Book of comments and suggestions - page 5

New comment
 
Афанасий Грозный:
Don't bring "doomsday" from "terminator" any closer... it won't be good for anyone...
I myself have been getting worried lately. If humans cannot be trained indefinitely and AI will be like God in time.

Well, before that happens, let it work in the market :-D)))
 

Forum on trading, automated trading systems and trading strategies testing

Subscribers imbalance among signal providers

Dmitiry Ananiev, 2017.02.11 20:53

I would like to make a suggestion for the Service. If I and the signal provider have the same deposit and the drawdown is not more than 10%, then I want to increase the risks and am willing to let the drawdown to 50%. Service does not allow me to do so. Why not make the risk the client's choice with an appropriate warning ?

Otherwise I have to copy trades to another channel via copier and additional account. Also need to add the ability to work on one account with several signals.


Like in Insta. Everything for people is called
 

Forum on trading, automated trading systems and trading strategy testing

Will moderation of reviews for products be introduced?

roma_krasava, 2017.02.12 09:11

Right now any customer writes anything. Two words and a low rating. Is this a review? It is clear that the person did not even begin to understand how and what works.

Some EAs do not work in fully automated mode. It's stated in the description. However, the feedback is still the same: "I've launched it and it doesn't work! As a result we have a low rating for a worthwhile product.

Wouldn't it make sense to introduce feedback moderation?


Like in google market. Weeding out the crooked ones by identifying them with dialogue or a response from the seller
 

Forum on trading, automated trading systems and trading strategy testing

Suggestion: Introduce a response to a buyer's feedback from a seller in the MARKET.

Vladislav Andruschenko, 2017.02.12 14:08

The essence of the proposal:

To introduce the possibility for sellers to make a response to buyer's feedback, directly in the feedback thread.

Reason:

There are a lot of positive reviews, sometimes you want to say THANK YOU.

There is negative feedback, it must be answered (As in the book of complaints and suggestions, the firm is obliged to give an answer!)

There are questions directly in the reviews that have to be answered in private messages. And another customer, reading the feedback sees the review without an answer, he or she is freaked out by this.

Implementation option:

ANSWER button in every feedback, the seller has the right to respond to the customer's feedback!


Many online shops have such a system.

Where the Administration responds to customer feedback. It's communication, good support, resulting in future customers and money.

Dear Admin.

@Renat Fatkhullin

I beg you to consider such an additional option. It would be very useful for sellers and no less useful for buyers who are not exactly versed in such programmes. They don't know where to write and ask questions in reviews.

You have to write in the PM - but that's half the trouble. We have to ask them to change their question in feedback and move it to discussions. For it spoils the whole look and feel of REVIEWS,

Thank you.

ALI example. Look at the quality of the feedback and the resolution of the issue:


 

I forgot to add.

It is a common assumption here that all visitors and participants in MQL5 are so white and fluffy. Everyone is adequate, honest and reasonable. And no one thinks that competition generates negative qualities, and one out of hundreds or thousands, yes, there will be a participant whose product is similar to some others that will either put one star for no reason or have "good" intentions. No, there are no such people, it's only villains in movies.

To leave a review, to give a rating, is in the first place to take responsibility. It is like a legal act, for by this act (evaluation, feedback) the interests of another participant are affected. Since there are no judges here, when you give feedback, you are obliged to justify it. It is the seller's right to challenge the review if it is defamatory (if the author cares about it all) or untrue.


From all this, the conclusion is:
1. It is not acceptable to give a rating (star) without argumentation.
Even for positive ratings (5 stars) it is necessary to leave a review. In practice, it will not be challenged by the author anyway, for example, if there are laudatory epithets, when the participant is writing on emotion.But, he can still say something, add something that is not true, and the seller's right to correct him.
2. The seller has the right to dispute the review. Whether he is adequate or inadequate. This is by all public and non-public laws, a logical right of the seller!
Contesting adequate review seller will only harm his reputation, so it will encourage others to solve problems, not to argue. It will encourage them to apologize if they have described the product incorrectly, or if they have lied about it. In general, like in a normal Western (and some of ours) social internet community.


Your current feedback system is a thing of the past.

 
Visitor counter to the Signal page, products, and personal page.

It's not the first time, I wrote to Service Desk too, no answer.
 
Hello! Personally, I miss the weekly statistics in the signals. At least minimally - the percentage growth and drawdown level for that period. If the increase is at least shown monthly, the drawdown is only for the entire account history.
 
I would also add the following items to the signal filter:

number of trades in the account

how many weeks have passed since the account was added
 
Ivan Butko:

It is time to ask our esteemed owners of this site, the administration and technical staff to introduce, remove or change some details of the interface, functionality and service of the current resource.

