because generally most experienced traders here are also (or have been) Vendors and are the only ones with anything decent to publish ?
N
There might be an element of truth in that, although i suspect most wouldn't wish to be associated with the term 'vendor'
On the other hand most of the articles published by t2w are provided by vendors, and you have to admit, the standard of those articles is absolutely appalling. In fairness to Tim, he has made requests for content of the 'home grown' variety, but noone will bite (for reasons that are blindingly obvious)
If vendors are the only people with anything decent to publish, why arnt they doing so (apart from Howard Cohodas
)
Just like t2w's membership, not all vendors are equal, and they shouldn't be treated as if they are. The problem is very few people involved in the day to day running of t2w have the knowledge or experience to differentiate between them.
Unfortunately you need some traders involved to run a trading site. You can certainly dumb down and fake it (baby pips being a good example) but it takes a lot more proactive management and input than anyone around here is prepared to make.
That's the crux of t2w's problems. They have lost all integrity as a trading site due to the previous strategy and the brand is completely tainted. They are lumbered with staff and moderators, and a culture that's still clinging to their prior vision. They failed in achieving their prior vision because their competitors out performed them with better content (or content more appropriate to their target audience), better technology, more proactive management etc.
I could be turned around, and Steve's done the right thing in acknowledging previous problems, but there's a lack of detail regarding the new vision. Time will tell if its all just hot air.
It's certainly an uphill battle, and for that reason I'm still heavily short t2w
