SORT IT OUT!!!!! i used to think that the broker ratings were one of the best things about this site - you could get a balanced view of the service from the sheer volume of members. how is it, that now each broker rating seems to turn into its own thread. someone disses a broker, and then someone who still uses that broker comes on and counters. its total bull shit. some of the ratings also seem quite suspect too. i think global futures is one of the worst for this, followed by ab watley, refco and interactive brokers. this has nothing to do with those brokers, they just seem the biggest victims of the morons. can someone please delete all broker ratings made in the last 6 months or so that do not contain valid explanations for the opinion presented, and all those emotional one liners made by people who probably have never used that broker (or software), they just want to express their opinion about something they may have read somewhere else (whether its true is a different matter). inother words - if it aint a proper review, DELETE IT. i think this will help restore what was once a great feature of et. it doesnt seem to happen as much in software reviews, but i am sure there are some cases. thanks.
Actually Fred, I notice they have become advertisements and there is sort of a quest to keep them published in the top to show up on the home page... Your right Fred!
thanks es - you are 100% right. case in point - someone rates global futures as scum. then, all of a surprise, today we see 2 new ratings saying they are the best! the whole thing is a damn farce. its pathetic. its no wonder that the only sponsors baron attracts are the pikers with shitty products and services for the retail crowd. you never see any high level products (other than x-trader) being advertised as the quality companies dont want to become involved in this pathetic piss fest. this is a shame as he is cutting off revenue by the unwillingness to moderate the broker and software ratings. i mean who would want to advertise their services on et if all you will get in some bone head needlessly pissing all over your hard work. the end result is that we never get to hear about other quality products that could be out there. im not saying that all reviews should be rosy. if you get bad or good service, you should say so, BUT GIVE REASONS.
Fred, Look at my review of Oanda. This is how a review should start to look. Obviously, I am a Fan, but I tried to keep it objective and balanced. Reviews are Reviews and perhaps special moderation is warranted there. Michael B.
What makes you think Global future is one of the worst? I had voted for them, and I say they are one of the best. Because they do't publish their commission publicly obvious to everyone. Their commission rates are bit higher for retail small trader, everyone know that, but they provide good attention to your needs. Two guys voted negative, because they have the assumption that if someone see their account number, they are at risk, which is not true at all.
what people think (good or bad) isn't my issue, neither are the brokers. its the people who just express opinion with out reason. in fairness i guess the last 3 global reviews are valid, it just seems odd that as soon as 1 bad review pops up, it is immediately followed by 2 good ones. often these ratings come with nothing other than a one line smart assed remark. these are the ratings that bug me. multiple reviews also bug me. i think if someone wants to submit a new review, their old one should be deleted. other things that bug me include people who drive slowly, people with bad breath and my nextdoor neighbor. she bugs the hell out of me. maybe the moderators can do something about these folk also
Good post / points, FB. I've long wondered why all the junk in the "reviews" sections has been allowed. No legitimacy.
I agree, that there shouldn't be two reviews from same member, and existing reviews to be modified. Many reviews start with either positive or negative and later same Trader has different impression on the same broker/software, and vote again, consequently his older review should have no value