Demo Accounts

[DanielleDavidson]

I don't think that I've seen a post about these, and I think they are so important that I'm going to make a post about them. I know that a lot of people lose money because obviously they are trading. It's not something that everyone is good at, and it's something that you have to learn. That's why demo accounts are so great. Demo Forex account is essentially a virtual trading platform where you can buy and sell various currencies without risking real money. In providing this service, Forex brokers replicate live online Forex trading within a test environment where no trade actually gets sent to the market. There is a slight caveat to this. In a true ECN market environment, trades will not necessarily be executed at the requested price you see in the electronic trading platform. This is because there is always a time lag between the time you trigger your trade, and the moment it actually reaches the bank on the other side of your Forex trade. In live trading, this is referred to as slippage, which may be favorable to you or go against you. This is fully expected, and under normal market conditions, won't be noticeable. Over the long-term, and when trading with a true ECN broker, slippage is likely to be in your favor and may help you accumulate substantial savings.

 

[NVP]

seriously ?

Hey Danielle ...........welcome to T2win

can you share with us your trading style and background..........that would be much more interesting and useful to members

Thanks
N

 

[alexaherself]

Many of Danielle's posts are stolen and pasted in from the web, breaching people's copyrights. As a simple Google search shows, they come from places like Investopedia, merchantcircle.com and other trading/forex-related websites. (She's currently doing exactly the same thing in other trading forums she's recently joined, but elsewhere they get removed pretty quickly.)

Most of the post above is pasted in from the merchantcircle.com site, and several of her other posts are from various places around the web.

 

[Lightning McQueen]

occasionally there are members that do this. most of the time it's a lazy way of posting a carrier for a sig link ad, or in-post link of some sort, but sometimes there appears no apparent reason for doing a cut and paste post, as in this instance.

I suppose it would be prudent to remove all of the copy/pasted posts, but depends on how many posts have replies and if any copyright is infringed. just as well it's only 10 posts to look at

 

[alexaherself]

most of the time it's a lazy way of posting a carrier for a sig link ad, or in-post link of some sort

I'm a notorious skepchick, but I imagine (given that most forums, understandably, have a post-count requirement before their private messaging facility's available to members) that it's often a necessary preliminary step before sending out private message spam - and I've certainly received my share of that, over the years, in various places, from members exhibiting this behaviour-pattern.

sometimes there appears no apparent reason for doing a cut and paste post

I agree. I suspect the basic modus operandi is naively aimed, more or less, at "establishing credibility" as a precursor to some kind of promotional activity (e.g. the promotion of a brokerage through an affiliate-link in private messages), hoping it will pass undetected.

I do think it's particularly suspicious when people join multiple trading forums at the same time, making the same pasted-in posts in each.

 

[Lightning McQueen]

I'm a notorious skepchick, but I imagine (given that most forums, understandably, have a post-count requirement before their private messaging facility's available to members) that it's often a necessary preliminary step before sending out private message spam - and I've certainly received my share of that, over the years, in various places, from members exhibiting this behaviour-pattern.



I agree. I suspect the basic modus operandi is naively aimed, more or less, at "establishing credibility" as a precursor to some kind of promotional activity (e.g. the promotion of a brokerage through an affiliate-link in private messages), hoping it will pass undetected.

I do think it's particularly suspicious when people join multiple trading forums at the same time, making the same pasted-in posts in each.

yes agreed, had already seen the 10 count previously and have seen no activity on the pm facility. the dropping in of a sig link maybe will come later, but you are right to suspect something is up when the same message is posted everywhere. we shall see

 

[dbphoenix]

Although one could ask what difference it makes. The assumption is that traders are helpless victims rather than active participants in their own deception.

Some will be interested in "Danielle's" copy-and-pastes. Some won't. Those who aren't won't read any more of her posts. Those who are, will. What is it to anyone else? Those who are disturbed to excess always have Ignore to rely on.

 

[alexaherself]

What is it to anyone else?

A breach of copyright, very poor policy to allow it, IMO, and a possible adverse SEO consequence to the originating site, if this site has higher page-rank.

 

[dbphoenix]

That depends on what's being copied. Technically, every post on every message board including every comment on every blog falls under copyright, so anyone who quotes a post of any sort is in violation.

If you're all that concerned, report what you perceive to be a violation to the copyright holder. It's not the place of any given trading forum owner to act in loco parentis.

 

[Lightning McQueen]

A breach of copyright, very poor policy to allow it, IMO, and a possible adverse SEO consequence to the originating site, if this site has higher page-rank.

some of the post content came from medium.

Content published and shared through Medium Services is publicly accessible, which means that everyone, including search engines, will be able to see it. This content may also be copied and shared by others throughout the Internet, including through features native to Medium Services, such as commenting and embedding.

I am still looking though.

 

[alexaherself]

Technically, every post on every message board including every comment on every blog falls under copyright, so anyone who quotes a post of any sort is in violation.

Exactly my point.

And when someone pastes in a chunk of text, trying to pass it off as a forum post of their own, without attribution, or anything like it, there's no possible question of it being "fair comment for review purposes" or defensible in any other way.

It's not the place of any given trading forum owner to act in loco parentis.

I disagree.

They come here to do it because they know they can get away with it here.

IMO it ought to be policy in any forum that all unaccredited, pasted-in posts are deleted routinely. No good can come from them, and it's all too easy to see how harm can (we've mentioned some of the possible ways). It's one of those things that people like to pretend are "judgment calls" and "grey areas" and make a big issue of. In fact, it's dead easy: you just make a simple rule that they're all deleted (like many forums do) and obviously the forum is a better place for it. No judgments/discussions/research required at all. "Simples".

 

[Lightning McQueen]

apart from this thread they're now gone.

the posts consisted of copy/pastes from one particular author who promoted one particular broker across various platforms/blogs. none of the posts here contained links in post or otherwise.

