Member Status

[Purple Brain]

No, no, no, no!!! Grave error, easily made. Some (many) of the most insightful posts made by the site's best traders are by members who struggle to write their own name. I kid you not. And there are plenty of folk on here who will tell you that those who write reasonably well - like me - know sweet FA about trading. And they're right!

Tim.

Message received. If I dumb my posts down I'll earn kudos and respect. I'm starting from a fairly low level so that won't be too hard at all.

 

[tar]

If it's not genuinely indicative of trading experience, what's the point? Especially if, as cv has said, it is based purely on post count. We already have that data on every post a member makes.

timsk drew my attention to the reputation system and I can see the data on my profile, but it doesn't seem to feature anywhere else on the site. Perhaps that could be used in some meaningful way with the value of reputation displayed in the place of what appears to be a somewhat redundant member status? It would certainly carry more weight as would be a genuine reflection of peer rating. Presumably the current values each member has are already indicative and flipping to a system based on that would be an immediate improvement using the data already available. The only system change would be to change member status for reputation status. Hope you don't object to a new member voicing an opinion.

Re reputation : It was visible in the past and they took it off , but i disagree with you , reputation is meaningless , you could get a lot of reps on your lulzy posts .. etc , so it isn't indicative of trading experience .

 

[neil]

Message received. If I dumb my posts down I'll earn kudos and respect. I'm starting from a fairly low level so that won't be too hard at all.

And don't forget to spell "Lose" as "Loose."

 

[Purple Brain]

Re reputation : It was visible in the past and they took it off , but i disagree with you , reputation is meaningless , you could get a lot of reps on your lulzy posts .. etc , so it isn't indicative of trading experience .

I can see how that would happen. I've used it myself to communicate with the poster of the post rather than to indicate usefulness of content.

If members were only allowed one reputation assignment per day (or some form of rationing) do you think they would be far more selective in deciding which posts deserved credit? It would also make it more of an 'event' than the current throwaway approach.

 

[Purple Brain]

And if the current reputation system has fallen into disrepute (funnier when it's accidental) and is not genuinely indicative of past merit, then a combination of rationing the issuing of reputation and a reset of all members reputation values to zero. Would that work?

I seem to have expended more effort on non-trading posts than trading ones today. I suspect that is a bad sign.

 

[Splitlink]

I wonder how much of a problem there would be if we got rid it completely - the senior/legendary etc I mean.

Thoughts?

Steve, you really are going out of your way to get popular, aren't you?

However, for my part, I have no objections.

On the other hand, why would you do it? Is anything to be gained by it?

 

[tar]

And if the current reputation system has fallen into disrepute (funnier when it's accidental) and is not genuinely indicative of past merit, then a combination of rationing the issuing of reputation and a reset of all members reputation values to zero. Would that work?

I seem to have expended more effort on non-trading posts than trading ones today. I suspect that is a bad sign.

To start from scratch is unfair IMHO , and misleading , so a new member could have the same reputation as old members registered 12 years ago ? I don't see the point of such system anyway ....

 

[Purple Brain]

To start from scratch is unfair IMHO , and misleading , so a new member could have the same reputation as old members registered 12 years ago ? I don't see the point of such system anyway ....

I'll bow out of this thread tar as it's probably inappropriate for a low ranking member to be involving themselves with issues involving the good and the great of this site. That's for them to decide in conjunction with the site staff and owner. But you've highlighted the pointlessness of the member status and the reputation system and it's current utilisation.

Given that, I doubt many long term members worth their salt care too much about starting from zero again or what their ranking currently is. The good ones will earn it back again and will care the least; and those that never should have received it in the first place(as per Splitlnk's post) will likely fear they will not regain their false honours and they will care the most.

 

[tar]

why not? if a new member is contributing value....

existing members need not start from scratch........

e.g. if we had blue, blue plus, silver, gold and platinum levels then existing members can start from blue plus and a new member from blue

but rest should be on the basis of reputation from that point of time

So old reputation counts ? but it wasn't necessarily based on quality , could be for the lulz ... etc .

And if it doesn't count then we have to start from scratch which is unfair and misleading !

What's the point from the rep system ? It could be misleading either way much like the senior/legendary status , as quality of posts is not necessarily correlated to one's experience and profitability .

