Discussion of article "Do Traders Need Services From Developers?" - page 2
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
I left there because of the unattainability of the top, and mostly people look there, thinking that the best performers are at the top. But often it's the speedy ones.
We are thinking about this too, maybe we will display the TOP for a month instead of the general TOP.
A little later we will publish statistics on Freelance, the numbers there are very interesting.
We are also thinking about it, perhaps we will display the monthly TOP instead of the total TOP.
A floating TOP is chaos and brings nothing but disorientation -- a dynamic TOP will eventually completely negate the value of the TOP as such.
The TOP should be -- a) achievable -- b) with a formula that everyone understands -- c) reflect the level of the developer.
The TOP for the month is again nothing more than the TOP of activity -- i.e., "the amount of work done".
Service Work is called "Professional Developer Service" -- and the TOP should reflect that title.
We can take the top of Signals/Market as a basis -- nothing and nobody understands how it is formed and what it reflects -- if such a top is also in the Work service -- then holding on to the service completely loses its meaning.
A professional developer in demand will not compete for a place in the TOP and hold on to a service that does not give him advantages.
A floating TOP is chaos and brings nothing but disorientation -- a dynamic TOP eventually completely negates the value of the TOP as such.
TheTOP should be -- a) achievable -- b) with a formula that everyone understands -- c) reflect the level of the developer.
The TOP for the month is again nothing more than the TOP of activity -- i.e., "the amount of work done".
Service Work is called "Professional Developer Service" -- and the TOP should reflect that title.
We can take the top of Signals/Market as a basis -- nothing and nobody understands how it is formed and what it reflects -- if such a top is also in the Work service -- then holding on to the service completely loses its meaning.
A professional developer in demand will not compete for a place in the TOP and hold on to a service that does not give him advantages.
We are also thinking about it, maybe we will display the monthly top instead of the overall top.
Besides, a frequently changing TOP carries the risk of undermining the developer's reputation.
It's a product in the Market that can appear in the TOP and then disappear, like popular and not so popular.
And what will be thought about the developer - if his location in the TOP is constantly jumping, like "on the horse, then under the horse" - it is even worse than a negative review, like today the developer is popular, and tomorrow his professionalism is questioned.
If the TOP will reflect the activity for the month -- then splitting the order into a number of small ones -- will gain immense popularity.
As a suggestion: exclude from the top formula:
-- orders below such-and-such cost -- there is no point in dumping for the sake of TOP -- split orders into several small ones -- developers "for food" and "for the sake of rating" disappear -- it turns out more profitable to take a large serious order, thus, the number of completed works begins to reflect the complexity.
-- rapid-fire orders lasting minutes or even seconds -- orders for the sake of "spending money" fall out of favour.
-- meaningless requests in the form of character sets, help quotes and anecdotes -- thereby increasing the meaningfulness of the "portfolio of work done" -- the developer can monitor the meaningfulness of the request himself
-- include written articles in the list of works, as payment for articles takes place outside the Work service.
-- remove inactive developers or developers with activity below the minimum threshold from the top -- this will give active developers a chance to break through -- reduce the percentage of outsourcing -- incentivise the drive of outside customers
Andrei. The top is quite achievable. You need to do everything for the minimum price and very quickly, practically - without looking and without checking, conveyor belt. There will be a huge percentage of outright crap, but you will be in the top. And you will have orders and work. And then you'll have a job.
That's the way it works in the service now -- floating top of the month will only sharpen and elevate the absurd.
-- to include written articles in the list of works, since payment for articles takes place and takes place outside the Work service
- A person can be an excellent programmer but absolutely no writer.
- A person can be an excellent writer and absolutely no programmer.
Then you can just write articles and not do people's work.
By the way, I can do both. But I can't write articles for A-levels because I don't know enough about A-levels, and I can't write articles for B-levels - it seems that something else is popular there now.
Then you can just write articles and not do people's work.
An article is a completed and paid work, and it is a work that characterises the developer's qualification much more than a dozen agreements on orders.
There are articles not only on 5k, but also on 4k.
If you look at the statistics of the Work service -- at the first stages several articles were carried out through the service. It is necessary to be consistent then -- to remove these works or to refine them.
And works on translation of interfaces, help -- there are also such orders in the service.
Even there is work "lost bet" https://www.mql5.com/ru/job/4234, and even with positive feedback -- how should it be in the service?
Or "Bonus" work -- why should such work be included in the list of completed works -- is there a TOR, a development, stages of fulfilment?
The administration needs to bring everything in line with the Service Rules first -- make the published statistics adequate (average cost, average completion time, number of reviews, number of arbitrations).
It is necessary for the administration -- for starters -- to bring everything in line with the Rules of the service -- to make the published statistics adequate (average cost, average turnaround time, number of reviews, number of arbitrations).
It is necessary to do a lot of work on each of the developers. And there are more of them every day.
How to judge the professionalism of a developer? By what criteria?
Again, one customer leaves a review because of dense, joint, but slow (but highly paid) work, another will file arbitration for it - he needs the fastest possible performance for little money. And there is only one developer, and his qualification does not change from one customer to another.
I can give you a concrete example: Igor Kim. If he ever comes here, he will never be in the TOP (the main criterion for evaluating professionalism here). He likes thoughtful and unhurried work. But he has a name.
But there are top performers who have no name but are considered professionals here.
If you look in "Any question from a newbie, pro, do not pass by, without you - nowhere without you" on foursquare, see who and how many answers and helps people.... Are they here? Are they in the top? No. Because they don't need this competition instead of productive work. So their answers, the quality of their answers says much more than this TOP. It is here rather as a "look" to see who is ingreat demand among developers, not about their professionalism.
It is necessary to grind so much information about each developer's activity to create an adequate assessment in the TOP that .... Who will do this?
That's a lot of work to do on each of the developers. And there are more of them every day.
How to judge the professionalism of a developer? By what criteria?
In fact, there is a dilemma - on the one hand, "Water does not flow under the lying stone" - on the other hand, "Water sharpens the stone".
Basically, you can do nothing and offer nothing.
Artyom -- I've expressed my thoughts above -- there are specific suggestions of mine -- how to quantify the activity in the Work service -- filter it to the qualitative side.
Renat offered to express his thoughts -- they are expressed -- further -- there will be dialogue on the part of the administration -- we will develop constructive -- there will be no dialogue -- everything is empty -- there is nothing to waste time and strain your brain for nothing.
p.s. At the moment -- neither Renat, nor Roche -- have not entered into dialogue. Lenar spoke out, and a comment was given. Discussion of improving the service without the participation of the administration is useless and unconstructive.
In fact, there is a dilemma -- on the one hand, "Water does not flow under the lying stone" -- on the other hand, "Water sharpens the stone".
In principle, you can do nothing and offer nothing.
Artyom -- I've expressed my thoughts above -- there are specific suggestions of mine -- how to quantify the activity in the Work service -- filter it to the qualitative side.
Renat offered to express his thoughts -- they are expressed -- further -- there will be dialogue on the part of the administration -- we will develop constructive -- there will be no dialogue -- everything is empty -- there is nothing to waste time and strain your brain for nothing.
p.s. At the moment -- neither Renat, nor Roche -- have not entered into dialogue. Lenar spoke out, and a comment was given. Discussion of improving the service without the participation of the administration is useless and unconstructive.
Agreed. The topic is as old as the world. But it is still there... Professionals do not come here because of unhealthy competition in the incorrectly organised TOP and, accordingly, the difficulty of being selected as a performer for a price adequate to his qualifications, and speed shooters, and those who knock down prices - are they professionals?
I suggested raising the minimum price for scripts, indicators, Expert Advisors and other software products a long time ago. Nothing has changed. The minimum price in my opinion should be from 30 - 50 credits in the service.
Shit, an electrician charges a minimum of 500 rubles for "screw in a socket".
I agree. It's a topic as old as time. But it's still there... Professionals do not come here because of unhealthy competition in the incorrectly organised TOP and, accordingly, the difficulty of being selected as a performer for a price adequate to his qualifications, and the speed shooters, and those who knock down prices - are they professionals?
I suggested raising the minimum price for scripts, indicators, Expert Advisors and other software products a long time ago. Nothing has changed. The minimum price in my opinion should be from 30 - 50 credits in the service.
Shit, an electrician charges a minimum of 500 rubles for "screw in a socket".
And the programmer does not get up from his chair for 350 rubles).
Incorrectly organised top - it is cool to say it is organised by the number of completed works. You can certainly put filters on other parameters, but no one is able to assess the quality of the programme and complexity of tasks, so everything is relative.