Persistent links to commercial signal-services

Community Community Feedback
1

[b]This thread[/b] (and it’s not the only one, but I’m just taking it as an example because there are 172 pages of it) is full of links to a [I]commercial signal-service[/I] listed and paid for through “Zulutrade”.

Please would the moderators be kind enough to take some action over this situation?

I ask publicly only because neither “reporting” the posts concerned (of which there are many) nor corresponding with the forum’s staff about these situations has produced any action over this issue.

It seems to me to be a clear contravention of the forum’s rules, and one to which many longstanding members object, and we say so openly.

It seems to me that the forum’s staff have a choice, over this issue: either they enforce the rules or they have to continue to censor the complaints about their persistent failure to do so, thus [I]effectively[/I] (even if not intentionally) continuing to protect the spammers while losing still more members, participation and traffic.

The issue seems like something of a no-brainer, to me (and indeed to many other members), but of course it’s your forum, so it’s your call. Sorry to sound “insistent” about it, but I’ve been asking for so many months, now, without ever receiving a better answer than “there are some issues that need thorough discussion”, that it’s clearly now time to air the matter in public, before even more active members desert the ship over these issues.

Does the forum really want to drive away longstanding, contributing members who object to the spam, and the failure to do anything about it even when it’s repeatedly reported, concerns are repeatedly expressed about it, and so on?

2

Thank you, Lexys! You raise a very pertinent issue.

I have not been with this site for very long but I have noticed a serious, continuing, deterioration in the quality of postings here mainly due to the gradual evaporation of contributions from serious, experienced traders.

The reasons for this may be many, but I, for one, find it difficult any more to even find anything worth reading amidst all the overt and covert commercial selling, and nonsensical, meaningless one-liners from posters claiming to be newbies and yet apparently already having all the answers. Seems most new threads are typified by a series of one-line pointless comments instead of any serious, in-depth discussion.

Therefore it is not surprising if many more capable and experienced traders, who [I]do[/I] have something to say are actually drifting elsewhere. But this is only my personal opinion and observation and should only be taken as such. I have also recently decided not to visit here so much any more for the above reasons and don’t bother to post much, but that is my choice, of course.

Thanks to you, anyway, Lexys for all your valuable work here and your continuing diligence, which the owners of this site should be truly grateful for!

3

On the principle that one should never complain without making a suggestion for change, I would like to suggest that it would be helpful if the site owners would offer certain established members/posters moderator status perhaps on a limited/specialist basis. It would surely help that there were actual regular posters here with the visible title “moderator” under their Avatar. Currently the moderators are not visible.

These poster/moderators could edit, for example, rude or otherwise unsuitable posts, delete scams and sales posts, contact and advise posters whose posts are creating disturbance and so on. They can also pass issues onto the site officials (whoever they are?).

Basically, in my experience of forums (which is admittedly very limited) they tend to work much better when there are moderator posters actively present and visible.

Just a thought…

4

I notice “Soliciting” has been removed from the list of reasons for reporting posts. If any mods are reading this, I’d be interested in knowing why

5

That’s not true, Carlos Ray. You can check the updated Forum Rules here.

If you see post that violates our forum rules, you can report it by clicking the report button at the bottom part of every post.

Thanks,
Nica

6

Hi, I just clicked report and this is what it says

“Note: This is ONLY to be used to report spam, advertising messages, and problematic (harassment, fighting, or rude) posts”

Previously, it also said 'Soliciting" which I myself used when reporting posters trying to lure members off-forum

7

The quality percentage ratio isn’t really that surprising considering the vast majority of new registrations emanates from inexperienced, naïve newbies.
The title of the site kind of gives it away.

Again, it’s hardly surprising. It’s a forum aimed at newbies, therefore the vast majority of fresh posters & threads will be weighted towards that sector of the membership.
If threads or topics don’t float your boat, just ignore them & let the blind continue to lead the blind. It’s not like most of them are going be around for long anyway no matter how much tuition or advice they absorb.

The smart ones will wise up quickly, get their bearings & sniff out the value contributors whilst the rest will drift away or become cannon fodder.

Same scenario with the signal providers, guru’s & jaw flappers. Those types will continue to attract the naïve & gullible no matter how often they’re warned. Such is life.

Doesn’t mean they aren’t around & active.

I can see potential problems with that suggestion right off the bat, particularly if you have an established member/moderator who just happens not to like or agree with another members stance, view or attitude towards a subject matter.
Not a good idea at all.

