I think that the methodology for calculating the C2 score really needs to be updated. I was looking at some of the angry reviews of followers who have clearly not had a great experience in Faith in Research and note it had a down 69.9% May followed by a down 153.8% June (to 07June11) and yet still has a C2 score of 990.
You have a mechanism for searching that gives a system that completely took down all of its followers in the space of two months still having a 99% rating? Seriously?
Clearly a huge element of the score is due to the number of live traders following the system.
My system’s (Kodiak2) C2 score massively increased with followers when performance was pretty quiet. Why is number of followers a contributory factor at all? - I remember Matt sending out a note on previous systems that have blown up that retained high C2 scores and all this seems to tell me is that lots of people have lost real money on the system. This is not a great advertisement for the C2 score!
I think the way this number is currently calculated is harming unsophisticated investors using this site rather than helping their decision making process.
This is because it is directing people to the systems with the pretty upward trending performance graphs and loads of followers i.e. the easy sells. These are the systems that again and again blow up, inevitably resulting in upset followers.
I would welcome yours (and others) views on this.
[LINKSYSTEM_56316039]
It would be helpful to know the formula for the C2 score, so the user can decide the validity to their own circumstance.
Matthew is aware of the problems.
http://www.collective2.com/forum?call-for-c2-score-algorithm
Thank you Dennis - I hadnt seen that thread.
