Discussing conflicts between programmers and customers. A discussion of ambiguous situations between the programmer and the client, and a rating of the most conflicted programmer performers. - page 20
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
If there are so many reviews and opinions, it means that there is a problem of conflict, but each side will speak its own truth.
I, as a customer, had the opportunity to communicate with five Programmers of this resource and the decision to choose a new contractor I collected based on statistical data / not complete and only positive / + price of the issue + own preferences.
I want to draw the attention of performers that the price is approved by mutual consent after agreeing on TOR (it is acceptable to make 1-2 small changes in TOR, so the output price may be increased) and I believe that the possible unexpected changes in price should be warned in advance. The deadline is a separate issue, but there is no leverage against the contractor for delaying the deadline. Therefore, the programmer-executor is in a better position than the customer, because he can refuse at any stage / and the time is out / and require an increase in royalties, and just give a generic rubbish, without bothering to check for compliance with the algorithm in the TOR. But if the parties are interested in the result, there is always a compromise.
If there are so many reviews and opinions, it means that there is a problem of conflict, but each side will speak its own truth.
I, as a customer, had the opportunity to communicate with five Programmers of this resource and the decision to choose a new contractor I collected based on statistical data / not complete and only positive/ + the price of the issue + own preferences.
I want to draw the attention of performers that the price is approved by mutual consent after agreeing on TOR and it is acceptable to make 1-2 small changes in TOR, so the output price may be increased and I believe that the possible unexpected changes in price should be warned in advance. The deadline is a separate issue, but there is no leverage against the contractor for delaying the deadline. Therefore, the programmer-executor is in a better position than the customer, because he can refuse at any stage / and the time is out / and require an increase in royalties, and just give a generic rubbish, without bothering to check for compliance with the algorithm in the TOR. But if the parties are interested in the result, there is always a compromise.
Very often (I speak from experience outside this service) the lion's share of lead time is taken by agreeing on TOR. It is the customer all crystal clear and transparent. After all, all the reticence is clearly in his head and taken for granted. For the contractor, on the other hand, this question is a blank spot in the ToR. There were times when, trying to get a clear answer to the undescribed situation in TK, get a reply like "... О... I hadn't thought about it ... We'll talk about it later, let's get to work...". And the omission of such a situation from the processing code, which can occur due to oversight of the customer, leads to a violation of the logic of the program. This is why we must demand that all the nuances visible to the customer must be clearly formalized. Deadlines are delayed, and then not very nice things are said about the contractor...
First of all, you do prefer to collect information. This means that you are the "right" customer and that you are being thorough.
Secondly, how many of these five coders were there who you were not satisfied with? You don't need to name names, just give me a number.
There is another significant "but"... In Job people order and write not only for Five, but also for MT4. What about those developers who have articles and works on mql4.com? And there is no ranking here, no articles or works in kodobase...? It will always be not in the top, but, sorry, in the POP... And the accumulation of the number of jobs done his ranking, to increase the opportunity to get an order for work ... that's not serious... I'm for quality rather than quantity...
"Top" in its current form is only based on one attribute, "number of jobs completed". To get to the "top" - engage in all sorts of nakruktsya: do one simple job in a few parts for $ 10, dumping the job would take. Qualification of such "top" does not reflect the work done, which no one saw - is not an indicator of quality. Reviews also is not an indicator of qualification. As there is always and always will be conflicts. And the reason for conflicts - "the customer is always right", "the performer should have foreseen everything", "the performer must, must, must". "Top" should be formed on a number of grounds, e.g. articles+codabase+works. The articles and works in the codabase can be viewed, evaluated. Then the "top" will be unbiased, there will be no point in cheating.
That's the question I'm interested in. The performer has articles, works, has a rating, has some kind of "name", but everything is on fours... And here I'm writing articles and start learning mql5, put the work on mql5, only to raise my rating, although the orders are fulfilled on mql4... It's kind of strange...
But when mql4 goes completely to oblivion, then - yes... there is no other way and there is only the ranking that is here...
That's the question I'm interested in. The performer has articles, works, has a rating, has some kind of "name", but everything is on fours... And here I'm writing articles and start learning mql5, put the work on mql5, only to raise my rating, although the orders are fulfilled on mql4... It's kind of strange...
But when mql4 goes completely to oblivion, then - yes... there is no other way and there is only the rating that is here...
That's the question I'm interested in. The performer has articles, has works, has a rating, has some "name", but everything is on fours... And here I'm writing articles and start learning mql5, put the work on mql5, only to raise my rating, although the orders are fulfilled on mql4... it's kinda strange...
But when the four goes completely to oblivion, then yes... there's no other way and there's only the rating that's there...
On the four they will raise the five, on the five they will not raise the four, this is utopia
We will think about it, maybe we will be able to attach the MQL4.com rating to one of the "Achievements" subsections.