The opinions expressed in these forums do not represent those of C2, and any discussion of profit/loss
is not indicative of future performance or success.
There is a substantial risk of loss in trading. You should therefore carefully consider
whether such trading is suitable for you in light of your financial condition. You should read,
understand, and consider the Risk Disclosure Statement that is provided by your broker
before you consider trading. Most people who trade lose money.
Its a simple question…
I want to review the system US Stock Trader, a system than in the past run good, but before Christhmas, the owner make a trade and i dont know why, this trade was without stoploss and without any protection, we see now the result -16% in the position and the owner totally dissapear i´ve been writing mails since December and i didnt recieve any reply.
Then today i want to review the system, and write something like “System developer is dissapeared and this system doesnt run following the rules from the past” to prevent others suscribers, but i cant, this is not the mission of reviews?
I think there is necessary more implication of the community to prevent from developers who doesnt care about suscriptors and our money, but without the help of C2, this is not possible and we are going to continue losing money with people like this.
The reasoning behind this is that we are trying to prevent “shill reviews.” Shill reviews are reviews posted by people either in collusion with the strategy developer, or by the strategy developer himself under a false identity. So we randomize who is invited to write reviews, and when.
In retrospect, a better way of handling this would be to allow subscribers to write reviews any time they like for those strategies which have negative performance. I’ll add it to the request list.
I do see this as an issue where a developer just disappears. I’ve seen this with other systems and I some people can get financially damaged by such actions.
With that said, there should be some sort of protection measures in place for subscribers. Not neccessarly reinbursement, but maybe a hold-back on funds to the owner? Maybe an auto notification to subscribers if the subscription owner doesn’t log in over 14 days or there isn’t any activity on their account. (This assumes its not on seetu auto-trade or something or using the API)
I remember in the past (maybe im wrong) a suscriber could write a review if he stay X months in a strategy. I think this would be a good option to add too, because if he stay 3-4 months paying in a system he know how it works and could be good for others his opinion.
While I think its a good idea to open the review window more often I don’t think it should be opened for reviews anytime there is negative performance. As a developer I would want to see the window open for good or bad performance so the reviews don’t become skewed to the negative side. I would rather see a time based approach. For example, if the window opened after a given number of months for a paying subscriber. I think that’s the best way to approach the review process.
I also agree with the comment that we should be paying more attention to developers who don’t sign in for a long period of time. But that has to fall on subscribers to hold the developers accountable. There are successful developers on this site that don’t sign in for long periods of time which in my mind is unacceptable. Subscribers should hold those developers accountable (through their subscription fees) rather than at a Collective2 level. I wouldn’t subscribe to a system where the developer regularly didn’t sign on for several days at a time. I would want to know that developers are ensuring the system is working as it should and that I am able to reach the developer if necessary.
This is an important topic and I’m glad it was opened up for discussion.
As a potential subscriber I would like to have an opportunity to write reviews after each 3-4 months starting from my subscription date (so maximum 3-4 reviews per year), definitely I would like to write a review at the time when I stop my subscription.
If C2 is going to make it easier for subscribers to be able to do more reviews, I have two suggestions from the System Developers’ viewpoint:
System Developers used to be able to write responses (rebuttals) to reviews, however, this ability was removed about a year ago for some reason. This is important because some negative reviews can be factually incorrect and the System Developer should be afforded the opportunity to set the record straight.
Since I presume C2 would want to keep the reviewers anonymous (which is fine with me), I suggest that at least C2 indicates how long the reviewer has been a subscriber to the system being reviewed. This is important because if some disgruntled subscriber of one month writes a negative review, the C2 community has no way of knowing whether that subscriber was a very short-term subscriber (or competitor) or was a subscriber of over a year who has actually given the system an adequate chance to perform.
Completely agree with those comments as well. We should have the opportunity to respond and the length of time the reviewer subscribed is a very important metric.
When I am traveling, I have always found reviews on Yelp and TripAdvisor to be very helpful. Those review systems work because there are LOTS of reviews. I seldom pay attention to a restaurant with 2 reviews even if they are 5 stars. The current C2 review system provides too few reviews and they are often from new subscribers. C2 should encourage lots of reviews, anytime, by any subscriber, and update-able, just like travel sites. Sure, you’ll get a few shills but those will be overwhelmed by real reviews.
