Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
I mentioned this topic to @Big Mike in a PM, and he asked me to post here in order to generate some discussion about it:
Since with the futures.io (formerly BMT) 5.0 changes, we are moving to a more professional appeal for the site, I thought I would mention something that you may want to consider at some point. This is essentially trivial in the scheme of things, but I didn't want to forget it.
It has to do with the designation of "Market Wizards," of which I have the honor to be one.
I think it is great to have a way to distinguish people who have participated broadly in the forum and who have been judged by the membership as having contributed -- participation and contribution are the name of the game, and what makes this forum valuable.
However, I do not regard myself as a "Market Wizard," at least as it is customarily meant. We all know of the "Market Wizard" books, which profile very successful, or at least famous, traders. I hope I've added value, but whatever I have done is not the same as any of these guys. I am proud that people on the forum have liked what I've brought to it, but to a complete outsider, it may appear that the designation implies some similarity with those "wizards," when the point is entirely different. Basically, I'm a heavy contributor here, not a wizardly trader. I'm also not necessarily "legendary," although sometimes I am in my own mind.
So, since we're talking, in part, about broadening the appeal of the forum, and especially to a broader professional audience, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to use designations that are more descriptive of high-participation users but that don't imply extraordinary market success -- certainly many are successful, but that is not how we get the titles. I'm concerned that it might be a reason for some to take the forum less seriously.
Having said that, do I have a better suggestion? Well, no. And, as I said, this is a fairly trivial point. But since the question at hand is improving the forum, and expanding its broad appeal, I thought I would raise it before I forgot it. Obviously, it also affects other people as well, and so would best be discussed with all concerned.
Just a quick thought on a weekend. Not of earthshaking importance, as things go, and maybe something to look at further down the road, after the bigger matters are settled.
But the question is, what do we think? Would a change improve the presentation of the forum? If so, a change to what?
I agree "Market Wizard" has also painted me in a place I don't belong. I haven't been as much of a contributor these days with the NT8 BETA, but again, what is the purpose of the title?
"Forum Contributor" or "Significant Contributor" might be better. Then maybe these can be assigned by Mike when desired and earned by the community as that badge or participation.
There has to be clear distinction between those who contribute technical and knowledge based content as oppose to those who just write. I have seen some perpetual paper trader or hobbyists rise to "Market Wizard" because of their enthusiasm.
I have seen programmers who rise to "Market Wizards" admitting they may consider go back to trading..one day...
Yes, even theorists deserve credit, but their designations should be assigned accordingly.
As a broker that has been here consistently for many years, I prefer to have a designation of "Trusted Vendor" as oppose to "Market Wizard". The world of trading is changing so rapidly, that sadly today's wizard may not keep up or drop out.
This designation just encompasses way to many implications.
Matt
Optimus Futures
There is a risk of loss in futures trading. Past performance is not indicative of future results.
Trading futures and options involves substantial risk of loss and is not suitable for all investors. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. You may lose more than your initial investment. All posts are opinions and do not claim to be facts. Please conduct your own due diligence. Use only Risk capital when trading Futures.
1 800 771 6748 local 561 367 8686 email [email protected]
At present, the designation is based largely on how much you post and how many thanks you get. There are other measures of activity, but these are important parts of it. The idea, as I understand it, is that the thanking part is a way to quantify the collective judgment of the community as to the value of the posting. That's often true, but not necessarily.
@mattz is absolutely right that some people get these designations just because they post a lot, and have a few others who root for them. We may see that if someone pounds away in their one thread and has a couple of people who always thank them. Eventually, they turn red.
The problem is, that there needs to be some measure of value, not just output, and it can't be simply @Big Mike deciding he likes them. It needs to be some community judgment -- or at least, that's what it is today, or what it attempts to be by taking into account the "Thanks." At least someone felt they contributed. That's the issue.
Sometimes a popular poster gets "Thanked" a lot, or someone with just a few enthusiasts gets their "Thanks" a lot, without much actual value being there. But the "Thanking" is still a kind of voting, and voting, while imperfect, is what we've got. The other alternative is to have some group of members (or just Mike) decide who is worthy, which opens up a big can of worms.
So the "Thanking," and the other stuff Mike uses, may be the best we can do without someone making personal judgments about who is worthy. I think the selections will always be a little loose and the criteria will be a little porous. Which does not mean it couldn't be improved upon, but if so, we need some specific criteria to use. So far, the "Thanks" -- with other activity measures -- are what we have.
There is still the question of what do you call them....
My current plan is to maintain a similar thanked content to post ratio, among other things, but to make one big change. Thanks received would be counted using a new formula that would weight thanks given by the same user repeatedly in a diminishing way over time.
Let's say a user has a journal about how awesome his SIM trades are and how much money he is going to make. He develops a following of 10 enthusiastic users who thank him nearly every post. Under the new formula, the weight of those posts would be lessened over time. The goal being too get thanked by more unique users to receive the promotion.
A good way to handle the SIM guru issue. Or the BS guru issue.
Perhaps a way could also be found to give more weight to people who post in different threads and receive thanks in them. The idea being that broad contributions matter more.
(We should also remember that, just as most people do not post, most also apparently do not give Thanks. So, aside from the guru-followers, the total universe of people who hit the Thanks button is kind of small, based on my observations.)
Perhaps somebody with a good mind for statistics (which I do not have) could think about this. What is desired is a way to measure whether someone is contributing, and being acknowledged, in a broad way and by many different users. That is presumably an indication that they are having an impact to the forum as a whole.
