Market: How will situations of product failure be handled after a build update ? - page 5

New comment
 
There is another thing: sometimes new builds of MT require recompilation of indicators/advisors, and MT5 is updated without user consent.
 
Contender:
Sometimes new builds of MT require recompilation of indicators/advisors

But this process will hopefully work out soon.

And, by the way, it is possible that the market will recompile itself. After all, protection is sewn into ex5 when it is posted on the market. So, in theory, recompile for the new build... but I'm not so sure.

 
sergeev:

perhaps the market will do the recompiling itself.

That's an interesting idea, by the way. A follow-up question: is it realistic to have the Market automatically recompile all the commercially available products (taking into account their default settings) and then test these recompiled products on a deep enough history (taking into account, again, the default settings of each product) when each new build is released? If bugs were automatically detected, the release of the new build would be suspended and only the "very deeply hidden" bugs would reach customers. As a result, the potential for build bugs would be drastically reduced.

 
papaklass:
Exactly, the market will quickly put everything in its place. You will see how sellers who do not accompany their goods will fly out of the Market, unless, of course, the MC will mop up negative feedback from buyers.

The market will arrange it, but not in the way you think.

The service must be simple and user-friendly. For buyers and sellers.

Sellers will drop out? You think 5 percent will quit. They will shell out 95%. Count the cost of goods, the number of sales and the time spent. No one will be vigilant. It's banal and unprofitable.

 
It has to be decided on the side of the marketplace. Even if it means raising the commission.
 
papaklass:
I agree with that 100%.
Who could possibly disagree with that? That's what we're all here for. :)
 

My opinion on the subject.

In my opinion the problem is exaggerated. Yes, it has some relevance at the moment. But not so much that every build is force majeure. And if a fun build does come out, MQ release a new one in a few days, not a couple of weeks.

The responsibility of MQ, sellers and buyers is spelled out in the rules. Each participant of the Market service bears its own risks (including reputational) within the framework of these rules.

The solution is the same for both parties:

  • for the buyer: as soon as possible to notify about the bug through the servicedesk MQ, and through the seller's personal account;
  • for the seller: (if alive) take maximum reasonable steps to assist MQ in fixing the situation or (if dead) withdraw the product from sale and die forever.
  • for MQ: release a stable build as soon as possible.

 
Mischek:
It has to be solved on the side of the market. Even if it means raising commissions.

Misha, it's not solvable on the side of the market. Who, the employees will check all the products?

No, the only option - user - programmer - support - fix. The only question is how to make this scheme more efficient.

 
TheXpert:

Misha, it's not solvable on the side of the market. Who, the employees are going to check all the products?

No, the only option - user - programmer - support - fix. The only question is how to make this scheme more efficient.

Raise the commission.
 
Mischek:
Raise the commission .
What will that solve?
1234567891011
New comment