaries between them blurred and overlapping. There's now no single person who can decide on the boundaries between them and thus a potential free for all to decide what the boundaries should be as time goes on and I don't think it's unreasonable to fear there'll be many debates over what should be posted where as time goes on which could blight both threads.

Therefore I felt I had little choice in the end but to withdraw from the league table when I did, and would say that the most recent restructuring of this thread and the way it has been carried out certainly does feel like a slap in the face to be perfectly honest.

alfred64

Just let it go. Its not worth getting upset about. Let them do what they want with this thread and continue with your own Regular savers threads.

Kim_13

My observation in this thread has been that it can be more of a running commentary (which users of The Top Regular Savers Discussion Thread tend not to like, e.g. when there are many "opened and funded" posts, or too much around one institution/RS.) I would expect to visit that thread to get help with any issues I might have in getting accounts up and running or in managing a maturity, but wouldn't expect the audience of the main thread to want to hear about endeavours to have one account maturing each month or what is maturing when.

A few months ago there was some discussion around values, but it was considered show off ish. So I can see why others may have felt, rightly or wrongly, that the main thread was not the appropriate place for something that leans more towards whimsical banter (to borrow a description from another thread) rather than discussion. 

dcs34

Respectfully, I think you should be enthusiastic for the regular saver league table thread to be as far away from the main chat thread as possible to save yourself the brain capacity for maintaining it. Since it's basically a 'meta' thread about people's acquisitions of regular savers, I would wager that a lot of people interested in regular saver accounts (for, let's be honest, purely selfish purposes) aren't bothered how many accounts Dave from Stratford opened last month. But they might be interested if he popped into a branch of Building Society X and was told about a forthcoming new product, or if he had a particular odd experience providing maturity instructions online which might apply or benefit other people, which is what your main thread caters for brilliantly (with the added benefit it is all in one handy place for those of us regular-saver obsessives). Then those who just want the 'headlines' of products being launched or withdrawn can rely on the 'No Chat' version.

Ongoing monthly / weekly tracking of accounts for multiple forumers will add dozens of posts to the regular saver thread each day which have (respectfully) limited value to most other posters, but are interesting enough for the hardcore group who want to track and 'gamify' such things (as is their right to do of course!). An equivalent thread is the monthly premium bond prize winning thread - a nice discussion for sure but not exactly a must-read thread for the latest savings insights.

Or reaching for another anology, the main thread is the BBC News page, the No Chat thread is the ticker, and this thread is a comments section. All serve a useful - but distinct - purpose, and would all be weaker if merged together.

I would also add that this forum, like many, is essentially a collectivist endeavour without a sole auteur and if OPs want to run their threads a certain way that's entirely their prerogative, unless and until MSE staff intervene (and I don't think this case justifies it).

All said with the utmost respect for your dedication to regular savers and this forum!

s71hj

Kim_13 said:

My observation in this thread has been that it can be more of a running commentary (which users of The Top Regular Savers Discussion Thread tend not to like, e.g. when there are many "opened and funded" posts, or too much around one institution/RS.) I would expect to visit that thread to get help with any issues I might have in getting accounts up and running or in managing a maturity, but wouldn't expect the audience of the main thread to want to hear about endeavours to have one account maturing each month or what is maturing when.

A few months ago there was some discussion around values, but it was considered show off ish. So I can see why others may have felt, rightly or wrongly, that the main thread was not the appropriate place for something that leans more towards whimsical banter (to borrow a description from another thread) rather than discussion. 

The trouble is that before we know it people will be saying "this isn't about the number of regular savers you have" on this thread. Initially I thought that this thread was the popcorn to the movie main thread. And I don't mean that to be insulting or patronising, it seemed that was all this thread intended to be. It now seems to be edging into more than just how many regular savers do you have. I've always been of the view there should be huge tolerance in the main thread whether it's giving a nice little tip or hack to help your  friends/community on there like the multiple Cahoot 5% trick, the multiple 6% Edge saver hack or OK, it doesn't help me to know you've got away with the Principality thing too, but it takes me a second or 2 to scroll past it and glad to hear etc. Or I have a brilliant spreadsheet I don't need to hear about what is in yours. However Bridlington1 (who by the way has reached predictive text status on my phone memory) is pretty balanced in letting these types of discussion run for a well judged period of time before intervening, like the best managers I have worked for have always been.
I'll say one other thing, the quality of the main thread, and I think we should appreciate this, is simply breathtaking. It's so easy to take for granted but this is just a chat forum and a person in their own time, often their lunch hour produces something of a Money-saving Expert, Moneyfacts type of quality. I would hate to risk losing that. 

clairec666

Bridlington1 said:

clairec666 said:

I quite like how the "main" thread is the place to go for facts, T&Cs, news about new accounts, etc., and this one is for general chat about how many accounts everyone has.

I'm afraid I can not agree with you on that one, for the reasons I should like to outline below:
...

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I think it's fine for the two threads to run concurrently. No need to dwell over the finer points of it.

nomorekids

Another vote for Bridlington1, I don't care about how many anyone has especially when the number includes regular savers at lower interest than easy access just for the sake of keeping the number of regular savers high. This thread can get personal and is in fact personal, the whole "how many have you got?" is about the saver. The main threads full of information as well as banter is about the savings accounts and institutions themselves. Nothing gets personal there, sadly not the case here. 
=

masonic

Personally, I've posted my numbers to the other thread too. Someone was making the point that if they have a significant sum to save they'd be better off fixing, and a collection of RS with low deposit limits would not be worth bothering with. What better way to challenge that, but with some actual numbers?

I've also personally witnessed the uproar and clashes in the other thread that resulted in a significant moderation event last month and warning from the forum team. This was done in a very even-handed and lenient manner. Patience like that will not be unlimited. While that incident did take the biscuit, I've witnessed the same behaviour over minor transgressions on several occasions. I am perplexed as to why, given @Bridlington1 has on several occasions expressed a desire to tolerate ancillary digressions within limits, others seem unwilling to follow that lead. I'm left to wonder, if not for the back-seat moderation, would this thread exist?

I can see this once again spiralling out of control, so these will be my last words on the matter: let's think about the possible downstream consequences of our actions before doing anything that may stir the pot.