@Matthew,
I would recommend only allowing reviews to be made on systems that are >6 months old, AND, only allow reviews to be made by subscribers/autotraders who have been with the system for at least 3 months.
Just a thought. I think some of these reviews are ridiculous/bogus. 5 stars for a system which is barely 30 days old and stating its the best system on C2.
I know it’s hard and almost impossible to completely deter people from making bogus reviews, but I think there should be some minimum requirements to be able to post a review.
Yes, I’m very soon going to be adding restrictions to review-writing privileges in order to prevent some of these ridiculous abuses.
Good to hear. Thanks 
Hi Matthew,
I wanted to see if any restrictions are going to be set in place for "reviews". I know we talked about this a few months back.
Thanks,
Adrian
Hi, Adrian -
I appreciate your suggestions regarding restrictions on who should be allowed to write reviews. I hope you will keep your suggestions coming. Right now, I don’t have plans to modify the criteria for who is allowed to review systems. We do already have certain restrictions in place, and these restrictions generally seem adequate to allow both positive and negative system reviews. I agree they are not perfect, and might be improved in the future. For now, though, our small team will be focusing on other software development projects to enhance C2.
MK
Hi MK , what about this latest review regarding pipalert , doesn’t sound genuine to me , why would a subscriber mention an old drawdown after 6 months , and why would he give a one star rating to a system currently is making money to him , if it is a dangerous system as he says why he subscribed to the system and why he is still there , 90% this review is from another system vendor , just my opinion , here is the review :
"On 10/20/12 system started a trade which, by tripling down, risked $163,450 (a drawdown of 64.90%) in order to make $3,224 profit. Before that it also had huge drawdowns. Vendor does not seem to have much faith in his own system since he trades it with only one mini lot. Unless the developer pledges not to double or triple down in the future and keeps his drawdowns at a reasonable level this system is very dangerous. Caveat emptor. "
Reviewers names are kept secret, but obviously C2 is aware of who writes which reviews. And therefore I can assure you with 100% certainty that the review was written not by a competitive system vendor, but rather by an old and experienced C2 member. So - while I won’t comment on the truth of the review itself - I can at least put to rest fears about this reviewer’s motives.
By the way, it’s worth pointing out that the entire idea that a competitive system developer would write a mean review of another system, just for competitive reasons, is a canard. People worry about this a lot, but in all my years of running C2, I’ve seldom seen it happen.
Matthew
I don’t care about the review itself either , just was curious , fair enough thanks for the clarification …
My concern was more towards the inappropriate hype of some systems after 1 or 2 months.
I highly question the authenticity of some of these reviews giving 5 stars to systems barely 1 or 2 months old.
That’s where I think reviews should be restricted to systems 1 year old or so. There’s no way you can give a system 4-5 stars after 1 or 2 months… not even a few months.
I can show you numerous examples of systems that were hyped up, suckered in a bunch of subscribers then crashed and burned not too long after.
My previous suggestion still stands today. Separate system ratings from system reviews and add the same rating per review ala notes, so other subscribers who disagree don’t have to waste thier review to speak out about the previous review (I have seen this happen). By separating ratings and reviews, you can make one or the other more or less restrictive giving a susbscriber more options. Just my 2 cents.
Julio