Juts my 2 cents .

 

[malaguti]

how about based on recommendations?..that was suggested some time back I think

 

[timsk]

On the other hand, why would you do it? Is anything to be gained by it?

Hi Split',
There are good reasons to consider it, I think, as positive things could result from it.
1. Remember the popular saying 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'? Well, that doesn't apply here because, as Purple Brain has highlighted, the current system is definitely broke! It's a hangover from a bygone age where agendas and egos were kept in check. Back in those early days, I'd say there was a broad correlation between quantity and quality of posts (with a few notable exceptions!) So, it meant something once, but I don't think it does any more.
2. If it's not actively contributing to each member's enjoyment of the site and enabling them to get the most from it - then there's a strong argument for ditching it or, if possible, salvaging it into something that does have merit.
3. Stripping away all the elements that don't have a positive impact on the user experience is part of what Steve has achieved since becoming CEO. Replacing the member status system with something that's fit for purpose is the devil's own job though. That said, our inability to replace it with anything better isn't a good enough reason to keep it, IMO. On balance, unless someone puts forward a strong argument for keeping it - my vote would be to ditch it.
Tim.

 

[Mr. Charts]

There's no point I can see in classifying members by a reputation score or by "status" from number of posts.
There shouldn't be a class system in t2w.
Newer members with a brain can soon see who talks sense and who doesn't - as someone said earlier.
The only problem arises for new people when some members sound authoritative and are talking ********. But, hey, the same thing applies generally in many walks of life. You've got to deal with it.
Reputation points, status and all that junk are for those who like their ego and self-esteem massaged.
If you are like that, the market will eat you up and spit you out. Traders must always be humble, especially if they are trading their own money.

 

[robster970]

Get rid of status. It serves no purpose. Rep is only useful for in thread private dialogue.

 

[counter_violent]

Get rid of status. It serves no purpose. Rep is only useful for in thread private dialogue.

I can confirm this. All anyone ever does is chat via rep.

If there is to be meaningful rep on quality posts it would need to be visible.
Mouse over, that kind of thing.

 

[ordinaryguy76]

I wonder how much of a problem there would be if we got rid it completely - the senior/legendary etc I mean.

Thoughts?

Oh no, I will never become a legendary member.
Quick, I need to produce a few hundreds of posts tonight !



Honestly, could not care less about status based on number of posts.

 

[DionysusToast]

Either way it doesn't make a difference , because trading isn't about writing articles and trading books , its all about the pips , there is no correlation between contributing with a well written content and being profitable , most likely it is negatively correlated ...

So let's get this write.

You, a moderator on this board, are under the impression that contributors of well written content are more than likely unprofitable?

Does this also mean that those that post drivel are more than likely profitable?

The mind boggles. Good job you don't need to show an account statement to become a moderator

 

[DionysusToast]

I wonder how much of a problem there would be if we got rid it completely - the senior/legendary etc I mean.

Thoughts?

I think you could have much more fun by renaming them instead of removing them.

 

[DionysusToast]

No, no, no, no!!! Grave error, easily made. Some (many) of the most insightful posts made by the site's best traders are by members who struggle to write their own name. I kid you not. And there are plenty of folk on here who will tell you that those who write reasonably well - like me - know sweet FA about trading. And they're right!

Tim.

Can you give an example of a member that struggles to write their own name and yet posts insightful content?

 

[wackypete2]

Can you give an example of a member that struggles to write their own name and yet posts insightful content?

maybe he meant inciteful?

Peter

 

[tar]

So let's get this write.

You, a moderator on this board, are under the impression that contributors of well written content are more than likely unprofitable?

Does this also mean that those that post drivel are more than likely profitable?

The mind boggles. Good job you don't need to show an account statement to become a moderator

No its a good thing that you don't have to show your statement to become a vendor .

Re my post i didn't mean literally , so don't take it vice versa , seriously trading profitably is a thing and writing and contributing is another , you can contribute all day long and talk about strategies and theories ... etc but that's not necessarily correlated to trading profitably , i am not talking about this forum per se but in general , most likely those who write books and articles about trading aren't profitable that's what i meant .

Re the mod role i am really willing to exchange places with anyone , really its time consuming this mod thing you think i want it ? I just wanted to help and its temporarily for me .