is a vendor clampdown in order

[pboyles]

I have a feeling that very few, or even none of them, would stand up to scrutiny and they would therefore be unwilling to submit themselves to such a test, knowing the likely outcome.

If there was such a thing as an honest vendor then they would clearly benefit greatly from such scrutiny, however does such a thing exist?

 

[Hotch]

Well it's a circular problem isn't it.

Higher % of scammers ->
increase people's expectations ->
puts honest vendors out of business ->
Higher % of scammers

I might give it a go actually! Be worth the effort just to pass Pboyles' legendary scrutiny!

 

[pboyles]

Well it's a circular problem isn't it.

Higher % of scammers ->
increase people's expectations ->
puts honest vendors out of business ->
Higher % of scammers

I might give it a go actually! Be worth the effort just to pass Pboyles' legendary scrutiny!

That's what has always puzzled me about this industry, you'd think the honest companies would be trying to get the dishonest ones put out of business.

 

[DionysusToast]

I have a feeling that very few, or even none of them, would stand up to scrutiny and they would therefore be unwilling to submit themselves to such a test, knowing the likely outcome.

If there was such a thing as an honest vendor then they would clearly benefit greatly from such scrutiny, however does such a thing exist?

Feel free to scrutinize me completely - I will provide anything you request in order to enable your scrutinizationing

 

[wackypete2]

Feel free to scrutinize me completely - I will provide anything you request in order to enable your scrutinizationing

Can I see your broker statements?

Peter

 

[DionysusToast]

That's what has always puzzled me about this industry, you'd think the honest companies would be trying to get the dishonest ones put out of business.

Honest Vendors?

What with cleaning up the rocking horse sh*t and looking after the flying pigs, I doubt there's enough time in the day for them to take that on.

 

[tar]

congratulations

 

[DionysusToast]

congratulations

What? On eventually attaching the right bloody video?

Good job the first one wasn't mucky.

 

[tar]

What? On eventually attaching the right bloody video?
.

yes of course , why ? i hope u didn't think it's for the 6 ticks trade !

 

[pboyles]

If its not too much trouble could you select the other 4 days of the week as well?

 

[DionysusToast]

If its not too much trouble could you select the other 4 days of the week as well?

Wait a second - I'll need to start photoshop up....

 

[pboyles]

No rush,

 

[DionysusToast]

No rush,

Publicising my earnings is not something I'd ever do to be honest. Thankfully it's irrelevant to what I do.

I don't teach
I don't tell people how to exit enter or manage trades
I don't give signals
I don't have any magic box that places trades for people
I don't have anything that throws off red or green lights
I don't have anything that in any way absolves people from making their own decisions

I have a DOM & a Time & Sales that people can use for free & buy if they like it. I display information in a different fashion to other platforms and this may or may not be useful for people.

Like I said - you can do a top to bottom review if you like. You may come out with the conclusion "You'd have to be mad to watch that stuff all day" and you would, in fact, be correct.

 

[Atilla]

The only vendor I would give a repu / recommendation would be Trander Dante / Tom.

Met the guy before he became a vendor few years back. Seen what he does and his blogs. He to me is the real deal. He is not pretentious. Never seen or heard him being rude. He has real passion for trading and down to earth. He makes money and he has on a number of occassions parted his wisdom and methods for free here at T2W.

Obviously there are no free lunches so only fair he charges for his knowledge and methods acquired over a lengthy period of time and effort.


As for everyone else - I just hear lots of noise with no real substance. I'm sure there must be talent out there but either the vendors are poor with their marketing or they simply don't have track record.

Let the buyer beware I guess.

 

[Sharky]

vendors, there's plenty that can be done to stop the ever present growing commercial creep of vendor driven posting, lets be honest here 99% of a vendors posts are designed to get noticed and to spread the word of their wares.

the site guidelines are strong but are hampered by issues. to sort it out the mess and in no particular order-

1. cut the head off the chicken and decouple homepage linking from the vendor badge. this would at a stroke cut down the ridiculous amount of vendors posting for the sake of just that! posting to get their mug in every thread going, in the hope someone will click their vendor badge. yes, you know who you are. lets get rid.

2. ban any and all linking via signatures. this was discussed a long time ago behind the curtain. it is technically possible to do away with it, so it can be done. this action alone would free up mod time by an enormous amount, they'll then have more free time to to uphold the rest of the guidelines, rather than wasting their valuable time on this particular vendor gravy train. no agreement was reached as to what to do about it a while back. it's time to look at that again. lets get rid.

3. ban commercial linking via homepage. lets get rid.

4. ban commercial links, messages and hooks in profile descriptions. this is an admin area, if admin don't want, or have the time, to deal with it, give mods the task. lets get rid.

