Where did everyone go?

[trade2finind]

I just joined this site but found it odd that there are many members who have joined +1 year ago w/ less than 10 postcount and have not logged in for quite so time. Where did they all go?

 

[pedro01]

I would guess that most got banned - spammers

 

[zambuck]

.....They all made their millions and are now taking it easy...!

 

[theSheik]

...They all lost their millions and are now selling the big issue...!

 

[gamma]

...They all lost their millions and are now selling the big issue...!

Lol!

I suppose we can expect an article in the big issue on trading soon!
Not that I read it Does anybody?

 

[GammaJammer]

Most people here, just as with any internet forum, come along and have a look a couple of times then drift away. That's not particularly peculiar to T2W.

That said the site is currently suffering a large drift away of members who were once very active posters, and this is in no small part due to the direction the leadership is taking. In aligning the site, rightly or wrongly, with the broad interests of the lower end of the membership, ability / experience wise, they will always attract a lot of subscribers, but will increasingly struggle for deeper debate and meatier content imho. Systems sellers will win, a bit like japanese knotweed. You can keep pruning, but the rise is inexorable.

GJ

 

[pedro01]

ouch !

Harsh but I can't help feeling there's some truth there.

 

[GammaJammer]

Which part was even vaguely harsh? I thought I was being pretty neutral in my choice of words.....

 

[Mr. Charts]

I think it's more that a small handful of frequent posters have trashed the site with junk, apparently for a laugh and/or because they have nothing better to do with their time.
New members join, see the vast quantity of rubbish and go elsewhere.
There are also serial multi-nickers who again think it's a laugh to keep posting junk.
Quite often newbies and sometimes potentially good posters are leapt upon and put off.

Overall result:
quantity up
quality down

Richard

 

[trade2finind]

That said, this is still the largest forum for daytraders and traders in general, is that not correct?

 

[pedro01]

how many people on here are actually trading though ?

I did my bit today - in fact I believe Mr Charts got XCO on the way down after I got it on the way up. Bugger got more cents out of it than me though.. :smart:

 

[GammaJammer]

That said, this is still the largest forum for daytraders and traders in general, is that not correct?

Depends what measures you use I think. It's got the highest number of registered members I would guess, but I really don't think thats a guide to active members, let alone active traders as a subset.

 

[Mr10%]

FF, Elitetrader, Trade2win, TradersLab, TradersTSD(or whatever), fxfisherman, fxstreet. I know i've missed one.

 

[gamma]

how many people on here are actually trading though ?

A very interesting question indeed!
A major part of the problem is the tag attached to posters name, I remember in the dim and distant past there were some heavy weights such as mr charts and Naz, who would post and they posts were debated and questioned and answered and and the status awarded was justified . When a newbie came along and saw the tag legenday member it meant something, it also made you careful of what you post.
I believe one of the ways to get some credibility back to this forum, is to stop giving out these tags so easily, it should be based on content rather than quantity. This will not diminish the number of posting but actually encourage better postings and get posters to pay more attention to the important issues, such as in a newspaper where there is a lot of chaff,
you can skip the stuff you are not interested in and get to the real issues that matter.In sense real traders will see the tag legendary member and know he talks trading and not chaff.

 

[everyonerich]

I think it's more that a small handful of frequent posters have trashed the site with junk, apparently for a laugh and/or because they have nothing better to do with their time.
New members join, see the vast quantity of rubbish and go elsewhere.
There are also serial multi-nickers who again think it's a laugh to keep posting junk.
Quite often newbies and sometimes potentially good posters are leapt upon and put off.

Overall result:
quantity up
quality down

Richard

pretty much true.. i used to post something more useful when i joined this forum. but over time.. its getting sick to reinventing the wheels, same repeating advice and pattern to cope with people keep asking the same question over and over again

 

[Mr. Charts]

chutzpah ! 😆😆😆

 

[timsk]

A very interesting question indeed!
A major part of the problem is the tag attached to posters name, I remember in the dim and distant past there were some heavy weights such as mr charts and Naz, who would post and they posts were debated and questioned and answered and and the status awarded was justified . When a newbie came along and saw the tag legenday member it meant something, it also made you careful of what you post.
I believe one of the ways to get some credibility back to this forum, is to stop giving out these tags so easily, it should be based on content rather than quantity. This will not diminish the number of posting but actually encourage better postings and get posters to pay more attention to the important issues, such as in a newspaper where there is a lot of chaff,
you can skip the stuff you are not interested in and get to the real issues that matter.In sense real traders will see the tag legendary member and know he talks trading and not chaff.

Hi Gamma,
I know how you feel, I felt the same way. I still feel the same way! The problem is how to achieve the result everyone wants? As you're aware, clearly, the tags beneath our names are based on post count and, given that the actual post count is shown anyway, it's sort of tautologous. But what do we replace it with? Your idea to award the tags based on content rather than quantity is great - it gets my vote - if there was a way to implement it. This was the starting point of the old (now removed) rep' system. Great idea in theory, but it was soon abused. As soon as someone comes up with an alternative solution that's simple, practical and workable - it'll be implemented. Rest assured that Staff, Mods and Advisors are well aware of the problem and are united in their resolve to change things for the better asap.
Tim.

 

[Ambrose Ackroyd]

it's sort of tautologous

Tautology refers to redundancy, repetition, and circular reasoning within an argument or statement.
In logic, a tautology is a statement that is true regardless of the truth-values of its parts.

For example, the statement "All crows are either black, or they are not black," is a tautology because it is true no matter what color crows are.

The opposite of a tautology is a contradiction, which is a statement that is always false.

In linguistics, a tautology is often a fault of style. It was defined by Fowler as "saying the same thing twice". For example, "three-part trilogy" is tautologous because a trilogy, by definition, has three parts. "Significant milestone" and "significant landmark" are also if less obviously tautologous, because milestones and landmarks are again significant by definition (could one imagine an "insignificant landmark"?).

 

[neil]

Silly bugger

Tautology refers to redundancy, repetition, and circular reasoning within an argument or statement.
In logic, a tautology is a statement that is true regardless of the truth-values of its parts.

For example, the statement "All crows are either black, or they are not black," is a tautology because it is true no matter what color crows are.

The opposite of a tautology is a contradiction, which is a statement that is always false.

In linguistics, a tautology is often a fault of style. It was defined by Fowler as "saying the same thing twice". For example, "three-part trilogy" is tautologous because a trilogy, by definition, has three parts. "Significant milestone" and "significant landmark" are also if less obviously tautologous, because milestones and landmarks are again significant by definition (could one imagine an "insignificant landmark"?).

This is the sort of attention seeking, ego bloating post that should be discouraged.
Come on Mods; get out the blue pencil:whistling

 

[zupcon]

Well I thought it was quite educational