Assistance needed to find good developer - 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
Yes, what you describe can be true, but when we are talking about many (and many I mean 20-30) arbitrations, it can't always be the fault of the customer, can it be?
If the reason for many arbitrations was always the customers, then all developers would have many arbitrations, but some don't.
So, if one developer has 100 jobs and 30 arbitrations and another 100 jobs and 3 arbitrations (and the same rating), I will prefer the 2nd, am I wrong?
In my opinion, yes you are wrong.
If a developer has 30 arbitrations in his statistics and all 30 were completed in favour of the developer, then in all 30 cases the customer was at fault. However, many may think like you and just see the 30 arbitrations and may decide not to use a good developer. As I said, the only statistics that should matter are those cancelled in favour of the customer.
So, if one developer has 100 jobs and 30 arbitrations and another 100 jobs and 3 arbitrations (and the same rating), I will prefer the 2nd, am I wrong?
Yes I think that you are wrong especially if the 1st developer has none found in favour of the customer and the 2nd has all 3 found in favour of the customer (or something like that).
In my opinion, yes you are wrong.
If a developer has 30 arbitrations in his statistics and all 30 were completed in favour of the developer, then in all 30 cases the customer was at fault. However, many may think like you and just see the 30 arbitrations and may decide not to use a good developer. As I said, the only statistics that should matter are those cancelled in favour of the customer.
So, if one developer has 100 jobs and 30 arbitrations and another 100 jobs and 3 arbitrations (and the same rating), I will prefer the 2nd, am I wrong?
Yes I think that you are wrong especially if the 1st developer has none found in favour of the customer and the 2nd has all 3 found in favour of the customer (or something like that).
Keith, arbitration by definition means that there is a dispute about something, so I would prefer a developer with more succesfully completed jobs and less arbitrations.
I don't think that is very realistic in 30 arbitrations, the fault always to be with the customer.
I am sorry if we think differently.
There is nothing wrong with thinking differently Eleni.
I don't think that is very realistic in 30 arbitrations, the fault always to be with the customer.
It's not a case of being realistic. If a developer has x arbitrations and x are found in favour of the developer, then the developer has not been found at fault in any of them. That is the reality.
You have no idea what it is like dealing with some customers. They have a strategy, the developer codes that strategy according to the supplied specifications. The strategy is not profitable. The customer blames the developer even though the EA has been coded to do exactly what the customer requested. Why should the developer be penalised in such cases?
I agree.
Especially the new comers.
There is nothing wrong with thinking differently Eleni.
I don't think that is very realistic in 30 arbitrations, the fault always to be with the customer.
It's not a case of being realistic. If a developer has x arbitrations and x are found in favour of the developer, then the developer has not been found at fault in any of them. That is the reality.
You have no idea what it is like dealing with some customers. They have a strategy, the developer codes that strategy according to the supplied specifications. The strategy is not profitable. The customer blames the developer even though the EA has been coded to do exactly what the customer requested. Why should the developer be penalised in such cases?
I totally agree with your argument, my point is that all developers have their share of 'bad' customers, I don't think its a 'privilege' of a few developers only.
In my example again, if 2 developers have both 100 jobs and the 1st has 30 arbitrations (with 50% - 50% outcome), but the 2nd 4 (with 50% - 50% outcome), chances are that all the 'bad' customers preferred the 1st and all the 'good' ones the 2nd.
The much less arbitrations of the 2nd must mean something, that he/she is capable of solving any problems that arise more efficiently for example.
If the arbitration outcome is heavily in favor of the developer (even though I haven't seen a developer with 100% arbitrations in his favor - with more than 5-10 arbitrations of course), that counts differently of course, as you very well describe.
No because they can not know up front which ones are the good or bad they will only know so after having done a few jobs with the same developer.
So one good developer ends up with a fixed pool of good customers that continue to work with him due to personal jobs and have low arbitration rate while on the other end there is a developer that get's most of the troubled new customers.
For example i have one requirement.
I need a decent flow chart up front and not some vague text file with some gibberish words that describe candle prices.
This requirement filters out 90% of the garbage because these people won't take the time to carefully write down their strategy other then some doubtful lines on a sloppy word pad or in paint.
I'm not kidding i will give you an example when i ask them to explain to me the strategy they send me this:
Then i tell them i need a bit more then a kid's drawing and then they send me additional information on their strategy like this:
And now they want to make me believe that its not the customer ?
No it must be the highly skilled professional coder.
I don't buy it.