This is enough!!!
The Matthew Graham, who apologized for his behavior and said he would fly straight is still at at it with the fake page views. Now his Doubleday Trend Spotting service is up to over 7500 views in about 4 days of operation. The systems are being renamed away from Graham, but nothing has changed.
When are his services going to be taken down???
Calm down, Ross.
Graham uses an auto-refresh feature on his browser to reload pages every so often. Over the weekend, I wrote new software which prevents these reloads from counting as page views. So the number of page views you see were garnered before the software went into effect. I am out of the office this week, but when I return I will clean all of Graham’s systems and restore them to zero page views. I can’t do it right now, but will get to it soon.
On a go-forward basis, the problem is solved, since refreshes won’t be counted as page views.
ok. MG said earlier he had no concept about fake reviews and extremely high page views. Some of his systems have minimal views, some have into the thousands. If this hadn’t been from somone with fake page reviews and fake user IDs, it would have had a lot better appearance!!!
I have to say, I traded barbs with Ross earlier. But, upon further review, I have to say, I kinda dig the watch dog. I admit, Ross did uncover a rat, but then on 2nd thought, I have to ask; " who the flip is gonna subscribe to a 33% system anyway?
Ross, ya won the war, but you sure did beat a dead horse. I think I read all your posts, it got boring in the end.
There is an expression in Spanish, " some people can’t walk by a pile of dog shit without putting a stick in it"
Jon
There is another expression; " live your life, not mine"
I think it was okay for a couple of posts, but then rehasing more of the same thing over and over again became extremely boring. With the threat of a libel/slander lawsuit looming in the air, I guess all the parties involved are going to be forced to heavily trade using C2 systems in order to raise money to cover attorney fees.
First, the plaintiff is going to have to muster up $15K or more in order to find a young and hungry attorney willing to file a proper complaint sounding in tort. Then the plaintiff is going to have to muster up the cash for interrogatories and depositions, most of which will have to take place in another state. Of course, the plaintiff is going to have to prove damages… and wasting his time voluntarily arguing instead of making money isn’t considered damages. In the end, there might be a $1.00 verdict, if he’ lucky… and it won’t include attorney’s fees. So, who are we kidding here?
Anyway, I hope the whole thing goes away now, and people who want to subscribe to a losing system [ignoring all the stats that C2 provides, in the process] can do so, because this is a free country and we should stop trying to protect people from themselves.
There’s a Spanish saying for all this… “el pelotudo sigue caminando.”
Um, Lew, my main system, Trend Spotting, is up more than 60%.
"Um, Lew, my main system, Trend Spotting, is up more than 60%"
Then maybe both plaintiff and defendant should subscribe to that system in a race to see who can raise enough attorney’s fees to file a tort claim first.
By the way, I rented your system’s DVD through NetFlix. Train Spotting was an excellent movie. Thank you for turning it into a trading system.
Since Matthew Klein explained that the number of page views was actually caused by a C2 bug, I would think that Ross himself might receive a lawsuit, as he accused Graham of fraud with this. And (unlike Graham) he didn’t apologize. Subscribing to your own system and writing positively about it is not fraud. Using different aliases is quite common on internet and in writing, so I would be surprised if a court considered this fraud.
> Subscribing to your own system and writing positively about it is not fraud.
Ross beat a dead horse, but this IS unethical. Come on, it’s NOT
OK.
Oh, yes, I agree with that. It is certainly not what we want on C2 and it is good that Ross caught him. But I was talking about the legal matters. I can hardly imagine that US law would consider this "fraud".
>Um, Lew, my main system, Trend Spotting, is up more than 60%.
Does your “main system” change depending what’s up? I see another system of yours in DD:
13.74% (20060705 to 20060711)
I guess this is like Pal’s theory: run enough systems one will
always look good.
Playing the devil’s advocate a little longer: If he had written positive reviews under his own name, it wouldn’t be unethical but just a special form of advertising. Do you agree with that? But then, writing under another name is also quite normal imho. It is the combination of giving himself a positive review and using a different name what makes it deceptive. Well, you probably know US laws better than I do; do you think that an accusation of fraud against Graham would stand in court?
My main systems are Trend Spotting. Market Neutral is my second system. The others are mainly for testing purposes.
No it would not, as no one subscribed during the period of time in which the reviews were up.
> My main systems are Trend Spotting. Market Neutral is my second system. The others are mainly for testing purposes.
OK, so:
"On July 16, 2006, the subscription charges will change to the following:
The cost of a subscription to Managed Equities is $99 per month. We charge your credit card at the beginning of each month automatically. You may…"
Can I use a “testing purposes” credit card #?
And if “Managed Equities” starts to do well I’m sure you will never
tout it, right?
Realism Factor 26.9
Annualized % -62.35% over 12 days
If someone wants to subscribe that is up to them of course. Obviously if a testing system performs well over an extended period of time then it will no longer be in test mode.
??? Then who is Jimmy Perko?
I have no idea. Not me. I looked him up, there are about 8 James Perko’s nationwide. I couldn’t write like him even if I wanted to.
Guys, I apologized for my actions. I apologize again. I probably will keep on apologizing. But there’s nothing I can do at this point. I hope we can move on.
No it would not, as no one subscribed during the period of time in which the reviews were up.
Yes, in your manner of thinking, reviewing your own system under a falsified name is OK, as long as you had no subscribers yet. Thanks for clarifying that.
I did not say it was ok. I addressed the legal question. Obviously it was not okay. That’s why I apologized.