 

[itspossible]

About DanielleDavidson
Country
United States
Gender
Male

 

[dbphoenix]

Exactly my point.

And when someone pastes in a chunk of text, trying to pass it off as a forum post of their own, without attribution, or anything like it, there's no possible question of it being "fair comment for review purposes" or defensible in any other way.



I disagree.

They come here to do it because they know they can get away with it here.

IMO it ought to be policy in any forum that all unaccredited, pasted-in posts are deleted routinely. No good can come from them, and it's all too easy to see how harm can (we've mentioned some of the possible ways). It's one of those things that people like to pretend are "judgment calls" and "grey areas" and make a big issue of. In fact, it's dead easy: you just make a simple rule that they're all deleted (like many forums do) and obviously the forum is a better place for it. No judgments/discussions/research required at all. "Simples".

Ever posted a chart?

 

[alexaherself]

Ever posted a chart?

It seems to me that you're "discussing" here with the main intention of trying to "Be Right" about something.

That's fine - I have no problem with that at all. Be right about whatever you like, but you won't in the process change the simple reality that people who habitually steal content from the web and paste it in, unaccredited, in multiple different forums, are clearly and obviously not an asset to any forum and shouldn't be encouraged.

And that's all this thread is really about.

So you can nit-pick away as much as you like, if it really makes you feel better.

 

[Pat494]

If I come across a well written and interesting article I see no reason not to copy it for others to enjoy too. If one was to be proper, one would accredit the source, although I usually forget to.

To just rely on members own efforts would let a lot of good articles just disappear without trace and we would all be poorer for that.

I do see what you are getting at if the posts are just shilling for some broker or software though.

Most people like interesting/amusing posts regardless if they are copies.

 

[alexaherself]

If I come across a well written and interesting article I see no reason not to copy it for others to enjoy too. If one was to be proper, one would accredit the source, although I usually forget to.

The law of copyright is the reason not to, Pat. Seriously.

It's not ok to copy articles on the web to another site, without the copyright owner's permission.

There's a widely believed myth that accrediting or linking to the source somehow legitimises it, and this is completely wrong.

The other reason website owners don't like this at all is that it can quite easily have an adverse SEO effect on the originating site, when the site to which it's copied has higher page-rank and may well outrank them on Google searches, in which case the original copy will sometimes even be indexed by Google only in the "supplemental index" and can no longer appear on routine searches of the main index.

To just rely on members own efforts would let a lot of good articles just disappear without trace and we would all be poorer for that.

The thing to do, to avoid that, is just to make a post saying "I found a great article on XYZ" and say something about it, and post a link to it. (That actually helps the originating site, because it's a backlink for them.)

And if you say something about it, then it's even legitimate to quote a short, attributed, part of the content (that's called "fair usage for review purposes").

I do see what you are getting at if the posts are just shilling for some broker or software though.

Sure ... this is a different issue altogether, from the one that occasioned the discussion in this thread.

 

[dbphoenix]

All this brings to mind something that happened to me a couple of years ago.

A T2W member sent me a PM demanding to know who gave me permission to reproduce content from his website. He claimed that material I had posted here and elsewhere had been "taken" from an article on his website. He continued:

Please delete the post and only leave a link to the original source if you wish to reproduce material. Please do this for all the articles you have reproduced from our site.

Awaiting your reply.​

My reply was that no permission was necessary due to the fact that I'd written it seven years earlier.

Did i receive an apology? No.

Did I ever hear anything more about this at all? No.

Is what I wrote still posted on his website without attribution of any kind? Yes.

Do I care? Not much. If people benefit from it, fine. That's why I wrote it in the first place. Would attribution be nice? Yes. But that's not the way of the world these days. Therefore it's filed away in my Anecdote File and I rarely think about it.

Lighten up.

 

[Pat494]

The law of copyright is the reason not to, Pat. Seriously.

It's not ok to copy articles on the web to another site, without the copyright owner's permission.

There's a widely believed myth that accrediting or linking to the source somehow legitimises it, and this is completely wrong.

The other reason website owners don't like this at all is that it can quite easily have an adverse SEO effect on the originating site, when the site to which it's copied has higher page-rank and may well outrank them on Google searches, in which case the original copy will sometimes even be indexed by Google only in the "supplemental index" and can no longer appear on routine searches of the main index.



The thing to do, to avoid that, is just to make a post saying "I found a great article on XYZ" and say something about it, and post a link to it. (That actually helps the originating site, because it's a backlink for them.)

And if you say something about it, then it's even legitimate to quote a short, attributed, part of the content (that's called "fair usage for review purposes").



Sure ... this is a different issue altogether, from the one that occasioned the discussion in this thread.

The author probably got paid one way or another for the original article. Should they be paid extra every time someone quotes bits of it ? Probably not. They could get some satisfaction that someone felt it good enough to quote. The French idea of people having a copyright to the photos of themselves is equally daft imho and stultifying.

 

[alexaherself]

Should they be paid extra every time someone quotes bits of it ? Probably not.

No, I agree.

But there's a big difference between that consideration and what's going on here.

The issue here is simple: someone joined a load of trading forums on the same day (at least 3 others, in addition to this one) and makes the same posts in each, and almost all the posts turn out to be unattributed paste-ins of text from sites like merchantcircle.com, investopedia.com and so on, which they're deceptively passing off as their own thoughts. Either you think there's something wrong with that scenario which requires moderational action, or you don't. (Personally, I do, and in my forum people don't get away with that: I don't want them as members, because long experience has taught me that their motivation for that behaviour will eventually reveal itself, and it won't be in the interests of my members or my forum, when it does. I think that to pretend otherwise is just naive and "head-in-the-sand".)