The new "trading reviews" section, is there a glaring omission?

[timsk]

Seriously, Tim??
You guys deleted over 30 negative posts regarding a t2w partner on that thread AND stated at least some of the deletions were caused by threats of legal action. All that fuss, then those companies don't appear in the new reviews section and we are not supposed to think something is up?

One last thought....


Will you be wasting members time by removing negative reviews as you do negative thread posts? It would make the whole reviews section a complete waste of time.

Also, as requested, please add: trainingtraders.com
It is the subject of the thread I linked to in my previous post.

Peter

Hi Peter,
Yes, seriously!
The Reviews section and forum threads are two completely separate entities. Please do not confuse the two. The reason I'm genuinely surprised by your post is that there have been quite a number of contentious individuals and companies listed in the Reviews section for several months now. Here's a few:
Larry Williams
Rockwell Trading
Investors Hub
I admit to having many failings, but telling you guys fibs ain't one of them. It's easy to put to the test. Feel free to list any company or individual that's been at the centre of a dispute and I'll add them to the reviews section. What more can I say - or do?

Re. editing / deleting reviews. . .
In answer to your question - of course not! All I care about is that a review is genuine and follows the guidelines linked in my last post. We are currently looking at ways of highlighting a company listed in the Reviews section that has been flagged up by members as being a possible scam. So, in the case of SpyGlass, there might be a link to the Baghdady thread. Once we've implemented something, then anything that's clearly not a review is likely to be deleted unless there's a very good reason for not doing so. For example, pboyles' latest addition to SpyGlass is clearly not a review and would be deleted, but - and it's a big but - ONLY when his basic point has been incorporated into the description - possibly even verbatim. That way, the scam police will be happy and members will know that the Reviews section lists proper reviews based on personal experience by paying customers (as per the guidelines) and that the forum threads are the place to voice opinions and ideas etc. - which may not be based on personal experience. I trust you understand and appreciate the need to separate the two.

One final note on the deleted threads issue. I am expressly forbidden from deleting any posts less than a year old - except for off topic and unhelpful posts in the FAQ forum. So, I guarantee that I won't ever delete (and never have) any contentious posts/threads. As you know, we are actively looking at this whole issue and T2W lawyers are drafting some revised guidelines that the Mods can work to. This is taking longer than expected, but libel and defamation law is complex. Once it's complete and everything is in place, Sharky will announce a completely transparent and above board procedure to ensure that past anomalies do not get repeated in the future. Just have a little faith - all will come right in the end.

Tim.

 

[pboyles]

. For example, pboyles' latest addition to SpyGlass is clearly not a review and would be deleted, but - and it's a big but - ONLY when his basic point has been incorporated into the description - possibly even verbatim. .

I have no idea what this means. If I change to description to ABCDEFG then it is allowed to stand?

 

[timsk]

As requiested by wackeypete2 and pboyles - I've added Training Traders and LTG GoldRock. They should appear tomorrow.

 

[spinola]

These professional training services reviews should be on the main boards section, a) because lots of rookies can see them stick out like a sore thumb and b) If they (rookies) are gonna lash out 5 grand touted by professional trader trainers , then they should be grateful of transparent honest operators who are happy to stand by their open , public, honest, transparent reputation.

Otherwise it's like tucking the big cash ticket deals out of full public view. And that only says one thing about the decision taken to hide it out of full view.


5 Grand for my coarse and training ? If your not happy, have a refund and tell the world of your experience.

Now that is the policy of an honest businessmen whose intent really is empowering new traders to be formed. And lets face it , all these trader trainings are pouring their little hearts out with sincere honest intent in the gloss of the ads !

So let em prove it and let the chips fall were they may.

Anything less, well, AVOID. Its stinks of SCAM and protectionism .

 

[timsk]

I have no idea what this means. If I change to description to ABCDEFG then it is allowed to stand?

Hi pboyles,
I'm afraid I don't understand your question - but I can explain what I meant by the comment of mine that you've quoted. . .
The Reviews section of the site is the place to comment on a product or service that you have personal experience of and have paid for. Period. It's not the place to offer comment or to engage in discussion about the relative merits (or otherwise) of said product or service. That's what the forum threads are for. It's absolutely essential that everyone understands this key difference and the importance of keeping them apart. Please see 3. Are there any guidelines about writing reviews? for what constitutes a review. Your 'review' of SpyGlass that you added earlier today clearly isn't a review by anyone's definition. However, as stated in my previous post, the point you make is an important one and I'm in full agreement that members ought to be alerted to individuals and companies listed in the Reviews section whose business practices are questionable. As and when a mechanism is in place which does this effectively and one that you, wackypete2 - and others are happy with, then I propose to delete your 'review post' for the reasons given. Fair enough?
Tim.

