Windows 10 updated - 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
Market moderators 'stitch' themselves up by load. I have one customer. He has the "headache" of publishing a product on the market. He has made up a program with difficulty, or found it somewhere and in his excitement he dragged it to the marketplace.
Step 1 -- published the product -- bug #1 -- fixed it.
Step 2 -- posted a patched version -- notice "minimum lot" -- fixed it
Step 3 -- posted a corrected version -- notice "close stops" -- corrected
Step 4 -- posted a corrected version -- note ... -- corrected
...
-- says the action has been going on for two months now, hope is almost lost as each publication generates new and new endless comments.
I wonder who is picking whose brains here? The moderators to the seller or the seller to the moderators.
At a minimum:
1) can't the whole (asmuch as possible) list of comments be announced the first time?
2) How critical and necessary are these requirements? -- before the marketplace began to impose close footsteps -- for many years customers got along fine with advisors without this control, as there is a product description for such cases
When adequacy is compromised -- people leave or start using part or all of the alternative avenues, such as:
-- communicate in another forum, because posts are deleted here, banned, and generally (raised more than once the issue of banging their forehead against the wall)
-- selling off-market because it takes a while to get the new modification and product out there
-- communicate by email or Skype because it's more comfortable than in person
-- there is no "wait a long time" to get through to Service Desk -- also, reaction time should be regulated or removed -- use forum for Service Desk so they can see the traffic
-- ...
And such "overshoots" pile up little by little and the person simply leaves the board or becomes hourless.
p.s. "There are millions of us and we grow and grow daily" -- great -- but "quantity trumps quality" can also be avoided, as much depends on the organization of the process and on people, those same moderators.
The more knowledgeable contributors there are, the faster the forum will become an FAQ forum. Right now the forum is shrinking to one competent member.
The main problem with the editor is that it is not only system (browser-based), but also different in different browsers. It is originally a system controller.
Unlike other sites and forums, we allow you to safely use an amazing amount of formatting. But with so much styling, it proves very difficult to manage the insertion of one styling inside another. Recall that in both msofis and openoffis, formatting inserts is all the rage. The task is not so simple.
We are constantly improving the editor and of the latest changes were:
About moderation, please don't make such a big deal out of it.
Moderators do a huge amount of work, but were not hired to work as free proofreaders writing 80% of the code and design. The headache is with the author who didn't bother to create and properly design the product, not that they don't want to accept it.
It's a demanding shop where the only way to get in is to expend effort on self-study and proper preparation of materials. This is the approach wherever there is quality control.
Selling off-market products is almost hopeless.
About bans and forum moderation is ridiculous. This is a highly specialised resource with strict moderation on topics and no insults allowed. That's why we have a clean site that doesn't lose its audience because you've been vilified.
And do not pretend that there are no bans and removals on other forums. They are everywhere.
We are consistently improving the communication for traders. Among the latest ones are chat rooms in terminals, including mobile terminals. Everything is fast and functional there. In general, it is a strange complaint about communication, when it was us who brought traders together and trained them in one place, made it possible to find each other and work with each other.
A simple example, reproducible in any browser (mine is Chrome): quote someone else's message, start replying to it and after typing two or three characters, delete them (discovering that you forgot to switch the layout - a regular situation). Without a switch in HTML you will not be able to continue.
You don't need to do any switching. You press Ctrl+1 and keep typing. It's annoying, though.
The bans and moderating of the forum are ridiculous. This is a highly specialised resource with strict moderation on topics and no insults allowed. That's why we have a clean site that doesn't lose its audience because you've been vilified.
Well and don't pretend that there are no bans and deletions on other forums. They are everywhere.
Those are your points -- they are correct, no one is disputing them.
The forum question has been raised more than once and the topic of the question was not "harsh moderation" but "rampant moderation" -- is there a difference?
As an example, cited by Artyom above the thread on page 2 -- https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/99077/page2#comment_2929265-- which talks about a real situation where in the process of discussion the moderator bluntly deleted mql4 code when trying to compare it to mql5. As a result, the specifics were deleted and the flooding, as a consequence, was left
This is what moderation is called "unbridled".
Well, when they ban Dina https://www.mql5.com/ru/users/dipach for a month with the wording "for insulting" -- then, who knows her scrupulousness and tactfulness -- really "laughed".
p.s. It wasn't my intention to develop "forum moderation" once again, just responding to your post, which was a response to mine.
...
In other words, you are promoting sales of stolen programs and programs concocted by hand, while the quality of the products is so low that you complain about slow verification by moderators because of the numerous errors?
Or maybe even simpler - the programmer's hands are crooked, not the checks are slow, if there is not even StopLevel control in the EA?
Quality depends on the content of the marketer's product, not its wrapper. As for "content verification", the Market rules state the following:
1.9. The "Market" service administration does not provide any guarantees regarding the profitability of advisors (trading robots, experts), as well as the correctness of calculations in custom technical indicators sold through the "Market" service.
1.10. The "Market" service administration only conducts formal verification of Products for compliance with the functionality declared by the Seller.
Recently a real case occurred.
A Customer purchased an indicator, which produces signals when placed on a chart. Each signal is formed based on statistics for the last 1000 bars. The analysis result is displayed as a hit rate in percents. The seller recommends filtering signals by the hit rate value in the product description
Case A. Suppose the indicator is placed on the chart at 5 am. The indicator stands and a signal appears at 17:00 whose hit rate is 85%. The filter passes and the order is opened.
Case B. If the indicator is placed on the chart at 16:50, the signal at 17:00 will have a hitrate of only 75% and should be filtered out according to the seller's recommendations.
What's the catch. In case A, the 17:00 signal statistics were counted at 1000 bars before 5:00 a.m. + bars from 5:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. In case B the stats were counted at 1000 bars from 16:50.
The customer wrote to the seller and the seller replied that this is how it works. The product description says that the indicator does not overdraw. Not a word about the detected features in the description.
The customer wrote to Service Desk and was told that there were no errors.
If you ask me, these are the problems moderation should solve and not "close stops".
p.s. In addition, the close stops, the minimum lot and other restrictions - do not necessarily solve the software, enough to make an explanation in the description - and the "declared functionality" - will be strictly adhered to.
That's just great.
It is getting to the point where we are being asked to reduce the quality of market control. On the contrary, we need to increase it many times over. Which, by the way, is what we are doing - we are developing a system for automatic cross-checking of products.
Soon we will be demanding an increase in the quality of product displays.