Is Trade2win as lifeless as it seems to me?

[cablemonster]

So much ado.....?
Certainly not such a problem for the CEO to be too exercised about - apart from the frustration at not being able to implement his wishes 🙂

yep much ado about nothing. nothing to see here move along. everything is going well in T2W land. :whistling

 

[cablemonster]

Its a bit bizarre really isn't it

the mere fact that we are having this conversation is bizarre. I wonder what General Custer felt like on his way to the battle of Little Bighorn.😆

 

[Mr. Charts]

the mere fact that we are having this conversation is bizarre. I wonder what General Custer felt like on his way to the battle of Little Bighorn.😆

Off to meet a scalper.

 

[Lightning McQueen]

The reason I think many are bots is that the profile is identical for hundreds of the registered names. My role is specific to this and I have no involvement with any other moderation issues such as the increase in binary posts and threads.

bot or not, it's more than 100's 😱

you could easily be looking at well over 1000 of them registered, 300 plus pages of the member list are full of them, they started arriving on jan 6th.

no sign of them today though.

 

[Steve]

Well a lot of the time it's that thread titles are used to plug the company, and then they can post once a day and bump the thread into new posts every day without having a discussion, but as a few examples

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/technical-analysis/166014-forex-research-27.html#post2131876

Avatar and links (lots of them at the bottom of posts) to alpari sites. It can be useful to have some of the larger brokers on here to field questions, but posting links is not allowed.

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/forex/71100-deltastock-daily-fx-analysis-98.html#post2135648

Threadtitle, avatar, website posted in his charts, even some talk of offers

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/for...s-comments-updated-daily-104.html#post2131746

Avatar and thread title.

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/tec...date-forex-gold-crude-oil-10.html#post2131592

Putting website name in charts, probably not the worst offender

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/forex/104304-ganns-pyramid-table-69.html#post2131568

website and logo in every single table they put

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/tec...lysis-majors-4-pair-forex-16.html#post2131526

In every daily technical analysis they put there website (again not a direct link but still it's essentially spamming a website address)

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/stocks/147242-swing-trader-daily-ideas-17.html#post2101512

lots of youtube links that are actually the company's youtube, so a bit sneaky that one

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/edu...oo-much-screen-time-killing-your-trading.html

Avatar and signature

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/tec...al-analysis-majors-07-00-gmt.html#post2136372

Company name in signature, avatar, charts, well you get the idea.

Great thanks, yes I get the idea and some of these I can see why they have been left but that's too vague. I'll report back when I have defined what is allowed and what is not (the vendor guidelines often mentioned by Mr Hare) - I should have done this sooner but things had gone quiet on the vendor front and I hoped we could manage without yet another set of rules, we obviously cannot.

 

[Lightning McQueen]

Usually their profile contains advertising URLs and this is what "I am informed" is why they do it. The ability for guests to view profiles was only removed recently.

the ability of guests to view profiles must have been switched back on at some point. I didn't believe they could view, I have now found conclusive proof they couldn't in 2009.

what has happened between then and when you switched it off I have no idea 😕

 

[Trader333]

Curious indeed, all I know is that they could as I checked it and then changed the settings that when I checked again had removed that ability. In what way do you know it was different in 2009 ?

 

[Lightning McQueen]

Curious indeed, all I know is that they could as I checked it and then changed the settings that when I checked again had removed that ability. In what way do you know it was different in 2009 ?

I have a screenshot of a guest trying to poke their nose into c_v's profile. the red dot of fail, otherwise known as the "you do not have permission..." symbol is present. the pic is dated 03/04/2009.

 

[wackypete2]

Wasn't there a software upgrade since then? All the settings probably reverted back to default.

Peter

 

[Lightning McQueen]

Wasn't there a software upgrade since then? All the settings probably reverted back to default.

Peter

yes good point pete, all sorts of things went pear shaped after one particular site upgrade, that's probably it.

 

[Liquid validity]

I don't know how many of these bots have joined,
but potentially it could be a denial of service attack in the making.
HowStuffWorks "Distributed Denial of Service Attacks"

 

[the hare]

Great thanks, yes I get the idea and some of these I can see why they have been left but that's too vague. I'll report back when I have defined what is allowed and what is not (the vendor guidelines often mentioned by Mr Hare) - I should have done this sooner but things had gone quiet on the vendor front and I hoped we could manage without yet another set of rules, we obviously cannot.

I mention the vendor guidelines because they are needed (in my opinion, and I am rarely wrong 😛)

When some clown pops up with a link in their signature to a website selling products, a twitter feed and facebook page, and a bright shiny logo as an avatar, and mods are unsure if they are a vendor, on the grounds that they are not displaying a vendor badge, you have a problem don't you think ?

Even more so when the same clown has been doing the same thing elsewhere for years !

But the problem is actually MUCH worse than a simple ignorance of your sites own guidelines and rules (which are as crystal clear as a bright azure stream, and couldn't be misinterpreted in any way by anyone) its worse because moderators are actually spending time defending those very same vendors who are openly flouting your rules. In one case last week we even have one moderator cleaning up several threads by a vendor without a badge.

That moderator claims to be too busy to uphold actual rules and guidelines because he's spending his time protecting vendors.

Really, you couldn't make it up.

And of course what happens to all of this moderators hard work, well its all for nothing of course is because inevitably, the thread gets deleted when someone finally spots what's been bleeding obvious for weeks to everyone else.

What's hard about spotting a link in a signature ? For heavens sake its not as if members where not pointing this out, and you can't claim moderators where not reading the thread, they where, they where proactively deleting posts from those threads in the interests of the vendor !

Trade 2 win is so pro vendor agenda is so deeply engrained its almost impossible to remove at this stage. We need actual detailed guidelines in order to get anyone to take this issue seriously.

Conversely, have the honesty to admit that you want vendor generated content, and that you don't actually care about the inevitable consequences of that decision. Everyone's a grown up, but pussyfooting about and pretending it isn't an issue is going to come back and bite, and it will bite hard.

 

[Lightning McQueen]

I don't know how many of these bots have joined,
but potentially it could be a denial of service attack in the making.
HowStuffWorks "Distributed Denial of Service Attacks"

well it's interesting, how clever is that! amazing really :-0

however, in this instance there are only around a thousand "bots members" or whatever they are eventually identified as, sat on the member list. compare that to what we know from the membership spike episode we've just encountered in that 10,000 guests visiting all at once, didn't have any ill effects whatsoever on t2w. I say no ill effects, the viewing of who was online suffered badly, but that was the extent of it.

if it was indeed being done from within then they've got nowhere near enough troops. it's taken 5 months to build troop numbers to around the 1000 mark, at the rate they're beavering away at we are years off yet.

 

[barjon]

I mention the vendor guidelines because they are needed (in my opinion, and I am rarely wrong 😛)

When some clown pops up with a link in their signature to a website selling products, a twitter feed and facebook page, and a bright shiny logo as an avatar, and mods are unsure if they are a vendor, on the grounds that they are not displaying a vendor badge, you have a problem don't you think ?

Even more so when the same clown has been doing the same thing elsewhere for years !

But the problem is actually MUCH worse than a simple ignorance of your sites own guidelines and rules (which are as crystal clear as a bright azure stream, and couldn't be misinterpreted in any way by anyone) its worse because moderators are actually spending time defending those very same vendors who are openly flouting your rules. In one case last week we even have one moderator cleaning up several threads by a vendor without a badge.

That moderator claims to be too busy to uphold actual rules and guidelines because he's spending his time protecting vendors.

Really, you couldn't make it up.

And of course what happens to all of this moderators hard work, well its all for nothing of course is because inevitably, the thread gets deleted when someone finally spots what's been bleeding obvious for weeks to everyone else.

What's hard about spotting a link in a signature ? For heavens sake its not as if members where not pointing this out, and you can't claim moderators where not reading the thread, they where, they where proactively deleting posts from those threads in the interests of the vendor !

Trade 2 win is so pro vendor agenda is so deeply engrained its almost impossible to remove at this stage. We need actual detailed guidelines in order to get anyone to take this issue seriously.

Conversely, have the honesty to admit that you want vendor generated content, and that you don't actually care about the inevitable consequences of that decision. Everyone's a grown up, but pussyfooting about and pretending it isn't an issue is going to come back and bite, and it will bite hard.

Hare

Oh that it was all so simple.

Firstly, if there is a pro vendor agenda it's surprising that hundreds of "vendor" threads are deleted every month, mostly before anyone gets to see them on the boards. I reckon that well over 90% of deletions are vendor related.

Secondly, mods have no problem in identifying vendors. The problem is that vendors are allowed to post so long as they are not overtly advertising their wares and/or clearly trying to hook customers. Very often that has to be a judgement call and one that is often wrong in hindsight as a thread develops.

Some may argue that the mere fact that vendors choose to post is only to attract customers so they should be denied the opportunity right from the word go. But what is in the best interests of members? Should members be denied from seeing interesting stuff about trading just because it has been posted by a vendor? Should members be denied the opportunity to question vendors about their product? Should members be denied the opportunity to read valid criticism about a vendors dodgy product?

jon

 

[the hare]

Hare

Oh that it was all so simple.

