Voluntary certification of programmers in the Work service - page 14
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
Starter marked. Protecting the customer from an obvious undercoder.
Bear, don't incite me :)
Let the starter first define the term"undercoder." Who is that? How can he be identified?
Then we'll have a chat, with vodka and a pike head.
The question of raising the level of the programmer 'in general' is certainly not the task of the MC.
This is exactly our task. We solve it through the development of the MQL4/MQL5 community and the mass training of hundreds of thousands of traders and developers.
Raising the general level of knowledge through the provision of documentation, articles, libraries, championships and forums - this is a solved task that gives quick and mass effect.
Control over the quality of work and knowledge of programmers is frankly an unsolvable task without strict control and means to influence them.
Certification in the form of a questionnaire with answers (and in fact there is no other way) is a profanation for the guesser of answers. Especially - for programmers who are "every first one is a trained cheater by occupation" :)
Dimitri, I don't know what you mean.
DDFedor+100501, he's right on the mark.
Renat- Renat, I pointed out another way in the topic, here is a step by step how I think the certification should take place:
1) The programmer submits an application for certification, his account is charged an amount N for certification
2) The section of the work creates requests from outside accounts (in any case, applications give people with 0 messages) to those who will conduct certification (the same people that understand the arbitration)
3) From the list of selected programmers who have applied for certification and they are entrusted with the work.
4) After the work is sent, the programmer is informed that the work was a part of certification, i.e. he will not receive money for it. The assessor will check the work for gross errors which are sure to cause a problem when working on a real or even demo job. If there are no such errors, return to point 3. If there are any errors, the certificate will be refused.
5) After the successful completion of 3 different "plant" works, the certificate receives a coveted certificate and has the opportunity to be displayed in a separate list.
abolk
Programmers protect the interests of customers. (something is not right here)
Programmers protect customers from Programmers. (very clear)
Exactly, the theme is created to protect the customers from "half-coders" because in your face is the lack of opportunity to choose a programmer because:
a) you can see only accrued rating
b) do not see the essence of arbitration proceedings and their outcome, if any (it would not be bad to open this information as done in WebMoney)
as the customer by definition can not verify the professional suitability of the programmer, this can be entrusted to a third independent party.
Exactly, the theme was created in order to protect customers from "under-coders" because in the face of the lack of opportunity to choose a programmer because:
a) you can see only faked rating
as a rating is shown:
- number of jobs completed (deadlines and prices are visible for each job)
- average price
- average term
- feedback statistics
If the rating is cheated, any Customer will be able to notice it
b) it is impossible to see the essence of arbitration proceedings and their results, if any (it would be not bad to open this information as it is done in WebMoney)
the essence of arbitration proceedings can not be viewed, because it is related to copyrights of BOTH parties.
Besides, few customers will want to "make public" their trade strategy.
nothing about the programmer (his opinion, as you can see, no one asks)
since the customer by definition can not verify the suitability of a programmer, this can be entrusted to a third independent party.
the customer by the rules and definition, leaving feedback, is able to inform all others.
and in the case of "under-coder" to apply to arbitration, terminate the agreement and apply to another
by the way, as far as programmer attestation is concerned, the metaquotes have introduced an excellent attestation tribunal:
- codebase (here, however, it is possible to use someone else's work, too) with open codes and explanations - it is easy to assess the professional suitability of the author and the quality of work
- articles (quality control is serious) - you can get paid for articles
everyone's profile contains information about publications in the codebase and articles
all posts on the forum may be accessed by a search engine.
any programmer/non-programmer can be "weighed, measured and found unsuitable" (c)
By the way, with regard to certification of programmers, the methaquotes have introduced an excellent certification platform:
- codebase (here, however, it is possible to slip someone else's work as well) with open codes and explanations - it is easy to evaluate the author's professional suitability and quality of work
- articles (quality control is serious) - you can get paid for articles
everyone's profile contains information about publications in the codebase and articles
all posts on the forum may be accessed by a search engine.
any programmer/non-programmer can be "weighed, measured and found unsuitable" (c)
"If a rating is inflated, any customer may notice it".
tell me how?
"the customer is by rule and definition, by leaving a review, able to communicate his opinion to everyone else.
and in case of "under-coder" to go to arbitration, terminate the agreement and go to another"
If the customer completed the work with the programmer through the arbitration in his favor, he can not leave feedback.
"anexcellent review tribunal"
You have someone else's code in your hands and what can you do with it if you don't understand it? How can you tell if it's good or bad?
Lizar you have a strange idea of licensing and certification, you end up with your distorted definition (why distorted - below) ...
My definitions are accurate. Give your definitions so it is clear what you mean by "licensing" and "attestation".
... and you try to prove that this idea is not workable? It's stupid at the very least ) or explain what can be wrong when the party interested in developing the service starts issuing licenses (MQ) ...
Read my posts again. It's not proving your idea untenable, it's saying how to do it right.
A driving licence is also a licence and certification in case you are not aware. Can we drive without a licence? The question raised concerns a similar type of licence/attestation, because I ran across the fact that the programmer was asked to take the client from point A to point B, he takes him to point C D by turns and will not get to point B, and even drive on the wrong side of the road.
I don't say you don't need rules. Rules are necessary, they are usually written based on experience to create order. And they are written for those who are capable of following them. So teaching traffic rules is necessary and issuing driving licences is also necessary. But issuing driving licenses will not protect from drivers who are not capable of following the rules. From such drivers and pedestrians (customers and performers) we are meant to protect us from the traffic police and courts (arbitration in the "Jobs" service). If the doer or the client is criminally minded, no certification will save us. Arbitration will save them.
Imho, certification is not a panacea. If you broaden your view of the software development industry in general, then the presence of certificates increases the importance in their own eyes, or in the eyes of incompetent customers who have nothing else to look for but a certificate. The introduction of some certification procedure will draw a line between those who found the time and persistence to pass it, and those who for some reason did not do it, but it is certainly not an indicator of a developer's competence.
Turning to the experience of freelance sites, where all the details of the interaction between customers and programmers worked out over the years, it is possible to identify some well-proven practices that are present on most of these sites:
Imho, certification is not a panacea. If you broaden your view of the software development industry in general, then the presence of certificates increases the importance in their own eyes, or in the eyes of incompetent customers who have nothing else to look for but a certificate. The introduction of some certification procedure will draw a line between those who found the time and persistence to pass it, and those who for some reason did not do it, but it is certainly not an indicator of a developer's competence.
Turning to the experience of freelance sites, where all the details of the interaction between customers and programmers worked out over the years, it is possible to identify some well-proven practices that are present on most of these sites: