While we’re on the topic of changes to the site, I really think the change to having the reviews be by invitation only has resulted in very few reviews being written. It seems like the same 4 reviews have been on the home page for the past month or two. I know that personally I only write reviews when I have a strong opinion about a system, and that time usually does not coincide with the time I get an invite to review that system.
I understand the reasoning behind the change – to prevent bogus reviews. I don’t know of a good way to prevent that, but I guess if visitors have more reviews to read through then they should be able to pick out any that don’t seem to fit.
I don’t want to seem like I’m just griping about what is wrong with C2. There is lot to love about C2 and I think just a few minor changes like this can make it better.
Im tottaly agree. I dont know why is not possible to write a review of the system that you want and when you want. For example i could do a few reviews of systems, that would be very usefull for the users of C2, some of the hidden risk of systems, and others of the hidden gems of systems, but i cant write nothing…
Fully agree - I have three systems, two of which have been at C2 for a year or more, and yet I have had only one person be asked to write a review (even though the systems have typically had from 20-70 subscribers at any given time). Why not allow subscribers to post reviews as they see fit?
Although preventing bogus reviews looks reasonable, I believe the main reason for C2 to prevent submitting reviews is for marketing. I am a long time subscriber and I can say that most systems available here are really bad. Just make a simple search on grid with following criteria: Age: >365, Ann. Return >40, Max Drawdown <20 and Calmar Ratio >2. There are only 9 systems. If you drop the Ann Return to >30, systems available are only 13 and believe me most of them are not even tradable when you inestigate the peformance in detail. So, when there are only a handful of tradable systems available, writing bad reviews (which are genuine ) affect the income of C2.
Very good point. From a marketing perspective the reviews should not be on the home page, since there are bound to be negative ones regardless if they are by invitation or not. I looked at a competitive site (which I’m not going to name here) and on their home page they list the top 8 traders (not sure if by performance or popularity or both) and then when you click on one of them there are a ton of reviews – mostly positive because they are from a top-performing trader.
Gary
@Ali:
If a system is not producing a minimum of 30% annually, it is “Really Bad”?
@Phylum
If you return 20% with less than 10% drawdown, that’s fine too. Can you find such a system here? Return alone is meaningless. That’s why I’ve put other criteria, too. ps. Even 20% return with 20% dd produces only 13 systems on grid out of thousands of systems and only a few of them worth watching!!!