If members are reporting posts & threads to the existing moderators for whatever reason & the mods/admin aren’t acting upon them, then it must be for a valid reason.

The fact someone doesn’t agree with a certain topic, poster, thread or theme, isn’t always reason enough to begin suggesting extra moderation to start policing the forum.

If you don’t like the subject matter or you feel it’s counter-productive, report it so it can be explored by the forum police in more detail, place it on your ignore list & focus on threads/topics/posters that you do agree with, like & find interesting.

Failing that start your own threads then you can moderate who participates & who doesn’t.

8

Many formerly active members are saying (both here and elsewhere) that doing so in this forum is a thankless task, Nica, because it’s only when the moderators are publicly criticised that they’re actually quick to respond or [B][U]do[/U][/B] anything much. You and I both know that that [I]isn’t[/I] true, really, but it’s a shame that so many people think that, isn’t it?

Some things in forum moderation are obviously “grey areas” and “judgment calls” and “subjective decisions”, but I think you’ll agree that the posts I was talking about in my post above are [U]absolutely clearcut[/U]?

The links are to a commercial signal-service.

Do you need more? The member’s motivation is absolutely unambiguous even from the thread’s title!

No “judgment” needed about that one? If a title-line like that isn’t “solicitation”, what is?

If the forum wants to decide that link-spam and blatant promotion like that are allowed, then fine: say so, and change the rules to allow it, and I’ll go elsewhere (as so many others have done).

But to prevaricate and refuse to answer for [B][U]a year[/U][/B] over it and to keep on saying (as your colleagues do) “there are some issues that need thorough discussion” (I got that back only the other day to a personal message inquiring [U]yet again[/U] about this issue) is just [U]insulting[/U] to concerned members who are trying to be supportive and co-operative about the forum’s problems.

And that’s eventually going to lead to ill-will rather than goodwill, because it gives a really strong and repeated impression that for some reason you value the spammers and nonsense-posters more than the concerned, longstanding, contributing members.

You [B][U]can[/U][/B] see how that will eventually offend people, can’t you, Nica?

And that’s a shame for the forum, isn’t it?

9

You are pretty much right with what you say, Speed Bump, but surely the point of this site is that Newbies come here to learn something from those who have already learnt something - you know, not reinventing the wheel, etc. But if there are no expereinced traders left here to respond to these questions then there is little point in Newbies “showing the way” to other newbies?

I do not agree at all with your comment regarding poster/moderators. There are people here who are totally in synch with the purpose of the site and it is not a question of whether one agrees with what someone else says, it is a matter of monitoring postings according to the rules of the site. I would not necessarily agree either that a lack of moderation = intended moderation. It can also indicate a slack attitude.

But I am pleased that you even answered this thread, I have seen your posts before and it seems you only appear when there is something actually [I]worth [/I]replying to - which kind of underlines what I was saying…

Oh, and there is actually a site rule that says:
“Bumping threads is not allowed. Bumping can refer to posting useless information, posting one-liners or any other action to deliberately bring a thread to the top of its forum or to increase your post count.”

There have been a number of old threads recently that have been revived with no useful additional content whatsoever, but they continue on and on. On other sites these would simply be locked. And then if there [I]really [/I]was a useful comment to make then indeed a new thread would be justified.

10

This in particular, Speed Bump, what if there [I]are [/I]no value contributors any more? Is that not the whole point of this site? Do you see a great amount of value contributions here at present? Obviously you follow this site, do you see a decline in value contributions? If so, why do you think that is? I would value your opinion.

11

Exactly so. This one is perhaps the classic example.

You couldn’t even call it “ridiculous”: it’s [U]well[/U] beyond ridiculous, and is actually quite comical, now.

The same people are posting more or less the same comments in it, over and over again!

I’ve asked several times if the moderators could lock the thread, to prevent it from being continually bumped by people who haven’t read it, and thereby continually occupying a “front-page position”, but when I [I]eventually[/I] got a reply, after [U]very[/U] persistent requests, it was actually “no”. To my slight surprise.

Still, the moderators managed to delete three of my own posts in it (just pointing out that the question was asked over 5 years ago).

I was told that old questions like that can still attract replies relevant to other readers. That [B][U]isn’t[/U][/B] what’s happening there, of course - it’s just the same trite generalisations repeated ad nauseam.

