Voluntary certification of programmers in the Work service - page 11
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
It is a rare customer who will agree to have an intermediary between himself and the programmer. He is already laying bricks about "how my grail will not go further", and you are talking about intermediaries, while in the terms of reference (if it is not simple) it is necessary to find bottlenecks and draw the customer's attention to them so that he gives an answer to what to do. An intermediary will not do this.
Price is not a measure of a programmer's professional qualities, except for too low a price.
...
Price is not a measure of a programmer's professional qualities, except when the price is too low.
How do you think a low price characterises a programmer?
IMHO the price for which you agree to write a programmer says nothing about the level of the programmer or even about his quality of life,
it all depends on the context,
what kind of order,
level of professionalism,
time available to the programmer,
The level of need (simply put, how much you want to get).
There are 4 variables, each of which can fundamentally change your statistics.
And the statistics of earnings already at least somehow gives you an idea of who you are dealing with.
A rare customer will agree to have an intermediary between himself and the programmer. He is already laying bricks about "how my grail will not go further", and you are talking about intermediaries, while in the terms of reference (if it is not simple) you need to see the narrow points and draw the customer's attention to them so that he gives an answer to what to do. An intermediary will not do this.
Price is not a measure of a programmer's professional qualities, with the exception of too low a price.
You are going to organize something on the side?
Everything is clear with the metaquotes, it's obvious. It is their right. But we could have a branch here, perhaps.
From time to time to update it, such as yesterday I received a certificate so-and-so. Perhaps not to make even a hint at the possibility of orders through the certification site.
The list with the names of certified persons will be updated once a week. Try it, it will work.
Are you going to organise something on the side?
It's clear with the metaquotes, it's obvious. It's their right. But you could start a branch here, I guess.
From time to time to update it, such as yesterday I received a certificate so-and-so. Perhaps not to make even a hint at the possibility of orders through the certification site.
The list with the names of certified persons will be updated once a week. Try it, it will work.
If you are not a trader, you will have to wait a long time for that (profitability).
Any programming language is essentially already a library of functions.
in the context of supplying the client's TOR - the proger is in free float without beacons.
Each proger creates their own order library.
If everyone uses MCL Master and builds strategies on it, that's when certification will be possible.
I'll think about it, but I don't think so.
I know why you guys don't agree on certification, certification etc. You come from a noble desire to protect the performer or the customer. Now the shocking fact is that licensing (or granting rights to use something), certifying something or certifying someone (i.e. certifying that someone has something) is never done to protect the customer and the contractor. All these things are done to protect the monopoly owners of standards, technology, business, etc. in order to maintain and generate additional revenue.
Only a third party with an interest in some kind of standard can resolve an irreconcilable dispute or protect the customer and the contractor. MQ, as the monopoly owners of MT, have done wisely by doing arbitration. Which, I think many have seen, protects the rights of both customers and performers.
MQ can make a successful service licensing and certification system to protect the platform and language and make additional income from it. For example, C1 has created such a system. But it does not protect the customer from an unqualified implementer and vice versa. It protects and propagates the C1 standard.
Imho.
Now the shocking fact: licensing (or granting rights to use something), certifying something or certifying someone (i.e. certifying that someone possesses something) is never done to protect the customer and the contractor.
What about independent certification centres?
And the above doesn't really contradict the spirit of the MT5 propagation
What about independent certification centres?
Independent certification centres are some (e.g. commercial) structure wishing to collect dividends (e.g. money) on someone else's standard. Grotesque truth. In general, it is not clear what "independent" means. If such a centre does not have a license from the owner of the standard, it is more like a fraud. Because such a certificate can always, to put it mildly, be taken down by the owner of the standard. If there is a license from the owner of the standard, everything is fine, but then why "independent"?
And the above doesn't really contradict the spirit of the MT5 distribution
I agree, it is not inconsistent. Attestation would help the dissemination of the MT5 standard. It's just that from time to time it's about protecting performers and customers. But, imho, this is the task of the arbitration court, not certification. Compulsory or voluntary attestation will, over time, lead to educational courses or something similar. And as a consequence it will increase the qualifications of both performers and customers, but it is unlikely to reduce mutual claims. It is just that these claims will be on a different level.