 

[MrGecko]

Let me get this straight - this whole thing is because someone at T2W deleted negative / potenitally libelous posts about a company that pay T2W for advertising...

WTF? Are you serious? Get REAL! You've never heard the expression "don't bite the hand that feeds" ???

And even after all that, and a "Review" section is added for the particular company, the only thing someone has to say is "well they had someone on their advert that wasn't really a fund manager!!!"

T2W is a venue for like minded people to converse - it's free to join and there are some useful resources. In return for using T2W, the members are subject to advertising from vendors - the people that pay the management for running the servers, employing people like Tim, and so on. You would expect T2W to treat its customers nicely, as they are the buggers paying the bills.

If you want a totally impartial forum, fund it on your own and get lonely. You can't have your cake and eat it - either wise up or p!ss off. The naivety here is truly baffling.

 

[spinola]

yeah true goose, let the food in freely I guess.

 

[the hare]

The Reviews section of the site is the place to comment on a product or service that you have personal experience of and have paid for.

And how exactly will you determine if a reviewer is a genuine customer ?

You cant very well ask the vendor as this is open to abuse. A vendor can could use paid shills, or the usual multi nicks. Similarly, a vendor could deny that a dis satisfied customer was actually a customer.

You cant trust the reviewers either. A non genuine reviwew could be posted for LULZ, a reviwer might benefit from an affiliate commission, or a competitor could post multiple bad reviews of a rival company.

Do T2W intend to intervene and arbitrate in every dispute ?

You've opened up a can of worms.

 

[pboyles]

L

And even after all that, and a "Review" section is added for the particular company, the only thing someone has to say is "well they had someone on their advert that wasn't really a fund manager!!!"

Do you think we should just keep quiet about that sort of thing and let people pay thousands in the hope of someday becoming a hedge fund manager or institutional trader? What about when some pensioner or widow who has been asked to put 20k into some pink sheets shares by a boiler room, just say nothing?

 

[pboyles]

Hi pboyles,
I'm afraid I don't understand your question - but I can explain what I meant by the comment of mine that you've quoted. . .
The Reviews section of the site is the place to comment on a product or service that you have personal experience of and have paid for. Period. It's not the place to offer comment or to engage in discussion about the relative merits (or otherwise) of said product or service. That's what the forum threads are for. It's absolutely essential that everyone understands this key difference and the importance of keeping them apart. Please see 3. Are there any guidelines about writing reviews? for what constitutes a review. Your 'review' of SpyGlass that you added earlier today clearly isn't a review by anyone's definition. However, as stated in my previous post, the point you make is an important one and I'm in full agreement that members ought to be alerted to individuals and companies listed in the Reviews section whose business practices are questionable. As and when a mechanism is in place which does this effectively and one that you, wackypete2 - and others are happy with, then I propose to delete your 'review post' for the reasons given. Fair enough?
Tim.

You're right its not a review so delete it. Not much to stop a few shills posting positive stuff there and claiming to have been on the course, in fact not much to stop anyone else from saying they had been on it and it was crap. Just mentioning it as something worth considering. I don't suppose you'll ever find the perfect solution.

 

[the hare]

You're right its not a review so delete it. Not much to stop a few shills posting positive stuff there and claiming to have been on the course

And of course if T2W asks the vendor if Mr Loads-A-Money, Mr I just bought a new Ferrari and Mrs I love my new Sunseeker attended the course, the vendor will say, yes of couse, I remember those delightful people very well.

When Mr Foolish, Mr Gullible and Mr Not-Very-Bright hand over 5K of their hard earned, and post a legitimate review, Mr Vendors solicitors will be informing T2W that they've never heard of these people !

The fundemental problem is that forums (and not just T2W) are a haven for unscruplous rogues. I'm sure the review section was implimented with the best of intentions, and if everyone was as honest, it would be a useful resource. The problem is people are not honest, and there are commercial considerations, and threats of legal action and all of the other usual nonsense.

T2W should have just written a system that allocates random scores to each vendor. It would have been more acurate, fairer, and probably generated more traffic !

 

[timsk]

Hi the hare,

And how exactly will you determine if a reviewer is a genuine customer?

We're open to suggestions!
Clear and obvious abuses will be dealt with. Some stuff will slip through the net no doubt, but we can only do what we can do. Not very scientific, I know, but it's worked okay in the past, so there's no reason that I can see why it shouldn't continue to work in the future.

You cant very well ask the vendor as this is open to abuse. A vendor can could use paid shills, or the usual multi nicks. Similarly, a vendor could deny that a dis satisfied customer was actually a customer.

You cant trust the reviewers either. A non genuine reviwew could be posted for LULZ, a reviwer might benefit from an affiliate commission, or a competitor could post multiple bad reviews of a rival company.

