Record on the Market - page 5

New comment
 
Реter Konow:

The division of products into "junk" and "junk" is the user's prerogative. We, the developers, cannot impose our products on the user by saying that we have "junk! It's up to the user to draw that conclusion. And if we get lost in the crowd of mediocrities, it means that we ourselves are mediocrity. That is my logic.

Now you can brazenly lie about "not rubbish" and ultraunique system of strategy and innovative way of coding, not to mention promises about some guarantees of profit from your product - who controls this now? Is it possible that a spherical customer in a vacuum who can complain with the CD, just passing by, can not even complain about an unscrupulous author
 
Алексей Тарабанов:

I didn't want to bring this up, but I have to.

The quality of MQL programs will reach its peak when this quality will be assessed by a specialist, not by a patient customer.

Both the market and Job need to introduce the institution of experts appointed by the customers themselves.

The selection of the best products should be done by the users themselves. Not by an intermediary uncle. Then there will be normal competition between the developers. They should adjust not to a checking moderator, who will graciously put their product on the main showcase, but to the user, with his cockroaches in his head.
 
Реter Konow:

The division of products into "junk" and "junk" is the user's prerogative. We developers cannot impose our products on the user by saying that our products are "junk! The user has to draw that conclusion himself. And if we get lost in the crowd of mediocrities, it means that we ourselves are mediocrity. That's my logic.

The selection of the best products should be done by the users themselves. Not by an intermediary uncle. Then there would be a normal competition between developers. They should not adapt to a moderator, who will graciously put their product on the main showcase, but to the user, with his cockroaches in his head.

Perhaps you haven't seen the rapture of the half-coders over the usual code of the Expert Advisor - they were parsing it, arguing and bewildered among themselves about almost standard methods of working, stunned by the calculation of indicators - how could it be - it calculates only the current bar and recalculates only when changes in historical data ... And why is it so? Why does the Expert Advisor look for its orders and not for memorizing them, and why does it use the magician for something else? If you want to understand what is going on in your mind, you may try to go back to the beginning of the next step with the help of the programmer...

I can just imagine what such coduns can put on the market...

And there are a lot of people who see only beautiful indicator and not the fact that it terribly overdraws itself on history. And if it does, they ask to make auto-refresh of the chart on each new bar, instead of tossing this "beautiful" in all colours of the rainbow, flashing light bulbs and farting roses underindicator into a trash bin...

 
Peter Konov, why on earth would you want to get involved in a process you don't understand?
 
Aleksey Semenov:
Now you can brazenly lie about "no junk" and ultraunique system of strategy and generally innovative method of writing code in the description of your product, not to mention promises of any guarantees of profit from your product - who controls this now? Is it possible that a spherical vacuum buyer who can complain with the CD, just passing by, can not even complain about an unscrupulous author

How do you even divide a product into 'rubbish' and 'not rubbish' if the main criterion is the tester reading?

We need to give users more options. Make more complicated programs where user participation will be important. Then there will be new criteria to evaluate the programs. And what is it now? If you got money in the tester - good, if you lost it - bad. What are these criteria for selecting programs?

 
Реter Konow:

How do you even divide a product into 'rubbish' and 'not rubbish' if the main criterion is the tester reading?

We need to give users more options. Make more complicated programs where user participation will be important. Then there will be new criteria to evaluate the programs. And what is it now? If you got money in the tester - good, if you lost it - bad. What are these criteria for selecting programs?

A smooth turn to your favourite hobbyhorse?

 

Peter Konov, why on earth would you want to get involved in a process you don't understand?
 
Реter Konow:
The selection of the best products should be made by the users themselves. Not by an intermediary uncle. Then there would be normal competition between the developers. They should not adjust to the moderator, who will favorably place their product on the main showcase, but to the user, with his cockroaches in his head.

and the addiction? there is already addiction in the mvrket, now you can navigate the market by the number of reviews and the product review page, i may be wrong, but the "market grails" now look like this:

- on the review page a video with a relatively good demonstration of the product

- the review page in the first week after publication only comments like "great product, I'm very happy...".

Imho, if there is anything worthwhile in the marketplace, then only from sellers with good results in the forum, you can quickly see what the author is interested, you can find examples in kodobase to evaluate the quality of writing code, I would like to write that in freelance will be positive feedback - but alas not an indicator, there is also a tampering rating.

 
No, let's remember the hilarity of how some datetime mums cut out unfavorable parts of history for their product so that it does not trade on those parts - and the product of this author was in the top on the first page and now convince me that now the market will not pour this or even more sophisticated crap
 
Artyom Trishkin:

Smoothly turning to your favourite horse?

Don't you agree?

123456789101112...43
New comment