No, your posts are not being ignored. Actually, we appreciate them all - even the negative ones. (Well, maybe we appreciate those a bit less than the positive feedback. …Should positive feedback ever arrive.)
But here’s how it works in real life. We try to listen to your feedback. Really. Neither me, nor Matt, nor Francis, nor Bohuslav, nor Melissa – nor any of the people we work with at C2 – are dummies. We are extremely aware that you are the customer, and because of you, we pay our mortgages.
Some of your suggestions we will agree with. Some we won’t. Some we will be unsure about, and some we will need to mull over. Those ideas we agree with need to be prioritized based on resources available, and resources required to implement. Some things are relatively easy fixes (though some that seem easy are surprisingly time-consuming: making fonts bigger, for example).
In other words, some development efforts we can do right away, and some – even though we think they are really good suggestions – need to wait a bit longer.
And then there are other business, economic, and technical realities impinging on these decisions, some of which may not be obvious to a user of the site.
But we do try to listen to your feedback. Just a few examples of changes we’ve made to the new site, based on your feedback:
+ Just this week, we implemented a new navigation scheme, much more like the “old” site, with a very consistent list along the left side of the screen.
+ A new all-my-systems-at-a-glance table in the dashboard, which now contains open and closed P/L numbers. Plus you can unfold the list on the dashboard and see all open positions for all systems – on one screen.
+ A new draggable “breadcrumb” trail along the top of the screen. See a system in the trail? You can drag and drop it into your watch list, or even onto a big system chart (which launches the Portfolio Maker).
+ Almost all system references are draggable. Drag any system reference into a chart to start fooling around with portfolio weightings.
+ OCA orders now supported in the new order entry screen.
+ A new affiliate program that allows you to build your own version of Collective2 - with your own logos, colors, name, etc. If you are a system developer, you can hide all systems other than yours (and perhaps a carefully selected set of complementary systems).
In addition to all this, we’ll be rolling out some new broker relationships and other not-yet-announced features.
Now, listen, I hear the general complaints. I cannot ignore them. Some of you are saying, "Yeah, those features are great … but the screens give me headaches, and the font is too small, and the colors are nauseating…"
Okay, fair enough. We’ll try to iterate those issues, and make things easier to read. That may mean some more rejiggering of layouts and style sheets, etc. That’s not trivial to implement, so it may take a bit of time, but please don’t think we’re ignoring your feedback.
It’s your feedback that allows us to build a site that people want to spend time on – which is the ultimate goal shared by everyone here at C2.
Matthew
nice new features, MK
Mathew I would like to see you do a study on color and its effects on physiology. I believe at the very least you could benefit from some minor changes to the color. The previous post on the attraction of the new web site is an indication this should be done.
I just googled color theory and within 3 minutes learned a great deal.
Thanks for the great work and all you do.
Rick Haines
I think the look and operation of the new site are great. However, it would be even better if relational stop order could be placed via the web-site as well as via the API.
A couple of my systems rely on tight stops so I’d like to be able to place a market order with a X% stop via the web-site.
You can indeed place relational stops using the Web site’s order entry. Values are by dollar amount, not percent.
So for, example, if you enter an order like this:
Buy To Open 100 shares IBM at limit 90
You can enter your stop-loss like this:
Sell To Close at Stop "T-1.50"
This will automatically make your stop whatever the order entry price turns out to be, minus $1.50.
You could set your profit target like this: “T + 2.20” which is the “trade price” (thus the T) that you entered the position, plus $2.20.
Also, you can specify a relative stop or limit based on the market opening price that day.
So, for example, let’s say you enter an order to Buy at Market – but you enter it before the market opens. Thus you have no idea at what price you will be filled, but you still want to set relative stops.
Then you would enter your stop like this:
O - 3.00
Which would set your stop loss at whatever the opening price is, minus $3.00.
I realize now, as I write this, that this is one of the many very cool features that we spent maybe a hundred hours developing, but then did not adequately document, so that very few people even know about it. We’ll try to add some more online help over the next few weeks.
It is now possible to click the Show More button to increase the amount of Chatter that is displayed. Press it a few times to increase the chatter area even further. Eventually you’ll cycle back to the “Show Less” button.
Great. Thank you. Maybe you can develop it so that percent can also be used in the futre.
Good work!
C2 definitely needs the O - 10% functionality. Manually calculating the SL or PT on numerous transactions is too labour intensive.
IMO, the new site is lacking the benefits of a HomePage, which in the old site served as a clear starting point, and gave a sense of community, general activity, and clear sense of what Collective2 is all about.
When a new user enters the new site, they begin with that terribly ugly black and grey page that offers the choice to find or sell a system.
