Discussing conflicts between programmers and customers. A discussion of ambiguous situations between the programmer and the client, and a rating of the most conflicted programmer performers. - page 13

[Andrey F. Zelinsky]

Bormotun:
How? Either give half the money of the order, or all of it.

As for the Jobs service, the Customer's money is blocked only when the Customer is sober and willing to indicate the cost and press the "ToR agreed" button without any pressure.

And you are talking about what to do - if the programmer does not want to negotiate with you in a voice over Skype, and does not understand your TOR.

So find another programmer. What is the problem?

[Bormotun]

abolk:

If we are talking about the Jobs service, the Customer's money is only blocked when the Customer voluntarily and soberly presses the "ToR agreed" button.

And you are talking about what to do - if the programmer does not want to agree with you in a voice over Skype and does not understand your TOR.

So find another programmer. What is the problem?

No I am just talking about the fact that the programmer, selected, and the TOR passed both sides and the programmer had no questions at the stage of coordinating the TOR.

[михаил потапыч]

Bormotun:
Oh yes, that does make a difference, two of them!

Let's look on the bright side. A thousand-plus orders fulfilled and not a single customer has joined you in your thread so far.

[Andrey F. Zelinsky]

Bormotun:
No, I am talking about the fact that the programmer was selected and the ToR was passed by both parties and the programmer had no questions at the stage of agreeing to the ToR.

In this case, you should have demanded from the programmer voice and in writing - a detailed explanation of each word, each sentence of your terms of reference. Also require the draft of the Advisor from the Programmer, before you personally make sure that the programmer has understood the TOR. And only after this - you give them your money. There is no other way

[Bormotun]

Integer:
Give me a concrete example of what you personally hit a snag on?

Oh, I have a lot of things that happened, well, take for example one case, I write a requirements specification, it contains 9 external variables, each has its own name, I get the code and what do I see there? I don't see any names of external variables which were specified in terms of reference! Do you know what the programmer told me in response to my bewilderment? The most interesting thing was that he said that you didn't specify that the variable names must be exactly the same and that they must not be changed! Of course this was news to me, but now I always point out in my terms of reference that the names of variables must not be changed, they must be left exactly as the client intended them to be and no more or less than that. Isn't it nonsense? But the most interesting thing was ahead, you would not believe how many variables were there instead of my ten, you think 12, not ah, or 16, of course warmer, but far from the truth THEY WERE 45 and each had a name that was never in the ToR! The lump started to build up from there, but more on that later.

[Dmitry Fedoseev]

Bormotun:
Oh, I had a lot of things happen, well here's one case for example, I write a requirements specification, it contained 9 external variables, each had its own name, I get the code and what do I see there? I don't see any names of external variables which were specified in terms of reference! Do you know what the programmer told me in response to my bewilderment? The most interesting thing was that he said that you didn't specify that the variable names must be exactly the same and that they must not be changed! Of course this was news to me, but now I always point out in my terms of reference that the names of variables cannot be changed and must be left exactly as the client intended them to be and no more or less than that. Isn't it nonsense? But the most interesting thing was ahead, you will not believe how many variables were there instead of my ten, you think 12, not ah, or 16, of course warmer, but far from the truth THEY WERE 45 and each had a name that was never in the ToR! The lump started to build up from there, but more on that later.

It's clear - a letter-writer. There was a time when variables were divided into buy and sell sections, and the client demanded that both sections must have the same variable names, as it was written in the job. Maybe you had such variable names that cannot be used to name variables, and maybe it was not written in the job that these were not the X and Y type conditional names, but mandatory variable names.

You should be thankful for extra variables, it widens the scope of Expert Advisor customisation.

Once again, it's clear - a literalist is a nervous wrecker. Variable description is ok, but if there were unknown variables without description, it's a different matter.

[Andrey F. Zelinsky]

Integer:

You should be thankful for extra variables, it extends possibilities of EA configuration.

There was an earlier articlehttps://www.mql5.com/ru/job/3722 - add Slippage - this variable can be set externally or hidden - it cost $20 for a client to open this variable

There was also https://www.mql5.com/ru/job/3694 - add a Magician to allow the Expert Advisor to trade on different symbols - the Magician can be moved outside or not - at least $10 to be added

[михаил потапыч]

Bormotun:
I had a lot of stuff going on, well, take for instance one case, I write a requirement, it contains 9 external variables, each with its own name, I get the code and what do I see? I don't see any names of external variables which were specified in terms of reference! Do you know what the programmer told me in response to my bewilderment? The most interesting thing was that he said that you didn't specify that the variable names must be exactly the same and that they must not be changed! Of course this was news to me, but now I always point out in my terms of reference that the names of variables cannot be changed and must be left exactly as the client intended them to be and no more or less than that. Isn't it nonsense?

Fuck, it's a normal workflow, and that's what all the fuss is about?

The extra variables are usually the ones you ask for after a while.

Only the programmer already knows about it and you don't.

[Bormotun]

Integer:

Everything is clear - he is a literalist. I had a really shitty example, the variables were divided into sections for buy and sell, and the client insisted that both sections had the same variable name, as this was how I had written the task. Maybe you also had such variable names that cannot be used to name variables, and maybe it was not written in the job that these were not conditional names like X and Y, but compulsory variable names.

The extra variables are to be thanked for, as they expand the possibilities of setting up an EA. Once again - it's clear - the letter-writer is a nervous wrecker.

Variables are described - everything is fine, but if there were unknown variables without descriptions - another matter.

That's what I understand, that's what I'm talking about, I even think that if I wrote that I was eaten alive you would still find a reason to call the customer names. And you know, I guess I like to eat letters, but that was a bit much.

[Dmitry Fedoseev]

abolk:

1. there was a long time ago https://www.mql5.com/ru/job/3722 - add Slippage - this variable can be external or hidden - it cost $20 for the client to open this variable

2. there was also https://www.mql5.com/ru/job/3694 - add a Magician to allow the Expert Advisor to trade on different symbols - the Magician can be moved outside or not - at least $10 to be added

In the first case it is yes. And here is the second one - you may get into trouble. One Expert Advisor wanders around the net and it has a quite complicated system of working with orders, the orders are marked with magicians and once I ran into them without looking, for example, what they do there.