Matthew:
I have a few user suggestions that may improve the usability for us system providers when it comes to the relationship between test and live systems.
PREMISE: C2 is a site that caters to system developers / traders, and the consumer / direct access customer to utilize the systems made available through C2 acting as the "medium" … C2 thus has a dual purpose and dual role in the business. C2 wishes to maintain system vendors and classify them using various statistics to rank them and make them available to the trading public.
As a systems vendor, I have the following suggestions:
1 - if a vendor has a TEST system. It would be nice to allow a "RESET" on the system if before a fixed period of time - say within 90 days. This would allow vendors to "play" with C2 orders to get familiar with how it works without being locked into the stats if he wishes to "start again" without having to start a new test system. Perhaps a max value of 10 resets allowed within a 90 day period I would think would work well.
2 - A "TEST" system should also then be allowed to convert to a "live" system at some point down the road. This would allow for system vendors to "test" their system then convert it to a live system without having various "live" systems (which are really test systems) floating out in C2 public domain.
3 - A "live" system should be allowed to convert to a test system within the first 90 days (not a set number of trades that could be reached in just a day or two) … I read when setting up a system that it could be live, then convert to test, so I set it up as live, but after a few positions were entered, when i went to convert it to a test one, c2 complained saying i had reached a set trade limit and it could no longer be converted to test.
I think these suggestions would be helpful so that there is not a large number of "trash / test" systems floating around on C2 wasting the consumers time looking at them, while allowing system vendors more flexibility in the use of test systems to be able to "start over" reset a test system several times.
Thanks for considering these suggestions.
C2 has always allowed “test” systems to be erased and restarted.
But test systems have requirements. You need to declare your test system as a test system before entering any trades. The reason should be obvious. Otherwise, system developers will place a handful of trades, see if the trades pan out, and - if not - declare they were “testing” something or another. In fact, they were testing something… whether or not their trade calls would be successful.
Allowing ex post declaration of test systems unfairly skews results and makes C2 systems look better than they really are.
A vendor who thinks he is creating a test system must declare it as a test system before entering trades (done via the EDIT link after creating the system). As for your claim that “I read when setting up a system that it could be live, then convert to test, so I set it up as live” – that’s simply not true. Nowhere on the site does it claim you can convert a system into a “test” system after the fact.
I’m sure your post is well intentioned but I think you may have overlooked a few points that have been dealt with in similar posts in the past, mainly on points 2 and 3.
1. Not sure I understand the need for this one. If it’s already a test system and all you’re planning to do is continue to test, why do you need to reset it? It’s still a test system, you’re not ‘locked’ into any stats as your stats aren’t ever going to be used as part of a real system. Just how many orders do you think someone would need to enter to get familiar with the platform? And if it’s just the stats you’re worried about ie using up all the funds before you got to test other strategies then just make the size negligible enough to not require resetting.
2. This has enormous potential for abuse so I doubt this would be implemented. What you are suggesting is that people can just keep putting out test systems until they finally get it right and then change it to an actual real system when in reality they could have finally just got lucky with one. If you combined this with your first suggestion it would be even worse, you wouldn’t be able to see all their tests, everytime your account blows up you could just reset it and start over and if it happens to work out this time you change it from a test system to a live system. All sounds great for the vendor but sadly in real life trading doesn’t work this way. You would be allowing someone to attract subscribers and benefit from a record achieved when really testing rather trading under live conditions, just ask any experienced trader the difference between ‘paper’ and live trading. No-one ever fails on paper.
3. This has also been discussed before. There’s a word for what you’re suggesting, it’s called denial. Take a look at a sample of systems with ‘test’ in the name and see if they started out that way. Titan (Agressive) Test is a classic example, it starts out with it’s real live system name, it loses 60% in the first two months, it then changes it’s name to conservative test, then as it loses even more as if to justify the further loss it changes it’s name again to aggressive test. You are basically giving an excuse or way out for systems that fail. A potential subscriber seeing that it’s a test system may be tricked into thinking that it can therefore be safely ignored but in reality it was a genuine part of the trader’s record as he was trading live and possibly with subscribers who unfortunately don’t just get to write it off after the fact as a ‘test’.
I think it’s pretty simple, there are two choices:- if you want to test, open up a test system. If you want to trade live open up a live account. The two have no place being together in the same account in my opinion.
RE: “I read when setting up a system that it could be live, then convert to test, so I set it up as live” – that’s simply not true. Nowhere on the site does it claim you can convert a system into a “test” system after the fact.
Let’s first agree that the setting up of a test system is confusing at best, because in fact after successfully setting up a “test” system correctly yesterday, let me clarify and state again what I was trying to get across. I read before (and again yesterday) that the system must first be created as a live system, and then must be converted to test - because you can’t go directly to a test system when you create it.
I think you need to go back and look at your site Matthew first before posting messages in defense, as I am not trying to create an arguement here, but to try to bring somethings to light where were confusing to me with the usability of C2.
So… Let’s first agree that the process is confusing first and foremost. Plus, I think it can be agreed that there is no tolerance to make a system a test system once there are trades entered, this is also a fact, which if it was stated a few months back when I was creating some test systems, was confusing as well, because I thought that a “free” system with 5 or less trades would not matter, but found out once again that I could not, because as soon as a trade was entered, I wasn’t allowed to make a system a test system. Even though I had subscribers = 0 which means that I am not going to accept subscribers for the system that I had created.
In any case, I am very clear now on the difference between test and live systems, and I do see that a test system allows the trades to be erased which is what I was trying to get across with the “reset” type of functionality. So that should accomplish what I am wanting to do there to be able to run some trades to see how the results / stats are calculated, then to erase the data and start again, etc…
Keep up the good work on C2 Matthew!!! There are improvements with the services getting better over time, and Matthew you are very quick to respond to questions from a customer service point of view, but many parts of the site here are confusing at best from a usability standpoint. I think is about all we can bring forward from this discussion.
Jon - Thank you for taking the time to post a response. I agree with all your points. Obviously I am in no way wanting or even trying to suggest a way to undermine the integrity of C2. I understand the importance of that characteristic of C2 service.
The integrity of having my data verified and published with accurate results is an important feature / benefit of C2. It is, of course, one of the primary reasons why I am using C2 as a vendor to provide the glue between my services, and my client subscribers.
Perhaps one of two suggestions would be possible for implementation however:
1. If a live system were always set to 0 subscribers such that a vendor never had any intention to accept subscribers to be able to convert a system to a test system within a certain amount of time (any where between 30-90 days is a reasonable amount of time for a vendor to decide)
and / or
2. To make a "test" system be a test system right from the beginning in the creation process without first having to create a system then go and EDIT after the fact to convert it to test is simply a convoluted non user friendly way I think we can all agree without argument or debate.
These are all simply "user friendly" suggestions … Keep up the good work!