Firstly, if there is a pro vendor agenda it's surprising that hundreds of "vendor" threads are deleted every month, mostly before anyone gets to see them on the boards. I reckon that well over 90% of deletions are vendor related.

Secondly, mods have no problem in identifying vendors. The problem is that vendors are allowed to post so long as they are not overtly advertising their wares and/or clearly trying to hook customers. Very often that has to be a judgement call and one that is often wrong in hindsight as a thread develops.

Some may argue that the mere fact that vendors choose to post is only to attract customers so they should be denied the opportunity right from the word go. But what is in the best interests of members? Should members be denied from seeing interesting stuff about trading just because it has been posted by a vendor? Should members be denied the opportunity to question vendors about their product? Should members be denied the opportunity to read valid criticism about a vendors dodgy product?

jon

All fair comment, and I agree, its sometimes subjective. The guidelines promised by Steve might go some way to making things a bit clearer, although I suspect the problem is so deep rooted now that it won't.

However there are incidents that are black and white. A URL to a commercial website in a signature is a violation of the sites rules. I struggle to see how that can be misinterpreted in any way, by anyone. Despite that, t2w moderators allowed those posts to remain, whilst other posts pointing out that he was a vendor in violation of guidelines where deleted

Your post for example shows how deeply engrained this problem is. What stops a vendor from joining as a regular member, and sharing insight and experience ? well they don't do that because they wish to use the site for advertising their products and services, and who can blame them, I'd do the same if I where a vendor.

I appreciate that the relationship between t2w and vendors is mutually beneficial, but in my opinion at least, the pendulum swung way to far in the wrong direction, and the sites current malaise is entirely due to that decision. I'm not saying it was the wrong thing to do, commercially it made perfect sense, but in my opinion, it was badly implemented, and your competitors did it better, and you paid the price with a destroyed community, no one willing to post anything of substance, and as time progresses, less and less of anything to attract anyone at all.

 

[Trader333]

LM,

Ah, I see what you mean and I wasn't aware of that. I am not sure there has been any major upgrade to the version of VB used by T2W and even if there was it would not set everything back to default settings as it factors that in when I have done it elsewhere.

I cannot see why T2W would be the likely candidate of a DOS attack either and usually these are not from one source but thousands of different PCs usually on IE6 or earlier across the whole planet.

 

[barjon]

...........However there are incidents that are black and white. A URL to a commercial website in a signature is a violation of the sites rules. I struggle to see how that can be misinterpreted in any way, by anyone. Despite that, t2w moderators allowed those posts to remain..............

Yes, there are such instances. Mods make mistakes - we're only human 🙂 - but the vast majority of such things are dealt with properly and I don't think you can extrapolate those few instances into "T2W policy" when set against the vast majority of the ones that are dealt with correctly..

 

[Shakone]

1.06 No selling allowed. Any form of selling is unacceptable. The forum has to be a safe place, it can’t be this if you are trying to sell your products and services. If you see this happening then report it and it will be dealt with.

1.07 Vendors are welcome but they can’t sell. Any vendor representative who is prepared to share valuable information, join in discussions or deal with questions about their services will be welcomed. If they cross the line into selling the offending content will be deleted.

3.2 You can't use your signature to advertise.
3.3 Signatures cannot include any link, identifiable URL or email address. Identifying your company name or type of business is not permitted unless the principal reason for using the site is the representation of the company to address members' questions and support issues.

4.1 You can't post advertisments of any kind anywhere on the site.

4.3 Advertising includes, but is not limited to:
- Posting the URL of your commercial web site.
- Offering for sale (or a free trial of) your product.
- Posting references to, excerpts from, or details of your product.
- Posting with minimal content that is clearly designed to act as a lure towards your product.
- Posting your email address or asking members to contact you for details of your product .

These guidelines are great. But they're not enforced. Every one of those links I gave in a previous post, breaks one or more of these guidelines. And some have been going on for years.

 

[wackypete2]

LM,

Ah, I see what you mean and I wasn't aware of that. I am not sure there has been any major upgrade to the version of VB used by T2W and even if there was it would not set everything back to default settings as it factors that in when I have done it elsewhere.

I cannot see why T2W would be the likely candidate of a DOS attack either and usually these are not from one source but thousands of different PCs usually on IE6 or earlier across the whole planet.

eh?

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/sit...ad-please-post-comments-here.html#post1665512

Says it all right there...errors, bugs, some things reset.

Peter

 

[Liquid validity]

I cannot see why T2W would be the likely candidate of a DOS attack either and usually these are not from one source but thousands of different PCs usually on IE6 or earlier across the whole planet.

Plenty of reasons, anti capitalists, smokescreen for IP database hack,
email database for spamming financial crap, quite a lot really.