Questions about publication procedures - page 7
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
Subject for discussion, but I doubt it... Had another look at the number of downloads, promotion rules.
MacdPatternTraderAll0.01. Time+martingale [ en] (Author: fortrader.ru) 1131
File operations without limits [ en ] (Author: Rosh) 81
Yes, something to think about.
BUT
1. The Expert Advisor does not make it to 3000. And it will hardly reach it. By the way, is it possible to calculate patterns on the last 3(!) bars? By the way, I downloaded it myself, read it and thank him for his EA, it was him who encouraged me to write my version of patterns (really patterns) .
2. 99% of codewriters don't reach the level of using the code suggested by Rosh. I.e. the latter is irrelevant.
I, for example, rarely use files, and I'm satisfied with the standard functionality.
A human trader or a human programmer (or rather, a mathematician)? I have only communicated directly with one professional trader (he told me about the existence of MT). He was ordering Expert Advisors. One, of course, is not a statistic, but on this Forum there are many people with trading ideas ready to order EAs or ask for help from programmers. I have had to work with high-level managers, economists and lawyers. It took about a year just to reach an understanding. Some tried to learn how to program, but the limit of their achievement was a spreadsheet on Excele (they were no longer fit for a macro in WBA). They have a different brain, a different style of thinking (not worse or better, just different). In short, you can be good at one thing or the other: either trading or programming. Even Leonardo has only paintings left. Everything else - in sketches, notes, drawings - is interesting only to historians and has no real value. And self-made paints with which he painted his pictures are of very low quality.
On the second point there can be no objection: the administration runs the site with its own resources and of course to pay more and reviewers (who will determine the degree of originality of the article) is not able to.
I disagree.
1. A person who has had enough sense to put together a workable strategy.
Theoretically, there are all sorts of possibilities. But in practice, no (working) idea is born so easily - verification, experimentation, testing, etc. is necessary.
A human-trader is out of the question. An ordinary trader is a student on 200 quid - get in, get out, get out.
A professional trader can afford to order an Expert Advisor to save time. It's understandable. But there are virtually none of them.
A trader is a very fuzzy concept (like the driver, for example). Everyone has different experience. If we are talking about knowledge and its usefulness, then, of course, an average mathematician is a head above the average trader in creating strategies. Those who know at least a little about the subject have enough computer skills to test their own idea on their own. That, if you like, is the minimum passing mark for the right to be called a trader.
2. It's not about reviewers. It's just the norm. A serious article cannot fail to include a list of references and links to other internet resources. It is the author's business in the sense of the case - the article itself. And if the author does not know the matter and needs a reviewer (for example, if there is a suspicion that the idea described as pioneer is far from being new or is a classic at all), then it is no longer the author.
--
In general, this is largely a conversation about nothing. If you approach it formally, free will comes first. A collective event (author + editor) can take place on the good will of two people. The editor proposed the conditions. The author can accept them, may refuse (and can create their own resource with its own rules). And a conversation like "I want you to..." is beyond the bounds of correctness in my understanding of the author-editor relationship.
Yes, there is a lot to think about.
BUT
1. The Expert Advisor does not make it to 3000. And it will hardly reach it. By the way, is it possible to calculate patterns on the last 3(!) bars? By the way, I downloaded it myself, read it and thank him for his EA, it was him who encouraged me to write my version of patterns (really patterns) .
2. 99% of codewriters don't reach the level of using the code suggested by Rosh. I.e. the latter is irrelevant.
I use files very seldom, for example, and standard functionality is enough for me.
But I have more popular 'jobs', for example CoeffOfLine was received with a bang :)
But I have more popular 'work', for example CoeffOfLine was received with a bang :)
Thank God, I was worried you'd go bankrupt under the new system. :))
But I have more popular 'work', for example CoeffOfLine was received with a bang :)
Aha Does that mean you will consider the proposal? If so, maybe put it in a separate thread and discuss it more specifically?
You could charge "prizes" for
1. each barrier 1000 2000 3000 etc.
2. (1) but in ascending order 1000 2500 4500 7000 10000 etc. (IMHO what is needed)
Hmm, by the way, while we're on the subject:
Why not take the base to a higher level?
Like this -- the same 30 K.C. for 1000 (5000) downloads. 90% of code do not reach this level, the remaining 10% is worthy.
IMHO, this incentive will increase the amount of quality code.
At last, such system is an analogue of royalty payments and is called "royalty". It's trite, but "new is ...".
The idea is right at first glance, but in fact it's more common to download EAs with beautiful stats on an optimised site.
We will get the same rubbish as with television, where soap and Maximum Programme have the highest ratings.
To avoid posting "rubbish". it is necessary to ask each downloaded code to evaluate it (for example, by school system). At the risk of getting a "pair", the author will think very carefully before offering his material. And the state run on history should be banned altogether.
That's what I'm saying, you're a subversive, that your approach to problems is superficial.
Script evaluation is provided and has been running for a long time, you could have taken a look beforehand.
10 sum of user ratings (result of voting on the page)
That's what I'm saying, you're a subversive, you're being superficial in your approach to problems.
Script evaluation is provided and has been running for a long time, you could have taken a look beforehand.
10 sum of user ratings (voting result on the page)
I will take your word for it, you are my critic. Why such good things are lying in the underground? Maybe I should lift them up, and then I will not go down, but up?
I disagree.
1. A person who has had enough sense to draw up a workable strategy.
Theoretically, different options are possible. But practically no (working) idea is born so easily - checks, experiments, testing, etc. are necessary.
A human-trader is out of the question. An ordinary trader is a student on 200 quid - get in, get out, get in.
A professional trader can afford to order an Expert Advisor to save time. It's understandable. But there are very few of them.
Our mutual misunderstanding is caused primarily by the difference in the scope of our business contacts. By a person you mean a Forum visitor (by the way, not a forum of traders, but a forum dedicated to a particular programming language). I, on the other hand, am talking about my business partners. The forum participants initially formulate their ideas in terms of Mql. The emergence of new functions (scripts, Expert Advisors, etc.) stimulates the emergence of new ideas. To paraphrase Brodsky, "The tool of the programmer is not the language, but the programmer is the tool of the language". My partners were operating with their own completely different structural units. My task was to implement these structures and allow the user to freely interact with them. (If you need an illustration, see my website, the section "Teaching software").