Errors, bugs, questions - page 3117
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
You should use a larger font and highlight it in red), and I've only just noticed it.
And for others it's different... Then the whole documentation will have to be rewritten in bold red font.
Search for Important Unremarkable Messages of Documentation))))
The usability of the docs))))
Generally this is important work and some people really spend a lot of time making manuals as accessible and comprehensible as possible. In programming it is unfortunately a rarity in documentation. ))
About voting for a published code.
People vote, but only the people who vote understand why they gave a particular rating. And you sit there and guess what you did wrong. It begs the question to introduce a compulsory field with a short commentary on the rating. More and more often we get a feeling that a seeker of a free script, expert advisor or indicator did not see the [BILL ] button and starts giving us tricks or something worse, without any explanations. Yes, there is an opportunity to leave comments under a published code, but it is a voluntary matter, few and seldom do this. If they start to leave crap in a mandatory field - just to get off as soon as possible, we need to impose temporary (for starters) preventive sanctions on their accounts and rub rubbish from this field to hell and cancel the vote, otherwise the rating of objectively good product may hang at the bottom, being undeservedly low. If a normal user decides to look for some free product not by name or description, but by rating, he surely won't be impatient to scroll down to the code with low rating, much less download it.
But this idea should not turn into inflating the rating of any product to a high level by sweeping out undesirable low ratings, I for objectivity and decent collective motivated evaluation.
In the end, there is always a choice not to vote at all while preserving the ability to download and test the code. But if you're going to give a rating, be my guest. А?About voting for published code.
People vote, but only the people who vote understand why they gave a particular rating. And you sit there and guess what you did wrong. It begs the question to introduce a compulsory field with a short commentary on the rating. More and more often there is a feeling that the searcher came looking for a free script or indicator, did not see the button"BROAD" and give us triple points or something worse, but no explanation. Yes, there is an opportunity under the published code to leave comments, but it is a voluntary thing, few and seldom do it, even more often vote. If they also begin to leave a nonsense in the mandatory field, just to get off as soon as possible, to impose a temporary (for starters) warning sanctions on their accounts and rub rubbish from this field to hell and abolish the result of the vote, otherwise rating objectively good product may hang at the bottom, being undeservedly low.
Are you happy with the "like" or "dislike" answer? Or do you want to be taught how to write properly? What's the right way? Everyone has his own preferences. So you're offering to impose your opinion...
Have you ever read the codes of fxsaber? I personally cannot read more than three lines of his code, my head starts spinning. And how do you evaluate this code? After all, it works. And oddly enough, it works correctly.
And how do users far from programming estimate the code? I want to check it, I will put ***** and maybe later throw it away when it is not needed or because of an inadequately working code.
So you're talking nonsense...
Are you happy with the answer "like" or "dislike"? Or do you want to be taught how to write properly? What is the right way? Everyone has his own preferences. So you're offering to impose your opinion...
I'm fine with the answer, what functionality was missing for this particular person, what improvements he would like to see in the existing graphical interface, whether everything is convenient and friendly, and so on.
About "properly writing" - I agree, the free code is downloaded not only for direct use, there is another purpose - to study and learn the MQL programming language, adopt certain programming techniques, algorithms, etc. Then you must introduce an obligatory condition: "Do you vote for:
a.) the work of the product;
b.) the code itself (simplicity, clarity and sufficiency of comments, elegance);
c.) for both?"
Why shouldn't I want this if I really want to be in the know? It's not a personal egoist's whim. It's to understand the shortcomings and fix-development-accelerate the product. On Market, customers are much more willing to interact with authors through comments, because they've invested blood money in their product. And a freecoder is not obliged to give out a product at all, especially free of charge, so it should be respected with reasonable comments, otherwise motivation for gratuitous codogeneration will abruptly wither away.
And how do users far from programming evaluate code? I want to check it, I'll put ***** and then maybe throw it away because it's not needed, or because the code doesn't work adequately.
here you have a zero flipper all over the place.
the fact that there are several such ticks per day at 00-00 may be due to non-trading ticks at times of quoting/non-trading session.
what kind of broker?
Ampglobal broker.
Yes, last zero, but it's not a trade. And the SymbolInfoTick function then it should not be taken into account as a trade. However, it is counted as a trade but with an execution price of 0. I think this is a bug in the SymbolInfoTick function.
I don't use or check trade.last, but I do use trade.ask and trade.bid, and you have to check them at 0, otherwise you can get screwed.
I'm satisfied with the answer, what functionality is missing for this particular person, what improvements he would like to see in the existing graphical interface, whether everything is convenient and friendly, etc.
About "properly writing" - I agree, the free code is downloaded not only for direct use, there is another purpose - to study and learn the MQL programming language, adopt certain programming techniques, algorithms, etc. Then you must introduce an obligatory condition: "Do you vote for:
a.) the work of the product;
b.) for the code itself (simplicity, clarity andsufficiency of comments, elegance)?"
Why shouldn't I want this if I really want to be in the loop? It's not a personal egoist's whim. It's necessary to understand the shortcomings and improve-develop the product.
Let them not vote at all, but pump, pump, pump, pump and test for their own pleasure, or maybe even make money by trading with the pumped-up one. It is not forbidden.Who cares what the rating is? Maybe someone really expects a different result from the published code. But maybe someone doesn't particularly want that code to be popular because a similar solution is in the Marketplace.
If you want to be honest, ask them to show if the rating was posted by someone who publishes the code themselves. This might explain why primitive code from an "important" forum member is rated much better than code from an unpopular forum member.
Since I also published code on CodeBase, I don't rate any other code at all. All these years, two ratings from me, and I don't know which one. Maybe I clicked by accident.
Who cares what the rating is? Maybe someone really expects a different result from the published code.
Expectations are related to practical testing already after downloading and evaluating the functionality and/or code. But there are users who search not by name or description of a product, assuming in advance its essence, quality and value, but by rating, relying on the collective opinion/approval; moreover, MetaQuotes provides the ability to sort products by rating for a reason. For these users it is the rating of others that is important (although there are not always enough votes, which lowers the degree of objectivity).
But maybe someone doesn't particularly want this code to be popular, because a similar solution is available in the Marketplace.
There's a misunderstanding here. You mean the paid authors of similar products who don't vote for a similar free product or even deliberately give it a lower rating so that it would be less noticeable and users would continue buying it from the paid author?
Or is that not what you mean? Different interpretation seems strange to me, because the freecoder itself can neither undervalue nor overvalue, because there is no such technical possibility. Therefore, he cannot hide his free product at the bottom.
You mean paid authors of similar products who don't vote for a similar free product, or even deliberately undervalue it, so that it is less visible and users continue to buy from the paid author?
Yes, the idea is correct, but I'm not saying that it is. Theoretically, such a possibility simply exists. MetaQuotes could publish a rating of the most active voters and their average rating. As they say, give transparency to the voting process.