Recommend your Solutions about Irresponsibility of Some Developers and Sellers.
Hi friends.
What's your idea about some developers that distribute signals or products that haven't any similarity to explained or promised performance?
It's true and acceptable that the responsibility of purchasing products lies with buyer, but it's also plausible that seller must be responsible about customer care.
Please comment your suggestions about crackdown on Irresponsibility and enticement of others by some developers and sellers.
I suggest that if rating of product have a minimum level (touching minimum level equals to account limitations), then seller will become more responsible to correct his performance in order to remove restrictions.
If the seller continue to irresponsibility, MQL5 can stop his product selling.
" I suggest that if rating of product have a minimum level (touching minimum level equals to account limitations), then seller will become more responsible to correct his performance in order to remove restrictions."
Larger more established sellers would purchase the products of smaller less established sellers then leave a negative review even if the product is very good. This would result in the accounts of small sellers being limited because of the unscrupulous behaviour of predatory larger sellers so over time the larger sellers would establish a complete monopoly of the market. Ultimately, the problem you write about would not be solved; in fact it would be made much worse.
Hi friends.
What's your idea about some developers that distribute signals or products that haven't any similarity to explained or promised performance?
It's true and acceptable that the responsibility of purchasing products lies with buyer, but it's also plausible that seller must be responsible about customer care.
Please comment your suggestions about crackdown on Irresponsibility and enticement of others by some developers and sellers.
I suggest that if rating of product have a minimum level (touching minimum level equals to account limitations), then seller will become more responsible to correct his performance in order to remove restrictions.
If the seller continue to irresponsibility, MQL5 can stop his product selling.
Interesting discussion .
I believe ratings should have weight based on use by the buyer.
Things were not so blatantly "you will be rich in 1 day look at this backtest" before the market "gates" were opened wide.
With the flooding in of more competition -competition that had not invested any time in beeing a proper seller - the then established sellers had to compete with promises of riches ,photos of money,since even if its not allowed the enforcement is really slow or non-existent.
So in order to compete some chose to play along ,and you cant fully judge them for it .After a while the notion of "what you are aware of and is not punished is allowed" kicks in.
We are seeing it now , by summer most if not all sellers will be exchanging products for 5 star reviews.
Imagine for instance that in 2017 one ea was rejected by the market moderator for a typo on the inputs ,compare that to today.
mql5 cant step in all the time though.
At some point ,buyers must take more time in their evaluation of product purchase decisions.Mql5 just needs to give them more tools toward that.
Things mql5 can do to resolve some issues : (my opinion , its an opinion)
- Provide a buyer verification method so that sellers dont use the reviews mechanism for that purpose
- Thread the review mechanism inside the ea's and indicators ,track stats and allow buyers to filter (and search) reviews by these stats.(if the server capacity can handle it)
- More flexibility in signal search .
Hi friends.
What's your idea about some developers that distribute signals or products that haven't any similarity to explained or promised performance?
It's true and acceptable that the responsibility of purchasing products lies with buyer, but it's also plausible that seller must be responsible about customer care.
Please comment your suggestions about crackdown on Irresponsibility and enticement of others by some developers and sellers.
I suggest that if rating of product have a minimum level (touching minimum level equals to account limitations), then seller will become more responsible to correct his performance in order to remove restrictions.
If the seller continue to irresponsibility, MQL5 can stop his product selling.
Hi friends.
What's your idea about some developers that distribute signals or products that haven't any similarity to explained or promised performance?
It's true and acceptable that the responsibility of purchasing products lies with buyer, but it's also plausible that seller must be responsible about customer care.
Please comment your suggestions about crackdown on Irresponsibility and enticement of others by some developers and sellers.
I suggest that if rating of product have a minimum level (touching minimum level equals to account limitations), then seller will become more responsible to correct his performance in order to remove restrictions.
If the seller continue to irresponsibility, MQL5 can stop his product selling.
A workable review solution for robots is to make the review process 80% automated. The review by a customer would make up 20% of a review:
- Signal
- SL & PT
- Age of signal
- Performance
- Customer
So if an EA listed on the market does not have a signal, it is automatically at a review disadvantage. The quality of an EA's signal could drive other review criteria. Naturally, the customer still gets to leave a review but as part of a wider more objective review. This type of review system would be difficult to defraud. A signal's start date for the review would be the point at which it is listed on MQL5.com.
" I suggest that if rating of product have a minimum level (touching minimum level equals to account limitations), then seller will become more responsible to correct his performance in order to remove restrictions."
Larger more established sellers would purchase the products of smaller less established sellers then leave a negative review even if the product is very good. This would result in the accounts of small sellers being limited because of the unscrupulous behaviour of predatory larger sellers so over time the larger sellers would establish a complete monopoly of the market. Ultimately, the problem you write about would not be solved; in fact it would be made much worse.
Dear Max
My question was about some sellers who are irresponsible about their services.
MQL5 must not be indifferent to this issue.
To be Small or to be Large, that is not the question!Dear Max
My question was about some sellers who are irresponsible about their services.
MQL5 must not be indifferent to this issue.
To be Small or to be Large, that is not the question!Sometimes the responsibility lies with the buyer. For example: wrong setting, use over-lot orders, lack of capital management and etc.
