Translated Russian, English articles and the editing thereof [GIANT RED PEN]
"A start" appears each time when the small body appears whenever a small body opens up or down from the previous long body, body color is unimportant.
Above is found in the article Analysing Candlestick Patterns (which should be spelled "Analyzing").
Said better,
"A star" appears each time the small body opens and remains outside the previous long body. The body's color is unimportant.
we can all more easily understand a morning star.
We should work to manage a wiki!
The MetaQuotes team can't be expected to keep up with all of the growing articles base.
Lugner:
Modified for easy-reading, we now conclude:
Said better,
I just started reading my post (was tired and cranky after a long day)... maybe it would be fitting to also mention I have been a member of an open source project or two where there was poor, unmanaged documentation.
That's where I developed this picky attitude, those projects rarely have anyone around long-term to help "market" the ideas, and display the usefulness to visitors. Everyone has a different angle, but we all have a common goal to grow this community. Just wanted to point this out, realizing that I'm being a bit hypocritical since I have no material of my own published.
NFTrader, glad to hear it, since until now I doubted my reading comprehension skills a little. :)
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
You agree to website policy and terms of use
Can we have a managed wiki please?
MetaQuotes and other readers like me,
I am thankful for the education I receive at this site - I tell my friends so! But I can never make this statement without mentioning my ever-present frustration with reading the material! What do I mean?
I get frustrated reading the educational material found here. Why? My original hypothesis was that I was stupid, lame, moronic or slow. Somehow I had lost my youthful edge, and my mind was growing dull with time. While I can't disprove this statement, it would be quite strange for me to finally notice in my mid-twenties.
A more likely cause of the this frustration is the slightly broken English littered all over the MQL5 site. The concepts and meaning behind the words remain intact - so the translations and work to bring these fine articles to others has served its purpose. But the concepts and meaning, while intact, are commonly complicated by bad English. This leads me to believe the community is missing something else. Before I start complaining, I think some acknowledgements are due. The authors and multi-linguists found here on MQL5 community deserve the utmost gratitude of every visitor. Without their efforts, our supply of knowledge would be divided, and with it the usefulness of this community.
Unfortunately the documents remain littered with typographical errors, lack of punctuation, usages of too many commas (#1 on my hit-list), and other strange/hilarious phenomena. In a past job, I spent my days designing the layout of different information for phone directories, advertisements, sales-related presentations and websites. With the experience, I found out first-hand the inherent laziness of the [American] reader.
Most of the audience at this community is "warm" to the concepts and trading terminologies presented here. There is no reason we should experience difficulty with what should be an otherwise engaging and pleasant read. Spending so much time re-reading the same sentence, sometimes multiple times for multiple sentences in a single paragraph is down right irksome.
I concede my point to the extent that content found here is of a difficult nature. This argument is the key to realizing the importance of my proposal to have editors and a proofing process. The difficulties which arise when a newbie reads about quantum tunneling, genetic algorithms, neural networks or OOP are vast in scale and plentiful in numbers. But! It is a mistake to attribute the difficult read with the difficult topic. Since I have found countless errors in my re-reads of nonsensical sentences and such, I've wondered where to compile them.
Long argument short, to write a comment about how each article needs to be proofed for a laundry list of corrections is inefficient and drowns out the subjects found within. To do anything else is too much work to be done in a reliable fashion on the part of the community. I opted to initiate this thread to improve the consumption of information for native English-speaking audience. As I run across these "speed bumps" in my quest for knowing stuff, I will post them here.
Additionally, I hope for a discussion to form around the subject of translation. The MetaQuotes team must be familiar with the difficulties related to the process, and I hope they join this discussion to find a better solution.
Can the following excerpt from The Principles of Economic Calculation of Indicators be considered proofed/edited?
So if our Expert Advisor does not require the counted indicator values from the current open bar, then it is better, in terms of time saving, to disable the calculation of these values. This is done quite easily - reduce by one the right border of the main cycle of bar recounting in the indicator Prior to changes, this cycle in the AMA.mq5 indicator looked like this
[code example from AMA.mq5]
And after the change, it will look like this
[code example from AMA_Ex.mq5]
Indicator AMA_Ex.mq5. Now you can test this indicator (Expert Advisor AMA_Ex_Test.mq5)
It is remarkable, the amount of things I could say about this. I want to start with the obvious lack of a period at a critical junction - which undoubtedly derailed every reader's train of thought. "Wait, what?" Were it not for a capitalized letter, I'm afraid I'd simply have skipped what amounts to an enormous portion of the article.
Meanwhile, the above quoted paragraph begins by introducing multiple subjects (our Expert Advisor and the counted indicator values) and fails to properly identify which subject he is talking about in the operative words of the sentence. This example is important because people new to MetaTrader don't understand EAs, indicators or how the two relate to begin with! Is it consumable and easy to understand for our reader? Is it fair then, to simply say, "Indicator AMA_Ex.mq5. Now you can test this indicator (Expert Advisor AMA_Ex_Test.mq5)" Is it fair to call any indicator whatsoever "ind_Ex.mq5" and at the same time build an EA to test the indicator, naming the EA ind_Ex_Test?
For the regular audience here, deriving meaning from the articles has become second-nature, perhaps. And confusion between different applications of different technologies for differing situations, may also be simple concepts to our experienced eye.
For an audience who doesn't already understand the subjects at hand, it is easy to see how difficulty arises. It would be an injustice to the authors and the individual(s) translating to not allow a way to quietly participate in the betterment of these materials.
For now, I guess this is a public conversation. The alternative is some guy who actually gets bothered by this stuff just fixing it already. This may not be the best example of what I mean, but it is convenient for me to reference.
Ultimately, the cost-efficiency of a programming code is a fairly objective parameter, which can be measured, logically analyzed, and in certain situations significantly increased. The methods by the means of which this is done, are not very complicated, so all you need is to have some patience and not only do the things which directly affect the profitability of automating trading system.
Modified for easy-reading, we now conclude:
Ultimately, the efficiency of a program's code is a fairly objective parameter. Efficiency can be measured, logically analyzed and in certain situations, significantly increased. The methods by which this is done are not very complicated. All that is needed is some patience, and to do more than those practices which directly affect the automated trading system's profitability.
Does the collective English-speaking audience agree that my proofed conclusion is easier to comprehend? Does it still share the same meaning? Does it take less time to read aloud? Is it more conversational?
I hope I've made the case for the importance of an editing process. Collectively, we should be able to manipulate the content on a moderated approval-based queue, or MetaQuotes should take the initiative internally.
Cheers, happy writing, and keep up the good works everybody.