Record on the Market - page 22
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
It is the adequate ones that the wise developers should work for. The non-wise ones, will continue to make grail black boxes for the lazy ones, until they realise that it is pointless. The dead end of development.
Except we're all doing what the client wants rather than what he really needs, and if you try to explain what the client really wants, he'll send you on your way. If you take a freelance job you'll get what the client wants and clump something similar - this is the market, we meet the customer need for the product he wants, if you deviate from what the customer wants the number of buyers will tend to 0 because you're not meeting the customer need with your product
I suggest limiting the number of products on the market from one author to no more than 1 per week per category.
At the same time, add 1 more tab "updates", where they are displayed:
PopularNewFreePaid
Then it will motivate to make updates of EAs and improve them, rather than make a lot of new ones.
It is possible to set a hard limit, for example, 5-10. Expert Advisors that are not sold can always be replaced by new, improved ones (incentive), if all 5-10 EAs are sold, you can ask administration to raise the limit
Restricting publication, tightening moderation and so on means going back to the way things were and not taking a step forward. There is now an opportunity to let users get frustrated with the old EAs and start offering new ones. I think the current situation is due to the economic disadvantage of controlling output. That is, it is probably no longer possible to leave it as it was.
I understand that they have now made it fully automatic...well then wait for the first spammers who will publish the same thing every day in the maximum possible number simply by changing the number in the title.
If there are no restrictions and publishing is automatic, spam will happen.
To publish something on the marketplace, you have to be verified - and once you lose verification, you may never get it again.
Automatically check the similarity of publications - possibly by product description and code.
It is not that hard to make some "loud" deletions and blockings followed by "scarecrows" on the forum.
what are the criteria for similarity? change of 1-2 variables in code makes products unlike others?
I think the verification needs to be done only once, and then the EA will be basically the same.
The picture above with a bunch of variants of one and the same EA is none other than the first spam.
To publish something on the marketplace, you have to be verified - and once you lose verification, you may never get it again.
Automatically check the similarity of publications - possibly by product description and code.
Making several "loud" deletions and blockings followed by "scarecrows" on the forum is not so difficult.
Wouldn't it be easier to make a limit on the maximum number of products from 1 author per day? Or better yet, no more than 1-2 per week in 1 section.
Wouldn't it be easier to limit the maximum number of products from 1 author per day? Better yet, no more than 1-2 per week in 1 section.
What difference would it make? 50 robots per year, the same pile, if the limit is fixed, so they do not reproduce junk, but replace it, how can you create more than 5 robots and depend on Market? More than 5-10 robots is not quality but quantity, it is rubbish.
what will it change? 50 robots a year each, same pile, if the limit is fixed so they don't reproduce junk, how can you create more than 5 Working robots and depend on Market? More than 5 robots is not quality but quantity, it is rubbish.
I disagree. I have 450+ robots and they are all quite good quality.
How do you define "robot quality", bro? It serves its purpose, the CU lives up to it. What's the criterion for saying "this is quality and this is crap"?
I disagree. I have 450+ robots and they're all quite good quality.
How do you define "robot quality", bro? It serves its purpose, the CU stands up to it. By what criterion are we to consider that "this is quality and this is crap" ?
:)
Perhaps we should change the definition of "poor quality" to "temporarily ineffective at a certain period of time on a certain symbol."