Freelancing and arbitration. Something has to change, otherwise it's a dead end! - page 6
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
Give half of the source :)
That's what I suggested in the jobs thread there. But I was banned without an answer or explanation).
On the one hand 50% of the source is logical, but it is clear that the absurdity - to give every 2nd line is more like humor))
That's what I suggested in the jobs thread there. But I was banned without an answer or explanation).
On the one hand 50% of the source is logical, but it is clear that the absurdity - to give every 2nd line is more like humor))
I was just kidding :)
Is that how you became a moderator?)
Hello.
There are two jobs in arbitration.
The first one has been hanging for a month, the work was done in full accordance with the TOR. The customer simply does not want to pay.
For the second job I submitted to arbitration today, the customer has not been in touch for a fortnight, the work was done in accordance with the terms of reference.
How long do I have to wait for these arbitrations? The employment informer is busy, some potential customers do not respond if there is a workload.
Before this job was hanging in arbitration for 3 months, maybe the arbitrator doesn't see that the job is in arbitration. Can anyone give me a hint.
You know what I used to do sometimes when a customer caused some kind of embarrassment...
I would hand over closed code - so that the person could verify everything and make the money transfer. And I would write him that after the money was transferred to me, I would give him the source code.
But that's not the interesting part. The interesting thing is that in transferred closed code there was a running time limit built in - from the day of transfer and until the end of the week. Then the program would generate a message like "I should pass the money for the work not to offend the programmer" and unload.
You know, it has saved me more than once.
Good afternoon, colleagues.
This method is certainly good. But we recently had a principled customer who would not close the order until he got the source code.
Perhaps there will be a situation where the customer will test his plummer, get upset and drink it all. He will forget about his order, forex, MQL site and the Appliciant/Developer, who is waiting for the order to be closed.
Therefore, you should not hope for homegrown ways to protect their work, and the developer should create such a scheme in the service that he is sure his order will be closed under any circumstances, without arbitrage (which spoils the aura) and hassle. Even if the client has an accident, which can't be ruled out.
Good afternoon, colleagues.
The method is certainly a good one. But recently I met a principled customer who would not close the order until he got the source code.
...
What is the customer's adherence to principles?
There is a stage "transfer of work and payment" - the customer is right not to confirm this stage without providing the source code.
Dear Andrey, read my post in full, along with Artem's quote.
I'm just saying that not all customers will be able to get away with it.
Dear Andrey, read my post in full, along with Artem's quote.
That's what I'm talking about: not all customers will buy this way.
Yes, it's all bullshit - there are risks of a customer getting dumped at any stage of confirmation - these risks have always been there - and there is no way to protect against them.
For many customers there is nothing but a profile on the resource - and in the case of their failure, there is not even a rail to knock on.
The only option I see is to have a dialog with customer and at each step of the submission process remind them "the EA version is submitted for work, you need to confirm two steps for the completion and payment" - after the step confirmation write again "you need to confirm one more step".
Also if possible,when the rules of the service are not prohibited- the customer to take the contacts, by which it can be quickly found in addition to the profile on the resource.
And then - what are the risks of failure of the customer - 1-2% - it can be neglected.
As for statistics -- my observations are that at least 90% of customers don't give a damn about statistics -- they are equally starting to cooperate with those who have 300 arbitrage jobs and 600 completed jobs -- and those who have no completed jobs at all -- so statistics should be protected, of course -- but you definitely shouldn't get hysterical about it.
Andrei, I agree with you on all points.
There are no guarantees even if you take his other contacts. He can get off Telegram and Skype, etc. Ignore you and that's it, as an option.
...
The only option, which I can see, is to keep a dialog with customer and at each step of the transfer of work to remind him in the style of "the EA version is transferred to work, you need to confirm two steps for completion and payment" -- after confirming the step, write again "you need to confirm one more step".
...
Good topic. But it could also be done on a programmatic level, so as not to bother anyone in terms of, "What did I forget to do...?" You can make tooltips in separate windows or directly in the chat, notifications to your email or phone about the next step.
In my experience, not all customers even know how to start a job, to choose a contractor. Recently, there was a client who believed that TOR should be agreed first in correspondence, then go to the step "Agree TOR". Well, this is all lyric and solvable. Problems will begin if the customer disappear. Some write that two or three such orders in the "buffer" hangs. That pisses them off, I agree.
A good option, two weeks after confirmation of the demonstration to close the orderwithout delay, if you do not hear from the customer. There is plenty of time to check. Seems fair to me to both parties. It even seemed to happen once, but for some reason it was switched off.
... But it can also be done on a software level, so as not to bother anyone ...
Once again. All racket with dump of customer -- it is no more than 1-2% -- such percentage can (and must) be neglected.
Moreover, any technical or organizational tricks -- these 1-2% will not change anything.
Therefore it is a waste of time and resources to add something or program something.
Any alternative with automatic termination is extremely harmful -- because it will lead to mass termination of work in favor of the developer -- and the work for which "the horse couldn't walk".
The situations in which an Expert Advisor is given to work, but there are lots of defects in it and the dialogue deadlocked and the customer bailed out -- there are a lot of such situations -- and if we make the automatic completion of "abandoned" works -- then such tasks will be completed -- and it is categorically unacceptable.
Therefore -- any completion by customer or through arbitration -- no automation.
Automated completion is possible only in favour of the customer.
p.s. As an option -- is the developer's choice of mode "terminate in favour of the customer" to do without the need for confirmation from the customer, well, or if the customer does not confirm it within a day, then make it automatic.