5. members that run threads to build a good board reputation, then turn vendor. ban them, they will only hang around to juice members via pm on the back of any rep they've built up. lets get rid.

just those 5 points alone will help give the site back to the membership at large.

discuss

Thanks for the suggestions LM. Here's my thoughts on the 5 points:

1. So, I have no objection to unlinking the url from the vendor badge. The original idea for linking it was purely out of convenience, so you didn't need to visit their profile. If as a consensus we think that it's fuelling posting merely for self-promotion then it should probably be removed.

2. Banning all links in the signatures, hmm.. perhaps banning all external links (only t2w and asscociated links allowed (forexdesk/propboards)). Links to favourite threads on T2W, I find that useful when I see them. I think a few members might object though, I've seen not-for-profit, charitable type links occasionally in signatures.

3. If by homepage, you mean remove the homepage from a user's profile, then I think a better question is whether as a forum we are saying no vendors at all allowed on the site. If we are saying they are, then for the sake of transparency I think it's better a member can visit a vendor's

4. Agreed, profiles should also have a non-advertising policy applied to them. It's harder to police though, as mods don't have the ability to edit a user's profile out of the box and I believe only administrators can do this. This is more of a technical question, but I expect we could find a workaround.

5. If the member didn't reveal they were a vendor from the beginning, only subsequently when they'd generated significant interest, then yes, that should probably warrant a ban. I think we're pretty clear on the rules about revealing commercial interest from date of sign-up. It's the edge cases, where it's not quite black and white, that are the hardest to adjudicate on, especially if don't have the resources to do a full investigation.

 

[Sharky]

Plenty of other opinions, I've lumped them together as best as possible to make it easier to respond to:

Idea:

To become a vendor, you have to agree that, if the mods are of the opinion (maybe they vote, I dunno) that you are/will have a negative effect on the membership at large, they are free to ban you at will.

If we were going to do that, then we'd need a larger mod team. Since recruiting new mods is not so easy, perhaps another approach would be to form a new group who represent the ordinary members with their interests in mind. Then collectively amongst the staff, mods and reps.. make decisions by majority vote or some other representative system.

I think...

Vendors should be allowed to post in their own forums under vendors category. They should not be able to post in any other forum full stop. Anyone breaking the rules gets an instant ban.

time for a commercial section, long overdue.

Yeah ban them.. or at least give them their own vendor cess pit section.

So, we could create a new forum or category for vendors. The main issue I think is we'd be sending conflicting signals.. on the one hand we have a non-advertising policy, but on the other we're inviting vendors to post commercially in this new forum. Does that mean the non-advertising rule is no longer in effect in this forum? Would the average member be more conscious of the motives of the thread starter?

But haven't certain vendor threads and vendors members consistently been voted the best/favourite by the membership at large?

+1

1. I don't think they should be banned. They should have their own section

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with vendoring. The problem is that anyone who's honest can't compete with the claims of the scams.

I think there are 2 good options.

1- Ban all vendors. I don't think any of the half measures would work.

I think it would be a big mistake to ban outright anyone with a commercial interest. We owe a duty to protect members from unscrupulous sellers, but a blanket ban would, for example, remove any opportunity for a customer to engage in meaningful discussion with their broker or software provider.

2- "Reviewer" members or some such (read: Pboyles :clap. People can submit their systems/coaching (or I guess Sharky could stump up the cash if the membership is really interested), then an honest review can be made. There are a couple of seemingly legit review sites (among the thousands of crap), but they're one man jobs and can't really sort through all the **** out there, and of course, they don't have any recognition.

We did that with mr. spreadbetting, and it worked

I think 2. could lend itself to the representatives idea I mentioned on the previous post, but reviewing a system, and particularly coaching is so subjective, that it's going to be incredibly difficult. Worse still a misjudged endorsement is likely to do a lot more damage.

2. We should remove vendor badge. This is because to newbies T2W Vendor badge may seem like lending them credibility.


I'm sure there are good and bad Vendors but separating the good the bad and damn right ugly costs good money.

Having said that, haven't we all regretted buying something which didn't meet our expectations.

I concur with sentiment to review/improve management of Vendors.

We introduced the vendor badge because before we had that system, it was difficult to know if a member had a commercial motive. Some would add their homepage to their profile, or add something to their signature, but others might fly under the radar, until it was the right time to reveal their true intentions. We wanted more transparency, and so we required new and existing members to reveal if they had some commercial interest. If we removed the badge would ordinary members be any better served? I personally don't think it lends the user any additional credibility, quite the opposite, I think they're immediately met with suspicion from the regular posters.

 

[wackypete2]

We introduced the vendor badge because before we had that system, it was difficult to know if a member had a commercial motive. Some would add their homepage to their profile, or add something to their signature, but others might fly under the radar, until it was the right time to reveal their true intentions. We wanted more transparency, and so we required new and existing members to reveal if they had some commercial interest. If we removed the badge would ordinary members be any better served? I personally don't think it lends the user any additional credibility, quite the opposite, I think they're immediately met with suspicion from the regular posters.

