Suggestion for Baron - A Pay site?

P

Port1385

Here is a suggestion for Baron.

Why not start a pay version of elitetrader? You dont have to charge much, but maybe $5-10 per month?

Having people use a credit card to pay will stop and truly identify those who who wish to use multiple aliases and harrassing messages. Charging a nominal 5-10 fee will chase away those who are not serious about trading.

You could incorporate the pay site into elitetrader.com itself. I suggest trying it as an experimental project...
 
Thanks for the idea, it has been mentioned a few times. Elitetrader has always wanted to make the information on our site publicly available to all. Although we do not see a pay version happening in the sites current state, we will always consider alternatives as the site progresses and grows.

Thank you for the feedback, if you have any questions, please let me know.

Regards,
Joe A.
support@elitetrader.com
 
Quote from Port1385:

Here is a suggestion for Baron.

Why not start a pay version of elitetrader? You dont have to charge much, but maybe $5-10 per month?

Having people use a credit card to pay will stop and truly identify those who who wish to use multiple aliases and harrassing messages. Charging a nominal 5-10 fee will chase away those who are not serious about trading.

You could incorporate the pay site into elitetrader.com itself. I suggest trying it as an experimental project...
More...

ET doesn't need to charge a fee to prevent multiple aliases, chronic mudslinging and other harrassing messages.

ET is fully aware via many recommendations (advices) in the past by members that using a Credit Card registration process without charging a single penny will do nicely in getting rid of the problem that currently exist and has been getting worst over the past 3 years.

There's been so many different suggestions over the recent years that any one will do nicely but NONE have been adopted.

Also, there's a big problem is that moderators DO NOT have the ability to police the entire forum.

Thus, they are dependent upon members to notify them via the complaint button.

Furthering the problem, there's this delay process in removing the offending post after a complaint has been sent.

I usually see a delay of 1 - 3 days in removing a problematic post, problematic thread et cetera.

That delay ENCOURAGES the problematic posters to continue doing what they do and provides them a reason to continue creating a new aliase once banned.

Another problem is that moderators are CONTENT with just editing a problematic thread instead of throwing it into Chit Chat or the trash (deleting the thread).

For example, check out this thread where moderators are doing the above...

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=126644

That problematic thread has been edited so many times that its ridiculous.

The following are moderators of the Psychology section where the above thread is at:

callmate

lilboy716

rateesquad

Of the above three moderators...

Callmate and lilboy716 have posted in the above mudslinging, personal attacking thread.

Of the above three moderators...

rateesquad hasn't posted a single message at ET since January 23rd 2008.

Is rateesquad still alive or is Baron aware that some of his moderators aren't even active users of ET. :confused:

Threads like that continue getting complaints but remained in the spotlight at ET so that problematic posters have a podium to stand upon.

I can post about a dozen more links of problematic threads not even in the Chit Chat or Political & Religious area but I'm sure the moderators that occasionally post in those threads themselves are fully aware of their existence. :eek:

Thus, they shouldn't be sitting around waiting for someone to send a complaint considering they are posting themselves amongst the problematic message posts.

New Policy at EliteTrader.com seems to be lets delete old educational threads that are inactive and have NO MUDSLINGING...

Keeping the mudslinging threads that are very active. :mad:

Simply, there's a problem with problematic posters and a problem with the moderators that are either unwilling or unable (not allowed by ET management) to really do what is needed.

As I said before, many ET members will be watching to see how the new ET site will address the chronic problems.

However, if ET management doesn't address these problematic issues via using one of the suggested new registration processes that's been discussed about a hundred times over the years...

not a few times

Maybe Yahoo! should offer Baron money for the site considering ET will fit nicely into their forum style. :cool:

Mark
 
Quote from Joe:

Thanks for the idea, it has been mentioned a few times. Elitetrader has always wanted to make the information on our site publicly available to all. Although we do not see a pay version happening in the sites current state, we will always consider alternatives as the site progresses and grows.

Thank you for the feedback, if you have any questions, please let me know.

Regards,
Joe A.
support@elitetrader.com
More...

Joe-

A pay site does not mean information is not publicly available to all. Anyone can search and read, you only have to be a paying member to post.

This is a simple concept - can you tell me why you would not do it...especially since I just refuted your one argument giving previously?

I like the concept of ET, but the reality of ET is ridiculous. People with multiple aliases, only here to start shit and fight/argue behind the anonymity of the Internet. If you simply charged an annual fee of $25 a year, the problems would most likely decrease overnight on the magnitude of 90%+.

If you guys want to sustain the long-term viability of ET, and keep quality readers and posters (something I often wonder if you are interested in), you need to consider this.

Again, my question is, why would you NOT do it especially given that I just refuted your one argument given earlier in this thread?
 
Quote from jhithers:

A pay site does not mean information is not publicly available to all. Anyone can search and read, you only have to be a paying member to post.

This is a simple concept - can you tell me why you would not do it...especially since I just refuted your one argument giving previously?
More...

