Christ on a bike, how 5hite are the articles on the front page of T2W?

[Black Swan]

that latest one is utter embarassing gash...Can 'Sue the sweeper' write as well as sooth?

 

[Sharky]

From the ratings and comments the article's received, it does seem to be one of the worst we've published in a long while.

The last couple weren't well received either, but the previous four to that all were rated in the 8s and 9s which is great.

I'll pass on your remarks to Jill (JillyB), who's our content editor and responsible for this section. NB Sue, has nothing to do with the articles section.

 

[Black Swan]

From the ratings and comments the article's received, it does seem to be one of the worst we've published in a long while.

The last couple weren't well received either, but the previous four to that all were rated in the 8s and 9s which is great.

I'll pass on your remarks to Jill (JillyB), who's our content editor and responsible for this section. NB Sue, has nothing to do with the articles section.

There's surely guys on 'ere that could do better than that. Did you check out the thread content on first steps by The Bramble (Tony)? That's what you need on the front page IMHO, inspiring stuff. The impression I got/still get is that the whole site is forum driven by the contributors, and that articles etc. are very much an after thought. If you're packaging the site up for a sale you'll have to make the overall content king, not just the forums...
http://www.trade2win.com/boards/first-steps/63278-why-you-failing-what-you-need-do.html

 

[arabianights]

another good idea - how about trading manuals as wikis, if traderpedia is designed for that it isn't clear yet

 

[Sharky]

I'd agree that getting forum members to contribute articles would be ideal, we've had some great submissions in the past, in fact some of the best articles of all, but overall members have been reluctant to volunteer; and as we're committed to publishing a new article every week, it can sometimes be a challenge to find really good quality submissions. Still I'm sure we can look at more ways to persuade ordinary members to share their knowledge.

Oh, and I can assure you we have no plans to 'package the site' for a sale - we're 8 years and still going strong!

 

[0007]

that latest one is utter embarassing gash...Can 'Sue the sweeper' write as well as sooth?

Whatever has this article to do with (our sort of) trading? It's almost as if it's been selected because it contains the word "trade", put on the site and not been proof-read for relevance.

"Jesper Thorlund is an economist, BI advisor and systems developer. He has been working with business intelligence and data warehouse solutions for more than 12 years as a consultant in major..." .... and how does that help ??

 

[zupcon]

Whatever has this article to do with (our sort of) trading? It's almost as if it's been selected because it contains the word "trade", put on the site and not been proof-read for relevance.

They certainly shot themselves in the foot with this particular article. Lets just hope that noone actually read it, god forbid they did and thought it relevant. Standards have dropped, but surely not that far ?

 

[GammaJammer]

I have a novel idea - DON'T publish an article a week. Publish one a quarter but make it decent. Maybe only one a year if that'sw how often a real killer piece comes along.

Or commission some pieces (assuming you don't already). Paying for content might give a bit more leeway in terms of quality control. Plus it might incentivise some of the 'senior' members to share the knowledge. It's tough when trading is your full time job to find the time to devote to tons of writing. Tougher still when it's i) Often ignored / misunderstood and ii) Done on an entirely altruistic basis but published on a forum that is, for one or two people at least, actually a commercial venture.

So my suggestion Paul is to try and increase the 'stakeholders'.

What do you reckon mate?

GJ

 

[Sharky]

I like the idea of commission pieces more than reducing the publish rate. We can of course seek to source better material, but generally we seem to have a mixed bag of good and bad articles - and because of the rating systems, members can easily see if other memebers think they're any good.

I'll talk to JillyB about your idea, and whether we can try and raise the quality of the articles submitted or at least raise the threshold for what is considered acceptable to be published on the site.

 

[timsk]

I completely agree with GJ.
In the questionnaire thingy that I completed yesterday, I made the point that some of the articles (not all) appear to be little more than a plug for another website offering courses and the like. This is tacky and leaves the reader questioning the motives of the author along with the value of the article's content. Well, it does me - anyway! No offense to JillyB, but she (or somebody) really needs to pay MUCH closer attention to quality of articles submitted and not just focus on quantity. That's GJ's point I know, but I fear it will need repeating a few more times yet.
Tim.

 

[Sharky]

Thanks for the feedback. I'd like to get JillyB into the conversation although she's away on holiday tomorrow until the 20th - so we may have to wait until after then, to get her input.

 

[Mr. Charts]

TBH, Paul, anybody looking at the site for the first time gets an impression about the content from the front page, making up their minds in the first minute or two. Since that awful article is likely to be the first thing they read that impression is likely to be extremely negative.
It might be worth removing it and not waiting till Jill gets back........
Richard

 

[GammaJammer]

Thanks for the feedback. I'd like to get JillyB into the conversation although she's away on holiday tomorrow until the 20th - so we may have to wait until after then, to get her input.