Sorry to say, I’m not sure there is a more threatening entry page on the internet. (Abandon hope all ye who enter here into this darkness!)
Then leave that page, and how do you ever get back to it? Where should a user go? Your only choice is the Dashboard, which doesn’t provide the information what was nicely packaged in the old home page.
Matthew and crew need to get in touch with a good art director experienced in web design and navigation.
I must disagree with your opinion about the front “splash” page. I personally like it, and just to show you what an impossible task it is to ask several thousand people for their artistic opinions, we’ve had other people suggest that the dark gray splash page serve as a template for the rest of the site! So there’s no way to win that discussion.
Now, regarding the old “home” versus the new “dashboard” page: The new dashboard contains all of the same nicely packaged info as the old “home” page, plus more. I’m not sure what you think is missing. It has additional functionality, such as the ability to see all your positions for all your systems at one glance – which, by the way, is dynamically updated in background without requiring you to reload the page.
Matthew
Matthew,
I suggest you conduct a poll on this forum to see which site format subscribers and vendors prefer, the old or the new one. That does not mean that certain improvements, like the one of the grid, should not be incorporated into the old site. I have a feeling you are afraid of the results.
The reason that we won’t be conducting a poll is that the results of such a poll are not really actionable. The old site, and the old software code base, will be shut down. That’s a decision I’ve had to make, for all sorts of reasons that may not be apparent to users of the site. It may seem misguided or even weirdly intransigent to you – and if that’s the case, I apologize – but there’s nothing that will change that decision. There are a lot of technical and business reasons the old site will need to be phased out.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not sticking my fingers in my ears and refusing to listen to customer feedback. Everyone here on our small team at C2 has been working hard over the past several months to make sure that the new site has all of the stuff that you like about the old site, plus a lot of new functionality that is even better than what existed before.
As always, keep the feedback coming. Some we’ll agree with, some we won’t; but it’s all appreciated and studied thoughtfully.
Matthew
a few suggestions which readily come to mind that I don’t think are now possible on current C2 site for incorporation into the C2 v2010 release:
1. the ability to “scale up” a system to a higher dollar amount of starting capital (if not in a live system, minimally in a test system when all trades are erased).
2. be able to kill / delete a system that has open positions without having to pay a renewing fee first only to then kill a system just doesn’t make sense from a customer point of view.
3. make a system be able to start off with or be able to scale up to a larger portfolio value than current $500,000 limitation. (ie $1,000,000).
What was driving the redesign, exactly? Was it the code of the site layout? The back-end? Regulatory requirements?
I think a lot of our apprehension comes from the fact that to all of the hardest criticism, you have only vaguely answered with “this is the decision I’ve made for reasons I won’t go into.” If we treat that as a tone-deaf response, perhaps that’s because it is. Depending on the reasons behind the decision, we, the users, may be more patient, ,or better yet, help you come up with a solution that meets both our needs.
For example, if the problem were the back-end, then one potential solution might be to hook in the old layout into the new back-end, with the understanding that because of your scarce programming resources, the old site would not be further upgraded. That’s fine; most of the new site features are not compelling enough for me to switch (and I sense that other share this view).
If the problem were because of regulatory matters, perhaps educating us on how the new site fulfills those requirements and the old site does not can help us brainstorm for a mutually acceptable solution.
And if the problem resided in the code of the front-end, that doesn’t seem so onerous of a problem that it demanded a redesign from scratch.
In short, more communication is better than less communication. We don’t know what was behind the change other than vague references to the scalability of the old code and unmentionable business drivers. You’ve mentioned before that your programmers have been working behind the scenes on a lot of improvements, but you rarely share what those improvements are (besides the occasional bug fix). How about a change log, or a blog where you can announce new developments and features? We’re in the dark, here.
Think of this like a credit card company changing its terms on you without notification. It doesn’t exactly engender trust, either in the action itself or potential future actions. Especially when the competition isn’t doing the same.
You’ve shown irritation with my posts in the past, so don’t worry–this will be my final plea for compromise.
Hi, Matt, I attempted to use the link www.pairstradingqidqld2.collective2.com and it did not work. Only the old one worked, at www.collective2.com/go/pairsqidqld2
Guess I should have waited on that, the www part doesn’t work.
I take it back, the new link only works if you are already logged in. Will you please fix this?
It works in Firefox, but not explorer. Firefox also does not work with the www.
I agree, the new “preview” site is unforgiving on the eyes.
Text is extremely difficult to read in many areas, either too small, or down right fuzzy.
When I noticed it was too hard to read the text, I stopped using it, and went back to good 'ole “creaky” C2.
