Ratings

[dbphoenix]

The reason why we have a ratings system for brokers and software on this site is that users can rate a firm based upon their own experiences. Obviously, the ratings have no value if they are posted by people who have never even used the service.

And where is BDT listed so that it may be rated?

 

[EricP]

Agreed, good point.

In addition, Baron thought it was inappropriate for people to be critical of the firm without first using their services. However, this is difficult since they do not offer a free trial. That said, they do apparently have their chat logs on their website, which provides the same sort of 'user experience' that one would get from being a paying member or a free trialer. Therefore, I don't see any problems whatsoever in having ET members criticize the firm based on the contents of their posted chat logs.

My two cents,
-Eric

Quote from dbphoenix:

The reason why we have a ratings system for brokers and software on this site is that users can rate a firm based upon their own experiences. Obviously, the ratings have no value if they are posted by people who have never even used the service.

And where is BDT listed so that it may be rated?

 

[kernan]

Baron, you criticize our posts as attacks, but do you read anything from BDT?

And, you talked about consolidating threads, but I think you closed all of them.

Finally, someone mentioned it and I wanted to voice my support - I would pay $10/month so you could eliminate (or be more selective in choosing) sponsors.

You cannot be happy with the kind of image some of the recent sponsors portray.

 

[Baron]

Quote from dbphoenix:

The reason why we have a ratings system for brokers and software on this site is that users can rate a firm based upon their own experiences. Obviously, the ratings have no value if they are posted by people who have never even used the service.

And where is BDT listed so that it may be rated?

I'm assuming that's a rhetorical question since you've been here long enough to know we don't have a ratings system for advisory services.

I've kicked the idea around several times but it's never gone anywhere because of the lack of standards in measurement. Some firms are doing newsletters, others are doing real-time chat, their prices are all over the map, and my fear is that losing traders will bash a service because they lost money and not necessarily because the service itself was bad. As I stated in a post in another thread, a trader can lose or make money on just about any pick. It really depends on how the trade was managed.

 

[Baron]

Quote from EricP:

Agreed, good point.

In addition, Baron thought it was inappropriate for people to be critical of the firm without first using their services.

I'm not talking about being critical. I'm talking about bashing, flaming, etc. with no experience to back it up. Calling a vendor a scam or snakeoil without ever even using the service is not being critical, it's innappropriate. Nobody cares about someone's opinion if there's no basis for it.

Do you really want to read a really negative review of a new movie from a critic who admits that he has never even seen the movie? Or would you like to hear about what a piece of junk the new upcoming Ford Mustang is from somebody who has never even driven it? Of course not. Likewise, I don't want to see people bashing vendors or each other just for the sake of doing it.

 

[kernan]

Do you not think the vendors have culpability in the "bashing", especially with outrageous claims and hype?

And, if someone reviews their logs (and marketing), I think they can formulate an opinion without subscribing to the service.

 

[dbphoenix]

Quote from Baron:

I'm assuming that's a rhetorical question since you've been here long enough to know we don't have a ratings system for advisory services.

Well, actually, no. You said that the reason why you have a ratings system was so that so on and so on, implying that there was some way for members to make their opinions known without opening threads. If their is no such outlet in place, then the only choice is to open threads.

As to being a customer, this is not a legitimate condition. One can evaluate a broker without being a customer just as one can evaluate a car without buying one. If a vendor like BDT makes claims, then those claims should be supported. If they aren't or can't be supported, I see nothing wrong with addressing that, whether one is a customer or not.

I'll grant you that many posts go over the line. But so do many book reviews. Vad, for example, took a lot of heat in the discussion on tape reading and his book on the subject. But he didn't whine about it and the thread wasn't closed.

There is a downside to accepting sponsorship from vendors who sell what you might call "intangibles", but that has to be accepted if members' only outlet is the threads to which you object.

 

[dbphoenix]

Quote from kernan:


Finally, someone mentioned it and I wanted to voice my support - I would pay $10/month so you could eliminate (or be more selective in choosing) sponsors.

I agree. The comment made by BDT that they sponsor ET and we don't is simply arrogant, and that arrogance is one of the reasons for the "bashing".

The members sponsor the site by coming here. If they didn't, there wouldn't be anything to sponsor. That doesn't mean that they should be allowed to dictate policy. The members are not a board of directors. However, perhaps denying sponsorship to dream merchants in general is an option worth considering (the whole TraderBrad flap, for example, would have been avoided).

Of course, there is a certain undeniable entertainment value in watching sharks feed . . .

 

[Baron]

Quote from kernan:

Do you not think the vendors have culpability in the "bashing", especially with outrageous claims and hype?

Yes, I think that many vendors bring a lot of criticism upon themselves for reasons that could be avoidable. However, I do not think that posting results based upon best-case exits, or not offering a free trial, warrants being called a scam, fraud, snakeoil, etc., especially from people who have never tried the service to begin with.

Quote from kernan:

And, if someone reviews their logs (and marketing), I think they can formulate an opinion without subscribing to the service.

Yes, you can formulate your own opinion of the firm as it relates to you becoming a customer. If you like the service, great. If you don't, that's fine too. But going into a public forum and calling the firm a scam without ever having tried their service qualifies as libel. Yes, the second you take those words out of your head and put them into a permanent, pubicly-accessible form, the law says that you better have proof that you were scammed for your accusation to hold up.

As I have said many times on this site. All members are responsible for the content of their own posts. Laws were made in Congress regarding this topic back in 1996. Bottom line: If you post something libelous about another person or business that you cannot back up, you could be putting yourself in serious legal trouble, so be mindful of what you post, especially if it contains reputation-damaging content.

 

[kernan]

OK. Thanks for the response.

Quote from Baron:

Yes, I think that many vendors bring a lot of criticism upon themselves for reasons that could be avoidable. However, I do not think that posting results based upon best-case exits, or not offering a free trial, warrants being called a scam, fraud, snakeoil, etc., especially from people who have never tried the service to begin with.



Yes, you can formulate your own opinion of the firm as it relates to you becoming a customer. If you like the service, great. If you don't, that's fine too. But going into a public forum and calling the firm a scam without ever having tried their service qualifies as libel. Yes, the second you take those words out of your head and put them into a permanent, pubicly-accessible form, the law says that you better have proof that you were scammed for your accusation to hold up.

As I have said many times on this site. All members are responsible for the content of their own posts. Laws were made in Congress regarding this topic back in 1996. Bottom line: If you post something libelous about another person or business that you cannot back up, you could be putting yourself in serious legal trouble, so be mindful of what you post, especially if it contains reputation-damaging content.