Cool - look forward to hearing the results of that discussion Paul. If you combined the willingness to comission stuff with some sort of a wishlist for content (I have no idea whether you or Jill have this already) that could be interested.

I know personally there are bits and pieces I have been trying to find the time to write for ages but unfortunately in the climate we have in the markets now my day job has to come first. At least until the shackles of my mortgage payments no longer bind me. But it just got me thinking as I've long harboured thoughts of trying to do some freelance market journalism on the side.

GJ

 

[Black Swan]

I have a novel idea - DON'T publish an article a week. Publish one a quarter but make it decent. Maybe only one a year if that'sw how often a real killer piece comes along.

Or commission some pieces (assuming you don't already). Paying for content might give a bit more leeway in terms of quality control. Plus it might incentivise some of the 'senior' members to share the knowledge. It's tough when trading is your full time job to find the time to devote to tons of writing. Tougher still when it's i) Often ignored / misunderstood and ii) Done on an entirely altruistic basis but published on a forum that is, for one or two people at least, actually a commercial venture.

So my suggestion Paul is to try and increase the 'stakeholders'.

What do you reckon mate?

GJ

Great points, the one point I've highlighted is is the rubicon which as to be crossed IMHO. The site, which is basically a suite of forums and little else, is only as good as its contributors. Not being subjective here that's just the way it is.

Presumably it's commercial viability is based on unique visitor numbers = revenue from advertisers, who still have pretty deep pockets. However, if the adverts from IG etc are paid on click through only then the site owners will have to do a lot more going forward in order to thrive. The difficulty with sites such as this is how to generate cash without upsetting the core audience who have, as stakeholders, made the site what it is. Difficult problem to wrestle with....

 

[Black Swan]

Thanks for the feedback. I'd like to get JillyB into the conversation although she's away on holiday tomorrow until the 20th - so we may have to wait until after then, to get her input.

I was with a web development company today (they're as big as it gets, owned by massive publishers) and we looked at your survey in relation to other stuff I'm involved in atm. 17 minutes is way too long, surveys should never ask for imput it should all be clicks and should take no more than 5 minutes. BTW you should have offered a prize/raffle for filling it in...
BTW I guy I employed freelance to write mortgage articles, (he is a legend in that industry as he's 'left field' and stepped away from the house price madness of recent years) used to bill 150 quid per 300 words, and that was as a favour to me.

 

[Mr. Charts]

I noticed the survey said the average person took 19 minutes to fill it out.
It took me three minutes typing with two fingers so I reckon somebody must have written a book in the comments sections.
Actually I suspect more value might be obtained by having such comment boxes rather than simply clicking options. Most focus groups exist to tease opinions out in a face to face environment and, in my experience, are often more effective in facilitating good feedback than filling in a questionnaire.
The format of the t2w survey seems to be something in between and gives scope to throwing up ideas in a freer and more productive way - all in my opinion, of course.
Richard

 

[Sharky]

Mr. Charts - I agree, and have therefore removed it from the site (will take a few mins to update the homepage).

I'll speak to JillyB when she gets back from her hols as to the possibility of commissioning articles; esp from the members themselves.

Actually I'd disagree that surveys should be all about clicks and agree (again!) with Mr. Charts that getting users to actually comment is a much more useful to us. Pretty bar charts are nice to give an indication on things, but concrete ideas and feedback really tells us a whole lot more. Also the survey really shouldn't take more than 5 mins, and that's only if you put some effort into the comment fields. Normally we do a much more extensive yearly survey with prizes; but the idea behind this one is to provide some valuable and feedback feedback for Sue, to help her prioritise the things that community feels that action needs taken on right now.

 

[Sharky]

Well it took a bit longer than I thought; but we finally replaced the article by bringing forward next monday's article today. Let's hope this one is better received. As mentioned previously I'll co-ordinate with JillyB when she's back from hols.

 

[GammaJammer]

I'm curious - really wanna see the offending, ahem, article (no pun intended). Was it that bad? Anyone have a link?

 

[zupcon]

I'm curious - really wanna see the offending, ahem, article (no pun intended). Was it that bad? Anyone have a link?

It really is THAT BAD

http://www.ideamarketers.com/?business_intelligence,_BI,_analytics&articleid=554674

I warn you, as an advisor, you'll hang your head in shame at the thought that a trading website would ever present such material to its members (unless your cut in on the spoils, in which case, nice one)