All very fair points, but what's the alternative? We could shut down the reviews section altogether on the grounds that there's no real way of ensuring that any review - good or bad - is genuine. Members have to use their own judgement and take with a pinch of salt reviews that are suspect. Reviews which are clearly false will be removed. For example, a month or two back a company e-mailed me and asked to be listed. I obliged (I'm a very obliging chap.) The very next day there was a 10/10 review from a new member registered that day with the same username as the company!

Do T2W intend to intervene and arbitrate in every dispute ?
You've opened up a can of worms.

Hopefully, there won't be many disputes. We've had a Reviews section for a long time and there haven't been any thus far that I'm aware of. The can of worms is no more open now than it was when the Reviews section was first launched.
Tim.

 

[MrGecko]

"a fool and his money are easily parted" - T2W is not responsible for people being idiots and buying a crap product. Nor is it a regulatory body governing the financial services industry. We each have our "bulls!t-ometers" to protect us from the former and the FSA to protect us from the latter.

Why T2W is getting a bad rap for this I cannot fathom.

 

[scose-no-doubt]

It's not getting a bad rep it's just funny to bait admin/sharky who for some reason don't seem to want to explicitly express that it's how tings is gwarnin'

 

[timsk]

You're right its not a review so delete it. Not much to stop a few shills posting positive stuff there and claiming to have been on the course, in fact not much to stop anyone else from saying they had been on it and it was crap. Just mentioning it as something worth considering. I don't suppose you'll ever find the perfect solution.

Hi pboyles,
Well, it appears we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
In my experience - which I accept is considerable compared to a green newbie - a false glowing review usually stands out a mile - even if I can't prove that it's false. People who write good or bad reviews for the wrong reasons (i.e. to pump their own company or trash the competition) are usually very bad at it. Perhaps I'll write an article on the subject and submit it to Trader333! On the other hand, genuine reviews tend to reveal little details and observations about a product or service that the fake reviews don't have the creativity or insight to include. In other words, most fake reviews are as obvious as counterfeit money printed with a £50 machine using 80gsm photocopying paper!
Tim.

 

[0007]

Hi the hare,

We're open to suggestions!

........... All very fair points, but what's the alternative? We could shut down the reviews section altogether on the grounds that there's no real way of ensuring that any review - good or bad - is genuine.
Hopefully, there won't be many disputes. We've had a Reviews section for a long time and there haven't been any thus far that I'm aware of. The can of worms is no more open now than it was when the Reviews section was first launched.
Tim.

You just need a panel of qualified reviewers - if a product is worthwhile the vendor will supply an evaluation copy. This is what happens with PC mags and tech review websites.

No sample for evaluation by qualified people? - then no review & readers can draw their own conclusions. Simples!

 

[tomorton]

"a fool and his money are easily parted" - T2W is not responsible for people being idiots and buying a crap product. Nor is it a regulatory body governing the financial services industry. We each have our "bulls!t-ometers" to protect us from the former and the FSA to protect us from the latter.

Why T2W is getting a bad rap for this I cannot fathom.

Well put MrGecko. The buyer cannot get rid of the duty to take reasonable care of their own money. And T2W offers thousands of pages of free advice on what will work in trading and what won't, without the need to dissect every single over-the-counter product or service.

I don't like to see newbies conned - but they have legal recourse available if it's a fraud, and there are regulatory authorities who can act on their behalf.

On the other hand, if people go into a deal which (to us) is simply poor value, I can't see that's a criminal matter.

 

[spinola]

Why not just ramp up the ones who tout the best BS ? Look, lets face it, the market needs as many clueless entrants as it can take. Part of a traders instinct should be aligned with taking from the less informed. So it's all good, in fact , creating confusion is a WIN WIN, for some will learn from it, and some will put money into the market.

Either way, lets take it and be thankful !

 

[timsk]

You just need a panel of qualified reviewers - if a product is worthwhile the vendor will supply an evaluation copy. This is what happens with PC mags and tech review websites.

No sample for evaluation by qualified people? - then no review & readers can draw their own conclusions. Simples!

Hi 0007,
On the face of it, I think your suggestion is an excellent one. However, where I envisage a problem is with courses. Unlike a bit of software which can be downloaded from the net, lots of courses are residential or involve mentoring over weeks or months. I'm not sure how a panel would work in this case. It might be worth exploring if we can overcome the obvious obstacles.
Tim.

 

[the hare]

You just need a panel of qualified reviewers - if a product is worthwhile the vendor will supply an evaluation copy. This is what happens with PC mags and tech review websites.

Thats exactly what happened with the Mr Spreadbetting debacle, and look how that ended up ! I'll say no more :whistling