Discussion of article "How to Order a Trading Robot in MQL5 and MQL4" - 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
As for the development of TOR and problems with payment for this - so in the service "Work" everything is normally thought out there. The customer attaches the ToR, presses the 2nd button - and the programmer sees his money. That is, before the programmer starts working on the TOR, he makes sure that the client is solvent. And then the task can be edited and replaced many times.
I dealt with a foreigner who haggled, asked for a discount, and the assumption of his solvency seemed so plausible that I undertook to help him with the TOR, but as soon as it came to the second button, he became deaf-mute.
The conclusion from all this is that a programmer, following the rules, does not start working with the TOR until the customer presses the 2nd button. The only thing that can be used to judge the solvency of the client is the fact that he confirms the 2nd step (TOR). There is nothing else (many Internet users - both Russian-speaking and English-speaking - have achieved perfection in the skill of suggestion and pretence).
As for correcting the cost of work when the TOR is changed - here I honestly don't know how it should be implemented. But it is somehow illogical for a programmer to reduce the cost of work - as well as for a customer to increase it. Who will use such a strange possibility?
4. A contractor who takes an order and does not fulfil it in time is subject to universal contempt! They should be flogged like "sore goats"! And especially those who are in the top developers.
Tell us your life story, why do you hate programmers so much?
1. Have you been screwed by a programmer?
2. Did you want to become a programmer, but it didn't work out?
3. Did the programmer steal your wife?
4. Anything else...
Something seems to be mixed up. The contractor doesn't see how much money is in the customer's account, and it doesn't matter, what difference does it make who has how much money there is. The executor sees the money that is paid by the customer, but frozen. Before the customer gives the go-ahead to pay, you have to work on the task. Are you suggesting that we accept the job without looking at it? How to determine the cost?
Perhaps an intermediate step should be implemented. First, place orders for writing TORs. This seems to be in high demand.
What kind of customer needs TOR? The customer needs realisation. And TOR parsing is not writing a new TOR, but a number of questions that clarify and more or less formalise the task.
Everyone puts into the notion of "writing TOR" some kind of meaning. Open GOST 34 and read what is the ToR.
Here customers cannot explain elementary when and with what parameters to place orders.
And the problem is not to download "dough" from the customer to write the TOR, but to spend time to sort out and understand "what the customer wants" and not to be left without an order.
You have no idea what percentage of customers are completely unable to explain what they want.
4. A contractor who takes an order and does not fulfil it in time is subject to universal contempt! They should be flogged like "sore goats"! And especially those who are in the top developers.
At whose expense flogging? At a minimum, it is a business trip of the flogging employee to the programmer's place of residence. Transport, travelling expenses, etc.
What to do with these expenses. They will have to be included in the percentage of service. Again, how to flog? We need formalisation, material, width, thickness of the belt, etc.
The methodology of flogging is not spelt out at all. There are a lot of questions. It's a bad idea. As always.
There's nothing better than full prepayment anyway. It's a win-win for both parties. One of the customers used to say: "I don't need any TOR, I need an advisor!". If full prepayment is made, the programmer will not stop working until the customer says: "I am satisfied" (or at least stops saying: "you send me some crap every time"). The underestimation of the cost may be 90%, but the programmer will also be satisfied - at least with the fact that the customer did not try to cheat him, i.e. not to pay.
Well... be satisfied, fantasise further. Success!
In general, is it serious, or are you trying to create an image of the most white and fluffy?
What do you mean, "fantasise"? It's a real working mutually beneficial scheme. The best orders go that way. The best both in terms of cost and customer adequacy.
No matter what anyone says, in any case the client is and remains more important than the executor. I can hardly imagine programmers making orders to each other.
At most, the executor can say: "a person who has no money is not a client". That's why prepayment is invented. The 2nd step of the rules of work performance - for the customer it is a full prepayment in its purest form. And it can even be returned.
What do you mean, "fantasise"? It's a real working mutually beneficial scheme. The best orders go that way. The best both in terms of cost and customer adequacy.
No matter what anyone says, in any case the client is and remains more important than the executor. I can hardly imagine programmers making orders to each other.
At most, the executor can say: "a person who has no money is not a client". That's why prepayment is invented. The 2nd step of the rules of work performance - for the customer it is a full prepayment in its purest form. And it can even be returned.
What is such a scheme that really works? Taking prepayment without reading the assignment?
The second step is not a full prepayment in its purest form, because beforehand you need to work on the task, when it becomes clear that the task is feasible, then take payment. If you take payment without reading the task, yes shob you got in the customer a real schizophrenic or a complete colourblind, for sobering up:). And we've been there, we've been there.
I wish you were a real schizophrenic or a complete colour blind,