But in some cases, the seller needs a punishment.
MQL5 can refund payments that reported enough negative and harmful.
Proving this cases requires expertise and will not be too difficult.
Sometimes the responsibility lies with the buyer. For example: wrong setting, use over-lot orders, lack of capital management and etc.
But in some cases, the seller needs a punishment.
MQL5 can refund payments that reported enough negative and harmful.
Proving this cases requires expertise and will not be too difficult.
- If you bought the product from your friend or from your relative or from very active users on this forum so you can fix anything related with the sellers who are responsible about what they are seller (and because you both know each other for the long time).
- But if you bought something from "anyone" just because of have a lot of money so - sorry: it is your risk, and this risk can not be turned to anyone else.
----------------
I am posting this suggestion all the time on the forum. It is related to the Signals, the Market, and to the Freelance as well -
Forum on trading, automated trading systems and testing trading strategies
...
Sergey Golubev, 2020.01.16 06:35
There is one rule which some people follow:
subscribe to the signal or create an order in Freelance or purchase the product from the user/seller/coder/provider you know in person or you know by activity on the forum.
Because if you purchased something so I may ask:
"Do you know the seller in person, or you are familiar with him on this forum?"
If you say: "Not" so it will be very strange case for me ...
----------------
There are a lot of professional and honest users/coders on the forum, and some of them are very active on this forum helping to the other people and replying on the forum posts/requests.
Always choose the person you know in this forum (who is very active here), and you will have much less problems with anything.
Just my opinion sorry (because I am not a coder, and I am using Freelance and Market as well).
Hi friends.
What's your idea about some developers that distribute signals or products that haven't any similarity to explained or promised performance?
It's true and acceptable that the responsibility of purchasing products lies with buyer, but it's also plausible that seller must be responsible about customer care.
Please comment your suggestions about crackdown on Irresponsibility and enticement of others by some developers and sellers.
I suggest that if rating of product have a minimum level (touching minimum level equals to account limitations), then seller will become more responsible to correct his performance in order to remove restrictions.
If the seller continue to irresponsibility, MQL5 can stop his product selling.
Be honest is the key, if the seller can't give what he is promising, so he or she have to stop. I mean, the market, being Forex or not, it's crazy, difficult, create an EA for example, that gives 90% wins and 10% losses is very hard, but, if the person say the true, that the market isn't so simple and that the person did an EA that uses a logical that makes sense and sometimes win, but can lose, I believe there are no, 0, problems with this seller, since it's saying the true, if the person attaches an informative that the buyer will buy the thing at his or her own risk, it says everything. The problem is to promise big things about indicators, EAs or anything else. I mentioned before EAs, but it applies to every type of instrument, just quoted an example, because EAs are very popular.
- If you bought the product from your friend or from your relative or from very active users on this forum so you can fix anything related with the sellers who are responsible about what they are seller (and because you both know each other for the long time).
- But if you bought something from "anyone" just because of have a lot of money so - sorry: it is your risk, and this risk can not be turned to anyone else.
----------------
I am posting this suggestion all the time on the forum. It is related to the Signals, the Market, and to the Freelance as well -
----------------
There are a lot of professional and honest users/coders on the forum, and some of them are very active on this forum helping to the other people and replying on the forum posts/requests.
Always choose the person you know in this forum (who is very active here), and you will have much less problems with anything.
Just my opinion sorry (because I am not a coder, and I am using Freelance and Market as well).
I'm 90% agree with your opinion. But I think that your idea has a drawback.
What's your idea when a developer is active but just one of his/her product is not acceptable in terms of the vast majority of purchasers?
Must everyone of them loss money because of popularity of seller?
Or When a seller is beginner and nonpopular in MQL5 but his/her product is good, how long does it take to be trusted?
MQL5 monitoring of positive and negative performances can be good for both buyers and sellers.
Be honest is the key, if the seller can't give what he is promising, so he or she have to stop. I mean, the market, being Forex or not, it's crazy, difficult, create an EA for example, that gives 90% wins and 10% losses is very hard, but, if the person say the true, that the market isn't so simple and that the person did an EA that uses a logical that makes sense and sometimes win, but can lose, I believe there are no, 0, problems with this seller, since it's saying the true, if the person attaches an informative that the buyer will buy the thing at his or her own risk, it says everything. The problem is to promise big things about indicators, EAs or anything else. I mentioned before EAs, but it applies to every type of instrument, just quoted an example, because EAs are very popular.
Yes!
A developer should be honest and stop distribution of a bad product. If his/her product has very negative reviews, MQL5 can suspend distribution of it until buyers' problem is solved.
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
You agree to website policy and terms of use
Hi friends.
What's your idea about some developers that distribute signals or products that haven't any similarity to explained or promised performance?
It's true and acceptable that the responsibility of purchasing products lies with buyer, but it's also plausible that seller must be responsible about customer care.
Please comment your suggestions about crackdown on Irresponsibility and enticement of others by some developers and sellers.
I suggest that if rating of product have a minimum level (touching minimum level equals to account limitations), then seller will become more responsible to correct his performance in order to remove restrictions.
If the seller continue to irresponsibility, MQL5 can stop his product selling.