But to be honest, I did still wonder why my posts were deleted when the junk-posts all remain: that [B][U]did[/U][/B] make me wonder (exactly as I mentioned above, regarding the blatant spam issue) how the forum relatively values contributions from different people. Some blatant and persistent spam-posters and nonsense-posters seem somehow strangely immune from moderation, at times?

But this issue, to be fair - unlike the spam one discussed above - [B]is[/B] perhaps subjective … and I think “quality control” probably lies outside the moderators’ activities, unfortunately but perhaps understandably, in the circumstances?

I [I][U]do[/U][/I] also agree with all your comments above on that subject, Manxx, but am to some extent “picking my fights” and will be at least relatively happy if we can just get the persistent, blatant spam that [I][U]clearly and unambiguously breaks the existing rules[/U][/I] removed.

I’d like to think that isn’t too much to ask? (But honestly it seems that it might be … ).

12

That’s the theory, but it doesn’t exactly pan out that way most of the time mainly because it’s a bit of a crowded trade isn’t it.

Like I said, those with more than half a brain cell rattling around between their ears & even a smidging of street sense will quickly filter & tune out the static. It doesn’t take long to erase & ignore the vast majority of the empty vessels on here.
95% of the thread titles can be skipped for starters because you know full well what’s coming even before you dive into the content.

As much as I appreciate your view, you’re not going to change that with increased moderation & definitely not on Babypips.

If you’re intent on continuing to participate then you’re simply going to have to shrug your shoulders & accept this place is awash with blind folk leading other blind folk down dead ends - it’s been the same since 2006 & it’s the nature of trading/financial biased forums.
Babypips isn’t alone on that score.

In a way the smarter folks (& the broker shops) are constantly rubbing their hands & smiling broadly every day they wake up!
Just take a peek at the myriad of broker sentiment & position bias gauges to see the result of mass forum participation!

A better suggestion would be to intercept the commercial based participants soon after they rock up.
Herd them into a separate corral.
Charge them an exorbitant fee to gain exposure here.
But first insist they provide documentary evidence of a viable track record before letting them loose.

I’m pretty certain it would very quickly become a very sparse section of the forum & would dilute a lot of the issues on here in short order.

I’ve seen fx honorary men members blatently abusing that rule & quite recently too :slight_smile:
If it’s a rule then it should be good for all members regardless the supposed “quality” of the information?

13

This subject matter has been raised before on here & it always rinses out in cycles.
Depends on your definition of value though doesn’t it?

Posters/members come & go.
It’s a fact of life with mass participation forums.

Not quite sure why my opinion would be of much value. I would actually prefer the place to be packed with rookies all loaded up to the gills with big fat live accounts & rarin to go every day of every week…preferably locked in to a certain well heeled & highly visible spread betting firm!! :wink:

I see pockets of high quality material & information sure, but it’s always been in short supply on here (as it is in all the other forums, both retail & professional). That’s not going to change anytime soon because most of the successful punters you actually need on here can’t be arsed to participate.
They’ve got better things to do with their time & efforts.

14

Lovely to actually have a debate for a change! thank you!

You are, once again, right on the nail here. I have noticed that there [I]are [/I]a few new people here that not only have good inherent trading sense but are also looking to develop there own progress through discussions with others. That surely is the pleasure and benefit of participating here both as Newbie and as a more experienced “war veteran”. But if one needs to skip 95% to find even one worthwhile thread then that makes it even more unattractive for seniors to contribute? - which only serves to exacerbate the situation even further?

Probably not. But, on the other hand, I am sure that having visible moderators as posters does have an impact. Actually, one approach that I would favour more would be for other posters to actually challenge these one liners and interrogate [I]why [/I]they think this or that, what is their comment based on etc - might even generate more conversation :slight_smile:

Näh, “They all laughed and said it can’t be done, its been tried so often before, …and he quietly got on with what couldn’t be done” :slight_smile: change can and does happen - depends on the motivation! in this case the motivation is probably continued advertising income based on forum activity?

But, no, I am not an activist or crusader here, I just wanted to lend my support to the OP for her genuine concern for the degree of commercialised postings allowed here. I’m past being the rebel, I just trade :slight_smile:

Sure! So why is that not happening if the moderation here is working?

15

You could also argue the same deal with all the introduce threads that regularly swamp the forum in large numbers. They tend to attract one liner replies too from other clueless newbies inflating their post counts, but it’s another shoulder shrug moment.

They’re not going to change it because they want to encourage these rookies onto the treadmill to hopefully participate, click a few ad banners, boost the numbers & help retain & attract fresh advertising revenue - it’s their business model after all & you can’t really blame them.

