Dear C2,
May I suggest posting the # of subscribers for each system. I believe this can be a good indicator on how well the system works.
regards,
Ben
Vendors (and C2 likely as well) will be unhappy to have these statistics exposed in absolute numbers. Therefore I would suggest to show the number of subscribers to a system as a percentage of all active C2 subscribers. So, suppose at some point C2 has a total of 1,000 active subscribers of which 10 are subscribed to system X; In that case it would be helpful to know that system X attracted 1% of all active subscribers.
But then, every vendor can figure out what the absolute numbers are. He knows how many subscribers he has, and what percentage this is, so he can compute what the total is, and after that he can compute the absolute numbers of other systems too.
IMHO there is already too much impact of popularity via the Grid. I don’t see why the impact should become even larger. You can judge the system by its statistics. Why is the number or percentage of subscibers relevant?
> If there are a ton of subs, the likelihood of slippage goes up…
No, you don’t know that. A one thousand lot trader has a 10X impact
compared to one hundred one lot traders. Moreover, when possible,
C2 provides real slippage info already.
I can see why persons looking for a system to subscribe to would like to know how many subscribers a system has. It would also be helpful for those promoting a system to know this. Currently, I have no way to determine if any vendors here are making money. There is evidently some reason why vendors don’t want others to know how many subscribers they have, so I don’t expect C2 to publish this information.
It would be helpful to know the total number of subscribers C2 has but like the vendors they may have reasons they don’t want other’s to know this. So my suggestion is that C2 provide a list of systems with the most subscribers. Don’t identify them, just rank them say 1-10. It would look like this:
1. 30
2. 25
3. 23
4. 21
5. 19
6. 17
7. 15
8. 14
9. 12
10. 11
I have no idea if the real list would be better or worse than the one above. Anyone have an opinion? But if it was comparable I would have some reason to think that if I have a profitable system that I could make money with it here on C2. On the other hand, if no one on the top 10 had more than 5 subscribers I probably wouldn’t try to promote my system here. But without this information I’m clueless. I would appreciate feedback from those that think C2 is effective in getting subscribers for profitable systems.
> If there are a ton of subs, the likelihood of slippage goes up.
I’m wrong. By a “ton” I guess you mean 2000 subscribers?
So slippage might be higher. You are right.
Anyway, private companies don’t have to share
their income with the public. I’m curious too, but I can see
why MK and vendors don’t want to share that info with the
world.
You’re right. Perhaps the ranking idea proposed in this thread would be an alternative?
How or what does the C2 ranking by each name mean? I’ve often wondered that.
Follow the link "Collective2 ratings" on the left under "Features".
2ST
Therefore I would suggest to show the number of subscribers to a system as a percentage of all active C2 subscribers.
Percentage of TC per system per total C2’s TC might be interesting, but it’s private data of subscribers.
I still don’t see any point in revealing number of subscribers per system. In general it’s irrelevant to the system stats without additional disclosure subscribers info.
Eu
P.S. And it’s really funny when a trader is so care about number of subscribers at C2. Hmmm… and boring. Trade your precious system. Trade it and don’t waste your time at C2.
P.S.S. To subscribers: “A million lemmings can’t be wrong …” © 
If you want to know if subscribers stick to the system, then it doesn’t really help to know how many subscribers there are. There can be 100 subscriber who each stay one day or 3 subscribers who stay their whole life. It is more interesting to know the percentage subscribers that stays subscribed for at least, say, 3 months.
Ok,
Two things here. First why doesn’t the creator come back and say officially what the bet is. He started it. Second, who here thinks that my system “slow and steady” will be more likely to hit and stay at 400K then 6 Sigma?
Craig
Sorry meant to post this in the Sigma forum.
Craig
It is not appropriate in either place.
It won’t work Jules, however you give me an idea.
It’s really boring to watch the question about subscribers per system every few months. So why to not introduce Money sense/Satisfaction factor? It’s very simple:
SF=Total paid money per system / Subscription fee / number of paid subscribers / subscription terms.
I.e.
System subscription is $10 per months.
Subscriber 1 paid: $30
Subscriber 2 : $20
Subscriber 3: $10
SF= 60/10/3/3=0.667
It would be nice to have the same pop up as for APD. Percentage of systems up and bellow the level.
What it gives to potential subscriber?
Real thoughts of other subscribers that paid for a system. You have to agree that real payment and useless speaking are different things. If people pay for a system from their money probably they cover their expenses on subscription fee.
What it gives to a system vendor?
Probably nothing. I feel that I’m digging a grave for myself
However introducing the simple stats might help a lot.
The first: It’s not sharing any private info or a system vendor or a subscriber, but it gives an answer of subscribers activity.
The second: It might help to find good systems that performs well, but not very visitable at C2.
Eu
Suppose that subscriber #3 subscribed at the 3rd month of the system. Then the fact that this person subscribed and paid his fee made the SF lower, because without him the SF would have been 0.833 instead of 0.667. So SF says that it is a bad sign that subscriber #3 subscribed and paid?
I like my own suggestion more. Please explain why you say it won’t work.
Suppose that subscriber #3 subscribed at the 3rd month of the system. Then the fact that this person subscribed and paid his fee made the SF lower
Yep. I think it’s reasonable, because probably only paid subscriber trades a system. If by whatever reason #3 doesn’t want to trade it the SF will reflect his/her hesitations.
Please explain why you say it won’t work.
imho, you didn’t consider turn over of trial subscribers. I think my proposal is more realistic, because it includes only opinions of somebody who waste a few cents on a system.
Eu
I agree that my suggestion should count paying subscribers only.
Wrt. to your suggestion: I don’t think that it is reasonable to “punish” a system if someone subscribes to the system.
Well… probably I had to explain its better. I proposed draft opinion that is opened for any criticizing or modifications. There is simple reason for that I don’t have a data to back test it
Main idea is very simple. Turnover ratio of paid subscribers per a system will give you realistic opinion of people who try to trade the system and found the system unprofitable. There is very simple logic if a person started to pay for a system and after some period of time the person stopped to pay for the system. Probably the person didn’t find the system profitable for him/her self. What it gives as stats? It will give real subscribers opinions about a system. It’ll show not tradeable systems whatever stats the systems have at C2. “Punished” will be only systems that have high ratio of subscriber who left the system.
I understand that my proposal isn’t very ideal, but probably after clarification of main idea it’s possible to fix.
IMHO, what any subscriber is interested is how many people failed to trade particular system in real life, not number of subscribers at current moment.
Eu
P.S. It won’t help in case of volcano systems.
