A list of programmers who are great at writing pay-for-performance codes and don't screw around - 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
..I can share my experience. I've had the good fortune to talk to two programmers on the white list. I am not going to tell you their names yet. One tried to sell me a non-working EA for $1000, the other one took the money two months ago and promised to improve it after the check, but keeps looking for a better solution.
I do not want to discredit all programmers whose names are on the list. Surely there are some honest and obliging persons in the list.
The only question is how to determine who was deservedly put on the list and who got in on the sly?
I think the answer is obvious. We should not just name the person, we should name why he was put on the list...Names should be named, but they should not be used to make a big fuss, but rather to form a rating. Your statements so far are one-sided, the relationship between customer and contractor is too complex to cut through the bullshit. Hardly anyone will take on the role of arbitrator, so if the list keeper doesn't mind, it is worth introducing two more columns: Number of positive reviews, Number of negative reviews. Enter the reviews in these columns through the custodian's personal account, one person, one vote.
Do not organize showdowns, because there is no such thing as perfect, and a couple of votes of dissatisfied people, say, komposter or Integer are compensated by dozens of happy ones.
IMHO, it is simply a list of reliable programmers, and skill and quality and discipline of performance will be revealed over time by rating. Therefore, it is possible to exclude only by special procedure, by the result of the proceedings. To date, I am 100% sure in half of the list, with the rest I simply have not encountered.
I suggested in the very first post - Alphabetical order) Don't get me wrong, I'm not a person of interest in any way.
Alphabetical is out of the question.
By the way, Sergey, don't you write to order?
Alphabetical is beyond competition.
By the way, Sergey, don't you write to order?
No. It's not interesting somehow, there's no need for it, and it's too hard work...
The names should be called, but not for a noisy showdown, but to be used for rating purposes. Your statements so far are one-sided, the customer-executor relationship is too complex to cut through. Hardly anyone will take on the role of arbitrator, so if the list keeper doesn't mind, it is worth introducing two more columns: Number of positive reviews, Number of negative reviews. Enter the reviews in these columns through the custodian's personal account, one person, one vote.
Do not organize showdowns, because there is no such thing as perfect, and a couple of votes of dissatisfied people, say, komposter or Integer are compensated by dozens of happy ones.
IMHO, it is simply a list of reliable programmers, and skill and quality and discipline of performance will be revealed over time by rating. Therefore, it is possible to exclude only by special procedure, by the result of a trial. To date I am 100% sure in half of the list, I simply have not encountered the rest.
I'm sorry, I'm not making a big fuss, I'm against the unsubstantiated listing. You wanted and put a person on the list, and you think it's okay. I wrote that you have to argue for inclusion, but this is a noisy showdown. This is clearly not an objective argument.
Reading through thevarious threads on the forum, the idea for such a list was suggested .
Number one on my list is Satop! Everyone who wants to have their own EA, I guarantee that your wishes will be granted.
I also propose to do a vote among the pros to add to the white list of pros people from the list of prospective programmers. I propose a threshold of 90 percent is FOR.
White list of pros
Contact
I'm sorry, I'm not making a big fuss, I'm against the unsubstantiated listing. You wanted and put a person on the list, and you think that's okay. I wrote that you have to argue for inclusion, but this is a noisy showdown. It's not an objective argument.
I'm not talking about you, you're just responding normally. It's just that there have been a few scandals in the past where customers have not shown themselves on the best side.
That's to avoid such things, I propose to introduce reviews where the customer will evaluate the programmer's work. There will be a lot of different, but the statistics will show the truth, everyone will be judged by life. And to arrange voting, certification is unrealistic, we will just kill the idea.
P.S.
I am a customer, not a programmer.
Lovely table, but..... is missing one more column. I propose to divide our progers into categories. Depending on their rates.
each one a different status. Let's say:
1. "VIP - proger", a high-class specialist with rates starting from 500 cues per advisor.
2. "So-so proger" with prices beginning from 100 cues per advisor.
3. A "budget specialist" with rates from 5 cues per advisor.
Let the programmers assign categories to themselves. It will be easy to see who is who.