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 34
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
Shit, the whole world is fighting for a regular customer, and you've got it all wrong here too. You build a relationship with him. How you build it, that's how you'll get there.
Our purely Russian approach - constantly complaining, changing the rules instead of working by the rules, waiting for a miracle, waiting for a big order, etc.
I've been in the service since the '90s, so I have a lot of experience.
I know, that's why I don't want to upset you.
Our purely Russian approach is to constantly complain, to change the rules instead of working according to the rules, to wait for a big order, etc.
The more work completed, the closer to the TOP and further away from the POP.
If you're referring to this discussion, then it should not have started, understand the market creates people, its participants, that's what we make and so it will be.
And about this one and everything.
It is clear what people are doing. The mql order market was there before, without this service. There are proposals for "improvements" in this thread that may in fact make it worse.
Von, PapaClass got punched again, - the artist to the ban, each ToR to mql for review, and now it's on ... But the top starter's ToT in Job is a problem, give me a link, wake the eyelids ...
It would be very good if the ToR for a job could be pre-checked by a third party before implementation. Will the MC take on this function?
No sane third party would undertake work that is inherently stupid. You should read at least one ToR. Have you read any of the terms of reference? If you tried to understand at least one ToR, you would not have made such suggestions.
It is only customers can freely and droolingly reflect, they say, the programmer himself is to blame for undertaking inadequate TK.
But at the same time, the customer does not realize that if you start to torture the customer on each word and sentence of his TOR, the agreement simply will not happen. The customer will run away first.
Whatever way you look at it, the service creators, i.e. the MCs, should take over the function of monitoring and weeding out careless performers/customers. Without them there is nowhere to go.
In this regard, the MC will not have a problem with performers. Received at the performer 2-3 valid claims, the performer to the ban for 1 month. Let him meditate on the meaning of life.
With customers will be more difficult. How to determine that the new customer is not adequate?
It would be very nice if the TOR for the job, before execution, passed a preliminary review by a third party. Will the MC take on this function? The client and the contractor have drawn up the ToR and submitted it for review. The review may reveal nuances that neither the client nor the contractor paid attention to.
In the course of this check and preparing the ToR one can determine the adequacy of the customer. But this is all a thought out loud. Can it really be implemented?
You can download a sample of typical ToR, composed according to all the rules and requirements, applicable to the development of programs for MT4, MT5. It is possible to make several such templates - for Expert Advisors, indicators, scripts and general.
Many people find it easier to write by the already written template than to invent their own. Let's recall a simple questionnaire for job applicants - there is a questionnaire and answers: yes, no, I was not, I was not involved in this case... This is something to start understanding each other. Then, in the course of agreeing the ToR, all the nuances of each point are discussed, plus what to add/remove...
Whatever way you look at it, the service creators, i.e. the MCs, should take over the function of controlling and weeding out careless performers/customers. Without them there is nowhere to go.
In this regard, the MC will not have a problem with performers. Received at the performer 2-3 valid claims, the performer to the ban for 1 month. Let him meditate on the meaning of life.
With customers will be more difficult. How to determine that the new customer is not adequate?
It would be very nice if the TOR for the job, before execution, passed a preliminary review by a third party. Will the MC take on this function? The client and the contractor have drawn up the ToR and submitted it for review. The review may reveal nuances to which neither the client nor the contractor paid attention.
In the course of this check and preparing the ToR one can determine the adequacy of the customer. But this is all a thought out loud. Can it really be implemented?
You can fantasize as much as you want, but you have to think about who is going to pay for all this. Reading the task and its evaluation - this is not a walk in the park, you offer two people to puzzle one question. If the customer puts himself in the position "the customer is always right" - let him immediately put himself in the position "the customer is always reasonable", so if the job says "put your trousers over your head" - it remains the customer's problem.
In short, from the position of "the customer is always right", the task can not read - the customer is right, just take it and do as written ... Isn't it funny? Ah, the right customers?
You can fantasise as much as you like, but you have to think about who is going to pay for all this. Reading the assignment and assessing it is not a walk in the park, you are already asking two people to ask the same question. If the customer puts himself in the position "the customer is always right" - let him immediately put himself in the position "the customer is always reasonable", so if the job says "put your trousers over your head" - it remains the customer's problem.
In short, from the position of "the customer is always right", the task can not read - the customer is right, just take it and do as written... Isn't it funny? Ah, the right customers?