That's being kind

Thank you for responding to some of the concerns here.

Peter

 

[DionysusToast]

Just out of interest, is this all vendors here or is the point to weed something specific out?

For example, we have an Interactive Brokers thread on here and a representative from Interactive Brokers comes along and answers questions.

Would anyone be upset if NinjaTrader, Tradestation, Velocity, Infinity, Mirus, The CME etc. had people posting here? What about the likes of Sam Sieden, Al Brookes, John Carter - if they were here engaging in trading debates?

Shills seem to be a bit of an issue and are not registered as vendors but obviously represent the vendor. They are annoying. There's a thread here:

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/trading-journals/133934-attempting-es-futures-2.html

Where a mystery man on Skype is being mentioned constantly "The guy I sometimes mention who I occasionally skype with has been netting about +15 ES point per day this week. He drives me crazy" Is this a lead in to PMs/redirecting people to a service or just a genuine comment?

Would/Should this be covered by a more stringent vendor rule?

Still - I do agree that banning all vendors would solve a lot of the issues. I think the reality is that it's quite a murky issue and that common sense as opposed to hard & fast rules would be appropriate.

For instance, you could pretty much ban anyone saying they have or have found a profitable forex EA - because they don't exist. Trouble is - most people want to check the bottom of every rainbow before they stop believing in pots of gold. Many will think that people with EAs should be given a chance because "this one might be real". You don't have the baby/bathwater issue with Forex EA guys.

On another note, I personally believe that training is mandatory. I also think that it's an ongoing process. Right now, the guy that wrote "No BS DayTrading" is doing a month of morning sessions where he talks people through the way he trades the Treasuries. I am in the class & it cost me $499 for the whole month. This is a guy who traded prop succesfully and uses some fairly common (in the prop world, not discussed on forums much) techniques to look at the treasuries. This is a place you can sit for a month and have a discussion with a real trader. For any short term day trader, this is a rare opportunity indeed.

One of the disadvantages for the retailer is that you aren't in a room full of traders that can help or point out your bad habits.

 

[Hotch]

For instance, you could pretty much ban anyone saying they have or have found a profitable forex EA - because they don't exist. Trouble is - most people want to check the bottom of every rainbow before they stop believing in pots of gold. Many will think that people with EAs should be given a chance because "this one might be real". You don't have the baby/bathwater issue with Forex EA guys.

Oi! Leave off! I admit it's a much smaller %, but there are a few out there which work, all which do that I've seen so far are either free, or not public though.

 

[Lightning McQueen]

1. So, I have no objection to unlinking the url from the vendor badge. The original idea for linking it was purely out of convenience, so you didn't need to visit their profile. If as a consensus we think that it's fuelling posting merely for self-promotion then it should probably be removed.

i believe removing vendor badge linking now your number one priority, i've just found myself reporting a post due to sig linking, yet the vendor badge is lit up like an xmas tree. the vendor badge linking undermines the guidelines and the mods efforts to uphold them. putting the vendor badge back to it's original format is a step forward not backward. there was a slow creep on that, linking first, then lighting up the linkable vendor badge like an exmas tree.

2. Banning all links in the signatures, hmm.. perhaps banning all external links (only t2w and asscociated links allowed (forexdesk/propboards)). Links to favourite threads on T2W, I find that useful when I see them. I think a few members might object though, I've seen not-for-profit, charitable type links occasionally in signatures.

ok, yes agreed, keep the t2w linking. the main issue is the external linking. what is not for profit, in the main, usually ends up monetised. dealing with the daily deluge of commercial sig linking, plus keeping an eye on the free ones, is a drain on your moderation resources. also anyone who wants to let the membership know of charitable endevours can start a thread discussion.

3. If by homepage, you mean remove the homepage from a user's profile, then I think a better question is whether as a forum we are saying no vendors at all allowed on the site. If we are saying they are, then for the sake of transparency I think it's better a member can visit a vendor's

i'll revisit this one and comment at a later date if thats ok.

4. Agreed, profiles should also have a non-advertising policy applied to them. It's harder to police though, as mods don't have the ability to edit a user's profile out of the box and I believe only administrators can do this. This is more of a technical question, but I expect we could find a workaround.

there are quite a few profiles that are commercial in nature with web links etc, someone will have to be tasked in cleaning them. crafty vendors use profile links in an attempt to skirt the guidelines.

5. If the member didn't reveal they were a vendor from the beginning, only subsequently when they'd generated significant interest, then yes, that should probably warrant a ban. I think we're pretty clear on the rules about revealing commercial interest from date of sign-up. It's the edge cases, where it's not quite black and white, that are the hardest to adjudicate on, especially if don't have the resources to do a full investigation

fair comments, thank you for your time in making your thoughts known to the membership