Regarding the idea of allowing a subscriber to write a review when there is negative performance, that will just skew the reviews. It’s like Yelp only allowing a review if the meal was bad. And how would C2 define “negative performance” anyway–one bad trade, one month’s of trades, one year?? C2 should go the opposite direction: remove all the rules that restrict the reviews and let the information flow.
Not only has the “invite” strategy made it so there are very few reviews, it hasn’t stopped “shill” reviews. The number of shill reviews to real reviews might even be higher than it used to be, who knows.
Reviews should only be from paid subscribers, preferably those with several month’s experience. A trial subscriber’s review is like a movie review after only seeing the trailer. It would be helpful to see the reviewer’s qualifications, such as trading experience, number of systems subscribed to, and length of subscription.
As a practical matter, it takes six months to a year to shake out the bad systems. The current review system doesn’t give much helpful information.
"This is one of the best systems on C2 I am so confident in it that it is now part or my retirement plan "
Joe
This is the last review for US Stocktrader prior to the developer’s abandonment of his trading protocol.
Though he finally logged in a few days ago, he literally bailed from C2 for 100 + days (my last recollection was actually closer to 150 days). No communication, no updates. You were left holding the bag to fend for yourself.
Yet that last review remains. With all due respect Mathew, how can you , the one who created C2 software with the truly unique idea of creating transparency by verifying real trading of the system developer (a truly rare commodity),not find it paramount to immediately resolve this glaring lack of so said " transparency? " The request list? This should be at the top of the Do it Now list imho.
How many people have joined because of that last review.? The real secret is only known to those subscribed for many months. Yes as the days since last trade increased it would be more and more obvious to figure out something is amiss.
Instead, The ability to leave a review by long time members could have very likely saved a few people from joining a system where only existing members know the truth about the current status of the said system. If preventing shills is the main reason, why allow someone who has only been a member for 10days (possible shill) to leave a review whilst a multi year member (obviously not a shill) is not? Random selection or not that makes no sense. A long term member should always have the right to leave a review…
If " transparency " is still the driving force at the core of C2 this existing problem needs to be addressed and not forgotten.
I am much more hesitant to recommend C2 to a friend or colleague than when I first discovered C2 many years ago.
I wouldn’t join a system based on a review , and how you know that this reviewer is a shill , just because he likes a system doesn’t make him a shill . We have seen it before the system may under perform after a positive review it happens all the time , no one knows what the future will bring . I am not surprised to see a positive review to this system hence it was performing well .
I am in favor of this as well. After all we are supposed to be able to determine which systems are good to trade. Why should it be assumed that limiting the information presented would be helpful in figuring out how a developer or system is to deal with. I think subscribers (or potential subscribers) should be allowed to draw their own conclusions about a body of posts in the same way they can do that on the majority of the other sites which contain reviews. It is no secret that “shill” reviews (both positive and negative) abound on the internet. Reading and interpreting a body of reviews is a skill any capable investor or trader should be expected to either have or be able to master.
After months waiting some similar featured and after few others systems suscribed, i think the way of reviews its not clear and maybe biases to promote positive reviews… you only can review systems in your first 15 days of suscription, i think that isnt normal, you need months to know how it works a system, but of course after months you cant review, and systems like US Stock Trader after the system is abandoned by the owner, everyone can see their last reviews… all of them are very positive… it could end in new users burning money there, becaues misleading reviews.
Im suscribed to others systems for months and im pretty confident with them but i cant review positive neither, reviews in the first 15 days? for that better delete reviews.
Do you want newbies doing reviews to follow them the rest of us or experienced users of the system doing reviews with value for the rest?
I think opening up reviews to anyone makes them pointless. Sock puppet or hater, the two categories would out number honest reviews. I agree that 15 days is the wrong number. 3 months would be much better. Paying customers only. And again at 9 months? Changes to reviews should be cautious I think, otherwise it becomes just another marketing tool for martingale systems.
