Arbitration - rules, regulations, deadlines. - page 3
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
Everything is online anyway:
t.s. _http://novikov.dp.ua/fortrader/sovetniki/sovetnik-pomoshhnik-assistant.html
and the dialogue without the last few arguments _http://novikov.dp.ua/news/dialog-s-programmistom.html
And I put it on the forum, originally not to sort things out, and to clarify and find out how the arbitration process, because the arbitration was not filed by me, and executors, referring to the fact that I do not finish the work and delaying terms, not to mention the fact that the performer himself delayed 3 times more time than initially indicated!
And "the solution is simple:" it's not always like that. With you, maybe it would be, but not in this case.
p.s. I'm not trying to defame anyone - I just need a logical completion of the work, and in the public domain, all posted, as it was not a personal order, and the folding _http://forexsystems.ru/temp-korzina-reklama/74632-skladchina-dlya-napisaniya-eksperta-pomoschnika.html
and I don't feel comfortable in front of the people who participated in the warehouse! And how will it look when a performer is selected and the amount is negotiated, money is collected and paid for, and then I will demand extra payment from the participants!
p.p.s. I myself am a performer in another field and cannot afford to be treated in the way this performer has behaved, which is why I am being nerdy in this situation!
PS By the way, the average cost of an order in the Jobs service has increased since the interview:
Многие опытные разработчики жалуются на демпинг. Что вы сами по этому поводу думаете?
Information about the cost of each agreement in the Jobs service is publicly available, which is why the topic of adequacy of payment/labour costs has become a topic of discussion.
Here's a recent quote: "but a $10 expert causes laughter and "joy" for programmers who want to get involved with such customers. They do not respect their health, time and nerves in any way. That's why they sit, in orders like in silk, and at the same time do not have their own normal life and orderly working hours. They mantulate from morning till night for a penny. Gentlemen programmers, respect your work and take care of your health!
But one should try to look at everything objectively. As Kozma Prutkov said: "Get to the root! My practice shows that the average cost of a service job is $30. This agrees with the statistics given by Renat: 600 requests totaling $ 24000 have already passed through the service Jobs, that is, the average cost per job is equal to 24000/600 = $ 40.
In the Russian-speaking segment the cost of work is lower than in the English-speaking segment. The average monthly wage in RF is $700 = $30/day = $3.75/hr. Given this reality, how do you rate a $30 expert? Is it expensive or cheap? Respect for his/her labour or not?
Customers are not willing to pay more for a number of reasons. One reason is that when ordering experts, customers in most cases simply check the strategy. You should also take into account that the programmer uses his or her own know-how. The more practice, the more work, the faster each next job is done, and the lower its cost.
Dumping appeared as soon as the "Jobs" service became popular and the bulk of customers began to submit their applications to the service. Oil was added to the fire by the top developers. In order to "show up" in the top some programmers have resorted to outright bribery in an effort to get any job at any price.
Not only that, at first, novice EA writers sincerely believe that any EA can be written in 30-40 minutes and draw in their mind an ideal picture of earning $3000 per month. They do not take into account that apart from time for development, there is also time for clarification of the assignment, for explanation of the work done, for misunderstandings, for arguments.
Because the number of new orders for freelancers opened every month has increased.
Greetings all!
I guess I should give some comments. I am the executor who was commissioned by Alexander Novikov to develop the aforementioned EA. During the development, I have had a lot of questions about how the EA should behave in a specific case. I addressed these questions to the customer, and I invariably received feedbacks to the ToR file, in which such cases have not been described. There were a lot of similar situations (EA's logic and the interaction of many of its components is very complex, all cases are drawn only when you start testing), which is why the development process took so long. After another repetition of this situation, I said that because of the customer's unwillingness to interact and provide clarifications, I would fully and solely do the work according to the TOR, which I did.
But all the interesting stuff was only just beginning. After I gave the completed solution to the customer I started a whole series of petty quibbles:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Customer: And why are you supplying me with library files? I need 1 file for a councillor.
Again, the TOR didn't specify anything like that. And many more requirements in this vein. All of this was in an orderly, ultimatum-like tone, as if the man had bought a slave for a measly 50 quid. I work hard, and I have no problem doing this kind of thing for my clients. But when you are given orders and treated in such a tone, there is no desire to help. Despite this, without much desire, I still met these requirements a little (I wanted to close the job, and when you are treated like that, get the result of the work in full, and even do not pay for it, it would be a triple shame).
Of course, in one of the special cases, the advisor did not work the way the client had hoped. When he told me about this, I pointed out that the TOR made no mention of this, and you refused to give me any explanations about this. Once again I made changes to the EA to make it behave the way the client wanted in this particular case, but made it clear that I had run out of patience, the job was done in accordance with the client's own TOR and I would not be making any more changes / additions.
And the threatening order demands continued. I then went to arbitration and asked for an end to this.
PS By the way, the average cost of an order in the Jobs service has increased since the interview:
Because the number of new orders opened for freelancers each month has increased.
Don't twist my words in your own way, just as you did with TK - it makes you look bad, as all our dialogue is in the public domain _http://novikov.dp.ua/news/dialog-s-programmistom.html
And it all started out so nice... and it all ended in a trivial public showdown with an ad for the client's site. Or not over? And when it will be over? Who decides?
Maybe it was the intention of the topicstarter to start a public discussion?
And I foolishly believed the topikstarter that there really can be good educational threads about arbitration ... and even a couple of posts here made ... and he had other things on his mind ...
Forum on trading, automated trading systems and testing trading strategies
Arbitrage - Rules, Regulation, Timeframe.
Novikov, 2014.04.07 09:33
Dear administration, I used search, but I haven't found any information on arbitrage, namely - rules, regulations, terms.
How does arbitration take place, in what sequence and what terms should we expect?
And why is the "next" button still active on the "submit jobs" page when a contractor submits a request for arbitration?
And will not the automatic payment, as - "If you do not confirm the acceptance of the work within a week after submitting the work and do not specify a rejection of acceptance, the work will be considered as automatically accepted."?
Sorry if I didn't meet your expectations!
And that the topic has gone in a different direction!
I don't mind at all if you clean up the thread at your discretion!
I didn't intend to advertise my site, because there's nothing to advertise.
It all started out so nice... and ended up in a trivial public showdown advertising the customer's site. Or did it not end? And when will it be over? Who decides?
Maybe it was the intention of the topicstarter to start a public discussion?
And I foolishly believed the topikstarter that there really can be good educational threads about arbitration ... and even a couple of posts here made ... and he had other things on his mind ...
And it ended (or almost ended) with this:
Here is the list of claims that the client made after the debriefing:
The work is not completed and is not brought to a logical conclusion!
1. The Expert Advisor generates warnings during compilation.
2. Stop Loss does not work correctly.
3) Wrapping of orders by a Martin does not work correctly.
4. A message pops up when there are no open orders even when the box "allow the Expert Advisor to trade" is unchecked.
Shortly before submitting the case to arbitration, the final version of the project was submitted to the client, in which clauses 2-4 were working correctly. That is, in fact, there were only a couple of warnings at compilation, which did not affect the correctness of the EA. As the customer later claimed, he did not test this version for some unknown reason. Let's take our word for it not to accuse us of lying and slandering. At the suggestion of the moderator I got rid of warnings at compilation.
But the customer didn't stop there. He invented the following: if he adds a directive to the Expert Advisor's code, new warnings will appear during compilation, "which should also be removed". I think it's clear now what kind of person he is and what purposes he is pursuing. I can only add that while working with this account it took me 5-7 times longer to complete the job than to do a similar job with a normal, adequate customer. I wish God save you all from interacting with such people.
And on the topic (its nominal name), the proceedings of this paper raised some interesting issues regarding arbitration. For example: the client insisted that the code provided should not produce warnings on compilation. The moderator supported him rather than not, at least he didn't object. My position, on the other hand, is that such issues should be regulated. In the event of a dispute, there should be a rule defining which position is correct and what to do.
There are 2 documents defining the composition and manner of carrying out the work: the TOR drawn up by the client and the rules of the Work section. Anything that is not stated there, the client has no right to demand from the contractor.
Shortly before the case was submitted to arbitration, the client received the final version of the work, in which items 2-4 worked correctly. In fact, there were only a couple of warnings during compilation, which did not affect the correctness of the EA. As the customer later claimed, he did not test this version for some unknown reason. Let's take our word for it not to accuse us of lying and slandering. At the suggestion of the moderator I got rid of the compilation warnings.
But the customer did not stop there. He came up with the following: if he adds a directive to the Expert Advisor's code, new compiler warnings will appear, "which must also be removed. I think it's clear now what kind of person he is and what purposes he is pursuing. I can only add that while working with this account it took me 5-7 times longer to complete the job than to do a similar job with a normal, adequate customer. I wish god saved all of you from interacting with and dealing with such people.
Couple or three warnings? Which still remain to this day:
implicit conversion from 'number' to 'string' Assistant__6.mq4 155 29
implicit conversion from 'number' to 'string' Assistant__6.mq4 249 29
implicit conversion from 'number' to 'string' Assistant__6.mq4 257 45
implicit conversion from 'number' to 'string' Assistant__6.mq4 257 64
implicit conversion from 'number' to 'string' Assistant__6.mq4 258 42
implicit conversion from 'number' to 'string' Assistant__6.mq4 259 38
implicit conversion from 'number' to 'string' Assistant__6.mq4 260 41
implicit conversion from 'number' to 'string' Assistant__6.mq4 261 32
implicit conversion from 'number' to 'string' Assistant__6.mq4 265 25
possible loss of data due to type conversion Assistant__6.mq4 277 2
possible loss of data due to type conversion Assistant__6.mq4 315 3
possible loss of data due to type conversion Assistant__6.mq4 317 3
possible loss of data due to type conversion Assistant__6.mq4 322 3
possible loss of data due to type conversion Assistant__6.mq4 324 3
implicit conversion from 'number' to 'string' Assistant__6.mq4 401 70
implicit conversion from 'number' to 'string' Assistant__6.mq4 401 94
implicit conversion from 'number' to 'string' Assistant__6.mq4 401 118
implicit conversion from 'number' to 'string' Assistant__6.mq4 401 156
implicit conversion from 'number' to 'string' Assistant__6.mq4 402 32
possible loss of data due to type conversion Assistant__6.mq4 432 2
implicit conversion from 'number' to 'string' Assistant__6.mq4 511 21
implicit conversion from 'number' to 'string' Assistant__6.mq4 594 73
implicit conversion from 'number' to 'string' Assistant__6.mq4 594 91
implicit conversion from 'number' to 'string' Assistant__6.mq4 594 156
possible loss of data due to type conversion Assistant__6.mq4 747 27
implicit conversion from 'number' to 'string' Assistant__6.mq4 782 21
0 error(s), 26 warning(s) 1 27
Please, don't waste your breath and quote me word for word where you draw the conclusion that "...he hasn't tested this version for some unknown reason".
Once again and here I repeat what I have already written, "If you don't know how to do it, then just acknowledge that fact and refuse to work and arbitrate!"
I'm not happy with your - "that's fine"! If you can't, don't know or don't want to write correct code - don't do programming.
And if you're going to do a job you must take responsibility and see it through to the end!
p.s. not to resemble you - I will not go on a personal level and express my FE towards you!