There is a big queue in Service Desk, since you can't get there for how long. At least to give an answer, accept or reject the proposal.

So, I'll get started then. Pick up, write what you need to do to make this site even better, more perfect, and its functions and services convenient and necessary.

***********************

1. First of all, as I am new here and have recently opened my signal, the first little thing that catches my eye is the lack of attendance statistics in the Signals service.
Seriously! A completely useless thing in practical terms turned out to be necessary in psychological terms. Knowing how much attention your product gets from the outside satisfies your curiosity.
That's why I ask you to implement visit statistics like that of a well-known broker


************************

2. Please make the top area of the website interface work. I personally would be more comfortable if there was an icon of my signal. So that it would be possible to go to it by one button.

In general, make it interactive, so that you can add your own buttons, links to products, fix something on it. Maybe someone has hundreds of products and is interested in tracking some of them (discussions or something). Forum, topics, codebase, documentation (link to page) or whatever. I think a lot of people would find it functional.

*********************

3. Continuing with the Signals theme.

Healthy competition is a good thing. Liberalism is also a good thing. And we love democracy too. What is the difference between democracy and liberalism? Democracy does have limitations on freedoms. It is called the struggle for minority rights, the struggle against monopoly and the struggle for general equality. The consequence of which are restrictions. There is no complete freedom as such. Even if you are a smoker you are still violating the rights of non-smokers by smoking under their noses and vice versa when the latter demand that the former should stop smoking. The purpose of such restrictions is to regulate some kind of relationship between persons, individuals and monopolies, in which the latter will remain well off, but the minority will have more freedom of action. And such restrictions are carried out in economic policy against the monopolies. This does not only apply to some huge corporations, it can also be a narrower, more specific society, where a lot of money and potential customers are circulating, but which does not need legal support from the state in economic terms, where the regulation of such matters by the local administration is sufficient.

Translated into plain language, the Signals Service should give equal opportunities to every participant-seller of its signals, as well as to the subscriber. Therefore:

Please replace the information on the number of subscribers from the exact number of subscribers with an alternative that hides the exact number, but informs you that the signal in question has a large number of subscribers. And, due to the fact that human psychology, human nature and the facts show that most potential buyers-subscribers don't bother to study the trade figures, but trust the choice of most people, this creates an avalanche effect. Like a video that has racked up a billion views, it's wanted by those who haven't seen it just to see what it is that everyone is watching, gradually adding up to another billion. And in such a situation, it's not just the fresh and promising signals, even the tops on the second lines can't get enough attention from subscribers.

To sum it up, I would like to suggest as an alternative:

(a) Give the first 10 sellers with the most subscribers 5 stars each, signing the stars something like "subscribers' choice". Only attach the stars instead of the "subscribers" indicator, not talking about anything else. Next, divide the stars between the remaining sellers according to the following formula and in the following progression:

Sort the rest of the sellers by number of subscribers, divide them into 2 halves. We drop those who have 0 subscribers from the top. The half with the smaller average number of subscribers (i.e. from the bottom), gets 1 star (i.e., each of its participants will have 1 star in the "choice of subscribers"). The half that has more - again divided into 2 halves. Again, the half with the smaller average number of followers will get 2 stars (for each member). The remaining half is again divided into two parts. The smaller one has 3 stars, and the other has 4.

Thus we equalized everyone in every group in terms of units, but at the same time we didn't leave without privileges those who have much more subscribers than the others. For example, the tops. Equate all in one place, for example, openly trashy signals and objectively high quality (or top) is also no longer necessary, because it would not give an objective assessment and deserved attention to the latter.

Once again: it is impossible to equalise rights for all, it can only be done conditionally. In fact, there will be restrictions on both sides. In any social relations. Our task is to equalise the ratio of restrictions and rights for everyone as much as possible. And dividing into groups with stars is partly a solution. The tops remain tops, but at the same time the former do not take the blanket over themselves, and quality signals will increase their positions when they stand in line with those recruiters who have more or the same number of subscribers as they do. And choosing between the two signals, the subscriber will choose the better one.


b) Analogous to Google Market downloads. In the field "subscribers" write round numbers with a "+" or ">" or the word "more". For example: "Subscribers: +100", "Subscribers: > 100" "Subscribers: over 100"


I will join....statistics should be open! Rating of the product in the numbers openly and clearly for all and that in first place is a product (or signal) with a rating of 100, and in second place with a rating of 5 - So think about how much more popular this or that product) - like not right!
 
Why does the signals service write "date added" if it sorts not by the date the trader monitored the account, but by the date he opened the account in the first place?
12345678
New comment