|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<SPAN
class=731051804-03032004>Gary, thanks for your feedback. I hadn't realized that
industry and sector assignments weren't part of the CSI/AB process, and that
does matter to me. My suspicion is that that I won't really know what I'm used
to having that's missing or awkward, unless I actually buy and try CSI.
<SPAN
class=731051804-03032004>
<SPAN
class=731051804-03032004>For now, I probably will continue QP for maybe another
6 months, and talk to CSI about these details in the mean time. I'm reluctant to
pay for both, but I may have to.
<SPAN
class=731051804-03032004>
<SPAN
class=731051804-03032004>I'm still confused about one other thing, the limit on
the number of stocks you can access in a month without paying extra. If you do
decide to limit your pulls to a smaller number of stocks, how can you pick them
without data on everything?
<SPAN
class=731051804-03032004>
<SPAN
class=731051804-03032004>Thanks again,
<SPAN
class=731051804-03032004>
<SPAN
class=731051804-03032004>Dave
<BLOCKQUOTE
>
I'd suggest that if this is a road you want to go down, e-mail CSI
directly (rudi@xxxxxxxxxxx), and ask
them for a timeline. I've been working with Rudi on a regular basis now
in an attempt to nail down the UA data export into AB to a standard that
mimics QP's ease of use. For example, sector/industry group assignments
are not part of the data export which I use with QP's data.
Development is still in early stages which means you can have a greater
impact on the final product. In the meantime, I'm keeping a
month-to-month QP subscription until the CSI export process moves to an ease
of use level where I'd be comfortable letting go of QP.
I totally agree with b's points, and having the data locally stored vs
having to be pulled in via a plugin is a big time saver IMHO.
FWIW,
Gary
b <b519b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq
>First
impressions are fine. But I have not had time today, nor will I
tomorrow, to takea thorough look.My concerns have not been with
CSI data as such, but withthe process of getting all of that data from
CSI's UAprogram to AB. I am hopeful that 2.7.8 has this
processworking consistently, but as I said, I do not have time
atpresent to confirm this.I am happy with CSI's data from 1993 -
present for bothactives and inactives. For this time period, there is
noequal that I know of.The data slightly underrepresent
inactives for a few yearsafter 1993, but even if so, it is not a major
worry for me.However, before March 1993, it appears that inactives
aremay be significantly under represented. And things getreally
spotty prior to 1990. --- Dave Merrill
wrote:> Thanks b, that is good news. I'd still
prefer numbers> only to inactives, but> it does seem that
you're right, this'll do.> > I'm down to the wire on my
QuotesPlus subscription;> unless I renew, I think> I'm going
to be shut off at the end of the day today, if> I'm not
already.> > In your opinion, is the current version of the CSI
tools> stable, efficient> and usable? It looked from your
earlier msgs like speed> was up, and the> missing ticker bug
you'd seen was fixed. Do I have that> right? I've been> rock
solid stable with QP, but without inactives, and my> impression is
that> you and others think CSI's quality is exceptional.>
>
Dave
Send BUG REPORTS to bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send SUGGESTIONS to suggest@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----------------------------------------
Post AmiQuote-related messages ONLY to: amiquote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Web page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amiquote/messages/)
--------------------------------------------
Check group FAQ at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:amibroker-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
|