Baron, I believe you should start imposing requirements for reviewing books, brokerages and software. It's ridiculous how one person can create a multiple new accounts and make negative remarks about the same thing. Requirements: I would think the person needs to be an ET member for 1 month and have at least 5 posts. This would reduce the number of fake reviews. This is not perfect but it's a start.
I've been seeing the Wealth Lab get tons of reviews lately with very few people who actually contribute to the forums themselves. Makes you kinda suspicious, along with all the broker reviews, where you can't really tell who is being genuine and who is just trying to bring up their ratings.
There was some discussion a while ago about Elite on the wealth-lab board. I believe it's made a lot of wealth-lab people aware of elite and has driven us to check things out here. Posting a review seemed like a good idea to me and others seem to have done the same. I believe it's a great product, and I know everyone will benefit if more traders join the wealth-lab community.
Just a note... I have currently downloaded the 30 day trial version of Wealth-Lab (does not allow saving of info) and have been working with the on-line version. So far, I am fairly impressed with the Wealth-Lab product. In the past, I have been coding my own scans using C++ and using products such as Big Easy Investor for basic scans. I have tried out TS but so far prefer Wealth-Lab for overall functionality and environment. I plan to post a review after I further test out a product. I do agree that we should limit "reviews" to folks that have a minimum number of posts. I am tired of broker, book, and SW reviews that appear to be first time posting hypsters. Question: Is there a Wealth-Lab mailing list or forum somewhere (besides the Wealth-Lab site). Thanks, - Greg
Starting today, we are requiring that each new member have a unique email address that must be verified before that person can become a member. So unless a person has a valid email address, they will not be allowed to post anything to the site whatsoever, whether it be forum messages or broker/software ratings, etc. In addition, Members won't be allowed to use the same valid email address to create multiple accounts. I realize that these actions are not as restrictive as the minimum post requirement mentioned already, and I also realize that they are not fool proof. They are merely small steps in the right direction towards making sure that posts are contributed by those willing to be accountable for their actions. If this fails to prevent abuse, then we will take the next step of implementing minimum post requirements.
Where did the last 2 wizetrade reviews go to? Why were they removed? I really think you should implement a post count policy when it comes to reviews. I still see plenty reviews by people with no posts. The email thing does not seem to be working IMO. What's the real benefit of the reviews when the majority are just SPAM by the people who work for xyz company? I seriously doubt anyone puts real value in those reviews. Why should they? Just my opinion.
They were removed because they were obviously not reviews, but rather comments about a previous review. The ratings are not for asking questions or discussing the firm or another review, but rather for expressing your own personal experience with the product. Regarding the minimum post requirement, I think that could work. It's just a matter of figuring out what a reasonable minimum post requirement should be.
You might add, if you have the ability to track it; number of site views before a post is allowed; might keep H****n on his toes ...
Ok Baron, appreciate the quick reply. The last review seems like spam to me. I didn't see why the 2 removed were any worse. I'd say there were more truth, but anyway. I'd like to see a min. post count of at least 10 before being able to review anything IMO. Glad to see you are still open to this idea.
As a number of folks just starting out in April have run up a couple hundred posts, I don't think a minimum requirement of 25 would be at all unreasonable, and certainly not excessive.