It’s pretty obvious that many of the reviews on free trial system are shill reviews by the vendor. I would think it prudent to abolish free systems excluding the autotrade fx in which a pip is paid for order flow. It seems made for abuse. It’s obvious that quite a few systems with glowing feedback have few legitimate subscribers.
I agree to the fact that it is obvious many of the reviews are shill reviews. But you can’t put rules on other signals just because you disagree with the methodoligy. If you could I would make a rule you can’t have signals you have never traded. That would apply to you. If the glowing feedback is so obvious why would you even need to put rules on them?
Making an analogy between shill reviews and a vendor not taking a published trade is ridiculous. FWIW, I personally trade each signal my system generates, not that it makes any difference with respect to the topic at-hand.
I have to agree with Stone Hedge. I think subscriber reviews are most reliable from subscribers who are paying the regular subscription run rate and have also been trading the system longer than the trial period. I see many reviews that go something like this: “I have been subscribing for a few weeks and so far this system is really rad. It seems like its going to make a gazillion dollars.” These reviews are not particularly helpful because the subscriber is basing the review on some short-term results. Newbies might be unduly influenced by the whimsical short-term focus from a subscriber who hasnt yet shown that he/she has a long-term focus or commitment to that particular system.
Disclosure [for the other part of this thread]: I don’t “talk my book” but I do “trade my book”. 
Chris I understand and completely agree with everything you have said in this response. However you can’t abolish free trial periods! That was the suggestion at the start of this thread. Newbies are going to find loopholes and figure out ways to loose money no matter how hard you try to protect them. Free trial periods are not an evil, sinister plot to take newbies money.
Hi Richard,
Perhaps I did not carefully read all of the posts on this thread before replying. I think that offering free trials for a system is fine. I think the biggest issue is allowing subscribers who have only used the free trial to write a system review. If Collective2 can change the review process to only allow a subscriber to write a system review after being charged for the first or second period (monthly or quarterly) subscription, then the review will be more reliable because it comes from someone who is actually paying to follow that system (which they apparently find to be of value).
This obviously won’t stop shills that are willing to be charged a time or two at the regular subscription run rate, but it may cut down on the “silly” reviews that I referred to in my previous post.
"I think the biggest issue is allowing subscribers who have only used the free trial to write a system review. "
Agree. Free trial people are not subscribers. If someone has to pay $95 for a month, they are far less likely to be a rival vendor with an axe to grind OR clueless newbies, who confuse their own misunderstanding with a vendor flaw OR even vendors, who will have to pay 30% to MK…
We have asked this a few times, but not hearing anything from MK
Thanks for the input, guys. My concern is reviews while on free trials, but also obvious shill reviews from vendors disguised as legitimate clients. As suggested, I think it’s prudent to limit subscriber reviews to paying clients. I recall two vendors fighting it on with bad free-trial reviews (TLG and QID?).
Hey, I had already posted this request under a thread I think that was called no reviews for free trial subscribers. Basically these were the same conclusions. A free trial subscriber should not be allowed to post a review, and I completely agree. I don’t do free trial subscriptions anymore because of they have caused both vendors and silly subscribers to post bad reviews.–Beau
I recall seeing TMG’s review on your system, which led me to author this thread. “Free-trialers” had no vested interest and therefore should have no voice.
