Wishes for holders of the Forum "Let's create a serious forum for serious people"
The idea of separating the flies from the cutlets makes sense, but some sections like Market On Line (what's "going on" in the market), Psychology do not fit with the concept of the MTS developers' forum.
Xadviser:
Unfortunately, the developers have already responded to such attempts more than once. I will not repeat their answers; if they do, they will repeat their own answers. In short, no, no and no.
Vinin писал (а):
And briefly no, no and no.
And briefly no, no and no.
KimIV:
Vinin wrote (a):
And briefly no, no and no.
And briefly no, no and no.
Igor, where did you find such emotions. I wish you could tell me. Sometimes I miss it. And I don't have time to go to Kurgan yet.
Vinin:
Igor, where did you find such emotions. I wish you could tell me. I sometimes miss it. I have no time to go to Kurgan.
Igor, where did you find such emotions. I wish you could tell me. I sometimes miss it. I have no time to go to Kurgan.
I don't remember... downloaded somewhere on a peer-to-peer network... 70 and a half meters... by DrXester
goldtrader:
The idea of separating the flies from the cutlets makes sense, but some sections like Market On Line (what is "going on" in the market), Psychology do not fit in with the concept of the MTS developers' forum.
Never mind that they don't fit in. The most important thing is to have them in a separate sub-forum. Of course, it's annoying that everything is in one heap for lamers and nerds, and for developers and flunkies. We need to separate the flies from the cutlets and forums structured in separate subsections.
The idea of separating the flies from the cutlets makes sense, but some sections like Market On Line (what is "going on" in the market), Psychology do not fit in with the concept of the MTS developers' forum.
Last time, I was also against being too organised. But now I have my doubts. Somehow, the healthy self-organization of the forum has ended - before, newcomers were eager to answer to very green ones, knowing that if not quite - they would be backed up. Now the environment has essentially grown - apart from CodeBase and articles, there is also SK's tutorial, a good topic from KimIV, articles on very practical questions, Championship materials containing a lot of useful information. All this is very positive in my opinion. We used to have a small, almost family-like atmosphere - it was cosy in our huddle, but now the village has grown. I barely have time to read - out of habit, I read everything. Behind the forest of obviously spammy topics I can't see the real trees. I no longer have time to write. But reading has also become less interesting - simple questions are (and rightly so!) Mostly the same old links to trusted resources, for complex and in-depth questions - get sucked in time sorry. All in all, the fussiness has increased, but there is no use. Developers, well done, not sitting idly by, but they also need to understand - after a certain threshold of intensity of birth topics the forum becomes hard to digest and objectively asks for structuring. As before, although I fear that it might do more harm to initiate a revolution, I believe it is really time to think about the evolution of the forum: is that where we are going, comrades? :-)
Reshetov:
The most important thing is to have them in a separate sub-forum. Of course, it's annoying to have everything in one pile for lamers, nerds, developers and floodsters. We need to separate the flies from the cutlets and forums structured in separate subsections.
+1! How to draw the attention of those whose attention needs to be drawn?
The most important thing is to have them in a separate sub-forum. Of course, it's annoying to have everything in one pile for lamers, nerds, developers and floodsters. We need to separate the flies from the cutlets and forums structured in separate subsections.
Xadviser:
+1! How do you get the attention of those whose attention needs to be drawn?
They all see, don't worry.
+1! How do you get the attention of those whose attention needs to be drawn?
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 would like to make a suggestion to collect in this thread useful suggestions on how to improve the forum in the view of visitors and participants.
Under the slogan: "A serious forum for serious people" (other slogans may be suggested :-))
Many have noticed that the level of training and experience of visitors is very different. There is nothing wrong with that. But all new topics appear in one big list like this: Is it possible to place several orders simultaneously? Of course, no one is against helping a novice programmer, trader or beginner, but you miss some useful ideas, thoughts and topics that are worth investigating (once again - I do not mean anything in particular and do not want to offend anyone).
Therefore, it is simply necessary to distribute the flow of messages.
My wish list
1. Divide the forum thematically. The existing division is clearly not enough. The optimal list of topics could be gathered from the incoming suggestions, but in my opinion, in addition to the existing one, it is something like this
2. Numbering of posts in the message threads. Unique (so that you can give a link to it) or at least in the current branch.
3. Impose some responsibility to the creators of topics, indicators, advisers, etc.
There are more than 1000 tools in the Code Base. How to find a tool you need without asking too many questions or cluttering the forum? Each tool should have a clear description of its working principle, what it is based on and what is the result. That would simplify the task of both a search engine (I hope) and a searcher. So far, this is implemented only in articles.
I propose a scheme of posting descriptions
4) Display the registered members, showing the status of activity (on line, off line).
Join us. Please provide constructive suggestions.