If a thread is worth the effort & merit then it’ll float back up onto the front page.

16

Indeed - exactly so, one would think?

Which is why I find it so baffling, given the [I][U]huge[/U][/I] decline in traffic and participation, that we can’t have the spam deleted, when departing members (who give a reason, either here or elsewhere, for their departure) are saying they left because they can’t stand the spam any more. (As I can’t.)

I’m not asking for rule-changes, or different interpretations, in my OP.

All I’m doing is asking for current rules to be enforced when they’re so [I]flagrantly and persistently[/I] being broken.

I don’t see anyone telling me (and have never seen anyone telling me) that blatant links to commercial signal-services [B]are[/B] allowed. (I wouldn’t still be here, if that were so.) [I]So why can’t they just be removed[/I]?? The examples I’ve given (link in my original post) are [B]totally[/B] unambiguous. They just don’t come any clearer than that.

17

I guess because you speak things as they are - and I like that. You know what you are talking about - and I like that, too.

This is most certainly true. I confess that it has been rather an eye-opener, having been here for about a year. As an ex-institutional trader, I have deliberately generally maintained a recluse environment from public arenas as a private trader. The curiosity that led me here has kind of evaporated due to a serious lack of inspiration from postings. It was definitely different a year ago, right now it is pretty much dead with a few exceptions, but you are probably right, it is just a cycle …

18

Probably, but then the senior does have a choice.
Not everyone spreads their love around.
Some side step the generic madness & focus on specifics.

Good luck with that.
From what little i’ve seen lately of that type of poster i’d seriously doubt most of them could tie their own shoelaces let alone engage in anything more than one line dialogue.

Beats me.
That’s a question for the moderators/admin.

19

Great discussion guys.

But lets call a spade a spade and call Babypips for what is is worth. At the end of the day, it is a commercial site with commercial interests. And those commercial interests are growing like a cancer. Hell I can’t even browse on my phone without google ads popping up left, right and center. Even worse, censorship is appearing to be the flavor of the day. Sorry, don’t need to be saved from myself.

The reality of it all is that the service offering that is provided by this organization has become irrelevant. This site is exactly the same as it was 4 years ago when I first joined. How many service providers exist after 4 years without changing/adapting their offering to current market conditions - none.

Unless the owners find some way of re-inventing their offering, this site will go the way of many newbies, broke and to the dogs. There is only a handful of contributing members left. And probably 50% of us have contribute here. Reckon the fat lady is warming her vocal cords.

20

I understand this. I don’t mind it - we all appreciate that the site has to make money from advertising. I’m not complaining about that.

Only about the fact that it takes [I]many months[/I] to get an explanation of why the blatant, persistent spam in some members’ posts is endlessly tolerated, when it [U]so clearly[/U] breaks the rules.

Undeniably, the forum appears in some cases to be protecting the spammers while removing posts from other members (such as in the very clearcut case of the example I mentioned above, which is [I]just one of many[/I]). This leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.

If the answer is “We need the income these members give us to be allowed to promote their signal services here”, then fine: say so, label them as “sponsors” or something, and we’ll understand. But to pretend [B][U]for so long[/U][/B] that it isn’t happening, or that it’s a “grey area”, or that it “needs a full discussion” (what? for a [B][U]YEAR[/U][/B]?!) just isn’t cutting the mustard. Not after all this time. Sorry.

If you [U]allow[/U] recidivistic links to commercial signal-services, then please own up to it and tell us, so we can stop reporting them, rather than occasionally thanking us for reaching out and for our feedback, while actually continuing to ignore us completely.

If you don’t, then please remove them.

Your members care.

And without your members, you don’t have a forum.

[U][B]And[/B][/U] you create ill-will out of goodwill. (No “cheeky tone” intended, but what kind of way to run a business is that? ).

People are concerned about this because [I]we actually care about the place[/I], and like it (or at least used to, though admittedly many have departed because of the persistance of these issues and the staff’s [I]apparent[/I] very persistent lack of willingness to address them). No secret there.

Indeed.

Traffic and participation are declining here while increasing at some “competing sites”. Fact.

I suppose so, yes. A shame. As so many of us have now been saying for so long (albeit that there aren’t many of us left, now, to say it), [I]it could all fairly easily have been avoided[/I].

I’ll be honest: I’m torn between sometimes really wanting to know what’s going on and why, and whether something can still be salvaged from it, and at other times just getting completely sick of it and leaving. :28: