New Market - how do we sell new EAs now? - page 10
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
There is logic in that too. If publishing becomes a limited resource ...
Publishing in the Market when there was "live" moderation - was never a limited resource. There was a delay in publishing - that's a fact.
But one could submit at least a dozen of products for review and after a while they would all be published with or without corrections.
What about the regularly abandoned thesis that the quality was checked under the moderators - so moderators never checked the quality - and it is impossible, because the quality advisor can only be checked by tests and trading. Even the Market rules state: "5.8 Checking of scripts is performed by Administration in accordance with the functionality stated in their description. Verification of declared functionality is not a quality check.
The administration has said so on the forum that such products will be removed and the sellers will be deprived of access to the Market.
Who was saying that he was ready to moderate all arriving products in the Market day and night - moderate, click on "Violation", justify, create a group of activists, go to the administration with a request to create a theme "Arguments for junk in the Market, please remove it" - it would be guaranteed to remove 0.00001% of products from the Market.
But it won't solve the problem of the number of products in the Market.
There's an 80/20 Pareto principle -- i.e. 20% of the products in the Market are not junk.
But the problem is that if there are 1000 products in the Market, then 200 products are not junk. If you remove 800 products, of the remaining 200 will again be 20% not junk.
So the logic of the principle suggests that there should be only one product in the Market, so you could say, "No more junk in the Market".
Whoever said they were ready to moderate all the products arriving in the Market day and night - moderate, click on "Violation", justify, create an activist group, go out to the administration with a request to create a topic "Arguments on junk in the Market, please remove it" - this will guarantee the removal of 0.00001% of products from the Market.
By the way, yes.
The indignant ones aren't going to make any effort themselves. I've suggested more than once to the disgruntled to create their own rating. And it has never come to any real action. Hence, the conclusion is that everyone is really happy with everything, and the dissatisfied cries - well, of course, it is always possible to come up with something even better.
Yep. :-)
DCs are the first "people" to ban all advertising threads, delete them and so on....
I think what is meant is a partnership.
Like - here is a free EA for you. You are welcome to drain it, but only through my referral link. This is one option.
And the second (with a little backstory):
I think it was in 2014 when I bought EA directly from developers for $500 (one of most discussed EAs of that year). But it did not work out for me. I preferred to do my own research. The developers are still selling it. I have not thought it would do much, but it does not plummet either. And they do not sell it any more. And here they have signed an agreement with one well-known brokerage company. And anyone can use their Advisors for free having opened an account with this broker.
So, the question is in the approach. It is also the question of the Expert Advisor. If the EA has been working steadily for years, the broker may well move it.
Well, let's say I'm willing to create a blog where I will post my backtests. And compare it to the author's backtests, if they were provided by them.
And show that it's not just rubbish, it's knowingly cheating - cheating. What will change? For the marketplace, nothing. This blog won't be popular.
But many things may change for me. Firstly, I'll make enemies, and secondly - why would the site (the site administration)?
Well, let's say I'm willing to create a blog where I will post my backtests. And compare it to the author's backtests, if they were provided by them.
And show that it's not just rubbish, it's knowingly cheating - cheating. What will change? For the marketplace, nothing. This blog won't be popular.
But many things may change for me. Firstly, I'll make enemies, and secondly - why would the site need it?
Well, let's say I'm willing to create a blog where I will post my backtests. And compare with the author's backtests, if they were provided by them.
And showing that it's not just rubbish, but a known fraud, is cheating. What will change? For the marketplace, nothing. This blog will not be popular.
But many things may change for me. Firstly, I'll make some enemies, and secondly - why would the site (the site's administration) need it?
I don't agree that "nothing will change". It will, you said it yourself - "make enemies".
And the blog will be popular if adequate updated ratings are posted regularly.
And then, you'll see, the authors will start ordering paid advertising, and you'll be quite interested.
Yeah there was a championship here and then the author got his brain dried out ............
Who will create championships after that?
The author of this championship disappeared along with the prizes.
There you go :-) His own prizes and got away with it :-)
Although I did donate to his championship. It was interesting.
bring a man to the market and he'll sit on his arse and grab his head from all this variety and end up buying a tester's Grail)
I don't agree that "nothing will change". It will, you say so yourself - "make enemies".
And the blog will be popular, as long as it is regularly updated with adequate ratings.
And then, you'll see, the authors will start ordering paid advertising, and you'll be quite interested in it.