An imbalance of subscribers among signal providers - page 7

New comment
 
Marat Khabiev:
Communism is coercion and restriction of choice, ...

By definition, communism cannot be "forced and constrained" -- the slogan of communism is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/От_каждого_по_способностям,_каждому_по_потребностям

As for "coercion and limitation of choice" -- that is the case with capitalism -- monopoly, cartel -- perfect examples of both coercion and limitation of choice.

Read the classics:

 
Andrey F. Zelinsky:

By definition, communism cannot be "forced and constrained" -- the slogan of communism is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/От_каждого_по_способностям,_каждому_по_потребностям

As for "coercion and limitation of choice" -- that is the case with capitalism -- monopoly, cartel -- perfect examples of both coercion and limitation of choice.

Read the classics:

The model of communism is essentially perfect compared to capitalism, but in practice the ideas of both remain only ideas.
 
Evgeny Belyaev:

So what's next? Naturally, those on the first page are more clickable!

You have a site, there are 500 pages. The question is which page you put above, the one that brings $ 100 per month, or the one that brings 0?

If we were calculating rating, signals with less number of subscribers would go to the first position, or even none at all. If we focused on trade values, these are the most important ones. Those signals that have subscribers would go down in the rating. Thus, subscribers would see probably more promising and profitable signals, while signals with subscribers can always be found simply by sorting by subscribers. Thus, it prevents a number of abuses from providers, such as low trading activity (a provider has too many subscribers and can trade at the minimum rate). The main thing for the provider is to simply stay in the ratings due to the same subscribers. And now the leaders may not strain themselves in trading, while others have no choice and have to strain themselves. If we do it the way it's written above, then every provider is equally struggling for the quality of their trade.
 
Marat Khabiev:
The model of communism is essentially perfect compared to capitalism, but in practice the ideas of both remain just ideas.

don't make up nonsense -- there was no practice of communism, there was only the beginning of its theoretical development -- there was a practice (most likely, the beginning of practice) of socialism and the Constitution of the USSR outlined the socialist slogan "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his work" -- and socialism is considered anti-capitalism -- so there was no equalization in socialism, nor is there any in capitalism -- the only reason: "limited resources"

p.s. I don't think the signal parameter "number of subscribers" has anything to do with this

 
Subscriber statistics (21.01.2017):
Total number of subscribers: >3996
Number of subscribers of the first provider by total subscribers: 1135 (33.43% of the total number of subscribers).
Number of subscribers from the first five providers by total subscribers: 2167 (54.22% of the total number of subscribers).
 
Subscriber statistics (18.12.2016):
Total number of subscribers: >2768
Subscriber statistics (21.01.2017):
Total number of subscribers: >3996

In one month, the service has grown by 1228 subscribers?

A growth of almost 50% in such a short period of time. The reasons for such rapid growth are interesting.

 
Igor Volodin:
Subscriber statistics (18.12.2016):
Total number of subscribers: >2768
Subscriber statistics (21.01.2017):
Total number of subscribers: >3996

In one month, the service has grown by 1228 subscribers?

A growth of almost 50% in such a short period of time. The reasons for such rapid growth are interesting.

Probably, some subscribers were in signals with drawdown of more than 30% and they were not visible, significant growth of the leader, 130+ growth of one more left signal. That's how it piled up.
 
Marat Khabiev:
130+ people gain by one more left-wing signal.
Are your signals right-wing?
 
I voted in favour of hiding the full number of subscribers, but I myself believe that the sharp increase in the number of subscribers to the signal is not the result of the top, but the result of simple marketing used by the provider itself - advertising their own signal on third-party resources.
 
Yes, the author, don't be a fool, should now be wasting some of the funds on advertising campaigns in which he can call himself the No.1 signal in the service
123456789101112
New comment