Yeah, I will tell you why we won't do it: because it doesn't work. If the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and other publications can't even get people to pay to read, what makes you think a site can actually get people to pay to post. Content sites like the above mentioned who based their entire business model on subscription revenue over the last few years have now opened their sites back up and backtracked completely. Why? Because it simply doesn't work... at all.

And the same goes for the credit card validation model. Don't you think that if it was really the holy grail, that Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft would be using it for all of their free web-based services which are constantly abused like email, message boards and blogs? But they don't. And why is that? It's not because of a lack of desire, resources or technical know-how....

It's because it doesn't work!

Now, the reason why it doesn't work is not so apparent. The credit card validation method certainly helps prevent bots and problematic users from abusing the site. But it has another huge effect: it also cuts down registration from legitimate users by 80% - 90%. In fact, asking for a user's credit card information when it's not linked to a purchase for an item they really want is the fastest way to lose them. And where do they go? They simply go to a competing site which doesn't have such a barrier to entry.
 
All good points barron, one idea is to have everyone have a value rating like a stock.

Say a person has a starting value of 100. If a user likes what he says then he can buy shares of the guy and his rating is now 101.

Whereas, if he is a troll or a complete ass he can be sold short by others, and his ranking goes down. If that user is eventually taken to 0 then the people who shorted him are rewarded for being proactive and get his points. This in turn makes it harder for them to be shorted to 0. Also for those legitimatly contributing it would be harder for them to be shorted as well.

Also this concept would draw more traffic cause the concept would be "Hella fun" and give a productive collective way to clean out the riff rafts.

-Basically easy barrier to entry, but you got to be productive to survive- Good lesson for new traders anyway.
If you use it, give credit where its due. :p
 
Quote from Baron:

Yeah, I will tell you why we won't do it: because it doesn't work. If the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and other publications can't even get people to pay to read, what makes you think a site can actually get people to pay to post. Content sites like the above mentioned who based their entire business model on subscription revenue over the last few years have now opened their sites back up and backtracked completely. Why? Because it simply doesn't work... at all.

And the same goes for the credit card validation model. Don't you think that if it was really the holy grail, that Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft would be using it for all of their free web-based services which are constantly abused like email, message boards and blogs? But they don't. And why is that? It's not because of a lack of desire, resources or technical know-how....

It's because it doesn't work!

Now, the reason why it doesn't work is not so apparent. The credit card validation method certainly helps prevent bots and problematic users from abusing the site. But it has another huge effect: it also cuts down registration from legitimate users by 80% - 90%. In fact, asking for a user's credit card information when it's not linked to a purchase for an item they really want is the fastest way to lose them. And where do they go? They simply go to a competing site which doesn't have such a barrier to entry.
More...

Thanks for the reply, and especially the bold type.

But ET is not the NYT or WSJ - ET is a place where traders/investors come [supposedly] to collaborate with others. It is not a newspaper that prints articles/stories, and competes with 100s and 1000s of other newspapers. And to compare ET to free services like email and blogs in not a valid argument - neither one of those vehicles is a message board/forum where a few people can disrupt and ruin the quality and content for everyone involved.

For you to say a flat $25/fee per year does not work is not true. The bottom-line is that you need to make a decision as to what ET is - a high-quality site for traders/investors to engage in serious conversation and collaboration. Or the Yahoo! message boards. I think you have already decided that ET is the Yahoo! message boards...so all of us giving feedback is really just a wasted effort.

And competition? How about this for competitive advantage - a real message/board forum where the content is high quality because it is properly run. That is a novel concept, and I am sure it would help your advertising efforts in the long-term.
 
I've been around a while, been online since 1979 (before Al Gore invented the Internet) with a service called The Source. And have been on here for quite a while, as most of you know.

I have been the brunt of some pretty silly comments over the years, but even so, I wouldn't want actual censorship of the posts, regardless.

I have to go with Baron about the credit card thing not working. I can't even count the places I've visited, signed up for, and then when they get to the credit card info (even for registration), I simply leave.

I think all the multiple aliases is silly. The guys who think they're fooling someone by "pumping" their site or services, or in the case of trading firms, simply logging in and asking "anyone ever hear of Shill and Schlock Trading?"

Overall the board has worked pretty well, and I think that Baron keeps involved in his industry and the board.

Now, if there really is something that you can show Baron that he would be willing to try, then I would be all for it. It does get boring "debating" with ghosts at times, LOL.

Take it away Nutmeg!!!

Don
 
Quote from Baron:

Now, the reason why it doesn't work is not so apparent. The credit card validation method certainly helps prevent bots and problematic users from abusing the site. But it has another huge effect: it also cuts down registration from legitimate users by 80% - 90%. In fact, asking for a user's credit card information when it's not linked to a purchase for an item they really want is the fastest way to lose them. And where do they go? They simply go to a competing site which doesn't have such a barrier to entry.
More...

A competing site?
And who would that be???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top