Suggestion to meta-quotes on the Market section. If there is monitoring - mark such EAs. - page 4
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I didn't say that's what you said. I was just giving a reason why the company, in my opinion, does not care much about increasing sales. That's just my opinion and it may not coincide with the majority opinion.
If you look objectively -- MK cares about sales and they really do -- the marketplace products have unprecedented advertising -- at least an entire tab in the marketplace terminal, that's a lot more than online advertising.
Another thing is that there are two specifics in the products they sell -- and that specificity is called: 1) "profits" and 2) extremely few advisors capable of giving and confirming "profits".
MK simply does not take on the headache and responsibility of being involved in confirming this "profit".
At most what the MC has agreed to is its rating and 'site chronicle'.
One can, of course, judge in this case the correctness and validity of such an opinion by the MC -- but there must be a rating too, one can assume it is impartial -- or one can provide it with valid criticism -- in the hope that they fix the formula for its impartiality.
If you look objectively -- MK cares about sales and it really does -- the market products have unprecedented advertising -- at least an entire tab in the "market" terminal, that's a lot more than online advertising.
Another thing is that there are two specifics in the products they sell -- and that specificity is called: 1) "profits" and 2) extremely few advisors capable of giving and confirming "profits".
MK simply does not take on the headache and responsibility of being involved in confirming this "profit".
At most what the MC has agreed to is its rating and 'site chronicle'.
One can, of course, judge in this case the correctness and validity of such an opinion by the MC -- but there must be a rating too, one can assume it is impartial -- or one can provide it with valid criticism -- in the hope that they fix the formula for its impartiality.
p.s. For example, I personally have serious complaints about such signal parameter as "Gain" - this parameter, firstly, is incorrectly calculated and, secondly, it really misleads subscribers.
The persistence of MC to rub this parameter "in the eye" of subscribers -- suggests an unequivocal idea.
The same goes for Market -- you can and should voice your "grievances and comments" -- not all of them are ignored.
Blatant bullshit and work for the public:
1) You have banned tabs "Funds", "Balance", "Risks", "Allocation", "Slippage", "Feedback"?
2) You do not have such a convenient and important function "Show signals on charts"?
3) You don't have automatic filtering and adjustment of ratings for each trading account? For each trading account, taking into account its personal trading conditions, you show its own rating of signals, which is the best compatible in terms of quality of execution.
Even on the website you can specify your broker and get a completely different ranking of signals compatible with that broker.
4) Growth is not the main parameter in the ranking at all, there are a large number of non-linear characteristics aimed at safety.
5) There are virtually no scalpers and other comrades driving gains into space in the tops
Sit down, write your own ranking formula, come up with your own showcase, prove them correct, and we'll see. I'm sure on the third try you'll refuse to continue your research.
Before you criticise a service, you should use it at least once. Even on a demo account.
But you never did.
Blatant horseshit and publicity work ...
My opinion has only been expressed on one parameter, "Gain".
I gave my rationale for the "Gain" parameter herehttps://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/10603/page227#comment_2841979 and herehttps://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/96178.
"Gain" is the only parameter in the signal box that is highlighted in bold and in colour. Highlighting is usually done to attract attention.
I have not given any other negative assessments of the Signals service or criticism of the service -- either in terms of rating or functionality.
Therefore, my point of view(even if erroneous) cannot be regarded as "rubbish".
I have not given any other negative assessments of the Signals service or any criticism of the service, either in terms of rating or functionality.
Therefore, my point of view(even if erroneous) cannot be regarded as "hogwash".
I'll give you a hint about nonsense:
Well, the adviser, who has never even tried to subscribe, is a delight.
The theorist is persistent.
I'll give you a clue about the bullshit:
Well, an adviser who has never even tried to sign up is a joy.
The theorist is persistent.
I personally see the "gain" parameter as stated. I repeat: I could be wrong. "Gon" can only be malicious. Point of view "gon" cannot be.
Just yesterday in another thread you wrote:
Forum on trading, automated trading systems and trading strategy testing
Discussing the article Statistical Distributions in MQL5 - Taking the Best of R
Renat Fatkhullin, 2016.10.08 21:41
If the language is criticized, it means it's alive.
In fact,it's a huge blessing for developers when there are critics and discussions afterwards. From traders from this site alone we get more than 3000 tickets to servicedesk every month. That is 100 requests every day, including weekends. And this does not include forum discussions.
About "try signal service" -- I will try it, it is not the end of the day yet - to try it you have to observe and study it first.
Just yesterday in another thread you wrote:
About "trying the signal service" -- I'll give it a try, it's not over yet - to try it you have to observe and study it first.
Unwarranted criticism.
Read the scope of my claims and questions to you and compare them with "just yesterday you wrote".
It wasn't even evening yet 3 years ago when we launched this service. But in all that time you haven't even really tested this service, but you are trying to present it in a negative light. So everything I said is absolutely correct. There was no criticism, it was mindless hogwash.
The author can run the monitoring himself, if he sees fit. The buyer in its turn can always ask for the investment password to the account, and verify transactions in the terminal with monitoring, then run a tester version from the market and look at the correspondence of the transactions for at least a couple of days. This will be enough to verify that the monitoring is not fake and this same Expert Advisor trades.
Putting a badge is not a bad idea in itself and not difficult to implement. I am only in favour of it!
What's not clear? Are Market Rules prohibit to provide a link to the signal in the description?
If so, it is not surprising because it is impossible to verify that the signal is from the same Expert Advisor that is offered for sale.
When reading this nonsense, I cannot believe how far the commentators are from the realities of automated trading. Legitimate question: do commentators at least know how trading robots works in reality? I think they do not.
Algotrading has nothing to do with pushing the "Money" button. It's intellectual hard work. You have to keep your hand on the pulse of the market at all times. It is necessary to diversify your risks, to trade several strategies simultaneously on several symbols. It is necessary to quickly switch off experts in case of a drastic market change (for example, the situation with GBP). Real trading is completely different from a test run of an Expert Advisor. When there is real money at stake, no one in their right mind would keep the EA on the same parameters for a few years for the sake of some mythical monitoring, in order to make the balance fit to some picture.
I will tell you the opposite: if you see that the author is selling his EA and trying to set up a stable trade on it, get away from him. He will definitely not make money even if he has a profitable system. Only diversification, only professional management and a reasonable MM can pull a profitable system into a stable profit.
... but you're trying to portray it in a negative light. ...
no, I'm not -- but if you see my statements as "mindless horseshit" and as "unfounded criticism" -- then that's your right to think so.
I may have misjudged -- so, with your permission -- I withdraw my comments above on the service and delete my post above.
and pay him to make video tutorials on it https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9LT0hlr0Is1CFiMbDas9an0-1o8VOE2g
there is nothing to learn from!