One of my habbits is to look at trading systems on this site, add them to favorites and look at their progress at the and of every month - good or bad.
When I was looking at a system called “USD 45 CHARGE AT C2” which developer I thought was very good, as he was capable to make profits during this month after having a drawdown, I saw that in list THERE ARE 2 SYSTEMS with very similar names!!!
Now you might think, there is nothing strange with that to have 2 sistems? Well there is, becasue system developer is very clever and he use 2 nicknames, so one nickname per system. Both systems and developer names are very similar, so can very easily confuse potential subscribers.
Take a look at them:
http://www.collective2.com/cgi-perl/system59871481
http://www.collective2.com/cgi-perl/system60083885
P.S. I don’t want to attack anyone here, just want to protect potential subscribers.
I think that what might be happening is that the author created a very similar system on www.youtualfunds.com and then took advantage of the ‘free’ capability for mirroring this new fund back to www.collective2.com, thus ending up with two almost identical funds.
I did this myself, but at least my youtualfund.com fund was different enough that it provided value when mirrored back to collective2 … giving me three active systems instead of just the two that I had paid for.
Note also that the author must have used slightly different logons between collective2 and youtualfunds (e.g., might have used the Facebook logon option as I did originally). This causes a situation in which there appear to be two collective2 authors, possibly with identical names, but who have different C2 scores since collective2 doesn’t recognize that the youtualfund logon is in fact identical. This happened to me and I had to have help to get my logons synchronized. This kind of situation definitely causes confusion, and the ultimate answer is to provide a single logon to the ‘pair’ of sites (collective2 and youtualfunds).
I have no opinion about “fraud” but there is definitely confusion which is at least as bad from the subscriber’s viewpoint.
Bad example:
sp500-trading vs. sp500 trading
This is all too common here at Collective2. My suggestions:
1. The name of every system should be prefaced with a distinctive vendor identification. The vendor also could be allowed to edit this “identifier” at any time, as he wishes.
Good examples:
Shulenberg 2-ETFs
or SCHUL 2-ETFs
2. Making the ambiguity worse, in the Watch List in the left margin of this website, the names are over-abbreviated. So what little there is to distinguish systems, becomes even less. A full 2 or even 3 lines can be allowed to spell out the name of the system. This does not take up any significant space or CPU!
Bad examples:
sp500…ing.com
S&P…Timer
These are all I have to identify two of the items in my watchlist. Why, I don’t know.
