Grover,
My desire for a beginners, intermediate and advanced user guides, is
to put the information in a format that will allow a clear development
arc for users. Right now what we have are disparate sources of
information, offered in non-heirarchical structure. I kind of have a
sense that I am missing the potential of AmiBroker in a way... but I'm
not quite sure what I'm missing because I haven't seen it yet!!!
Hopefully Howard can cover some of these angles, or further & easier
contributions to the UKB can help.
However, your suggestion is an excellent one. I've just done a few
google searches and I've found articles and information that I
probably wouldn't have seen before.
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
"Grover Yowell" <gyowell1@xxx> wrote:
>
> I'm with you Herman.
>
>
>
> As to the many comments about it is hard to find the information you
want
> even though it is there (somewhere), I agree. But now that I have re-
> discovered the Google site search feature and using that can find almost
> anything with a one line entry on the internet. In the Google
toolbar the
> search is : whatIwant site:www.amibroker.com
>
>
>
> So I am wondering if 90% of the problem of needing a new Help manual
would
> be solved by simply making available a convenient Google site search
line on
> the AMIbroker Home page. It has sure worked for me. I have been
able to
> find things in the UKB or the KB that I knew were there but couldn't
find at
> a later time.
>
>
>
> Sometimes it is better to solve a part of the problem that is easy
rather
> than the whole thing.
>
>
>
> Just a thought,
>
>
>
> Grover
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf
> Of Herman
> Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2008 2:49 AM
> To: George Loyd
> Subject: Re[2]: [amibroker] Help Manual -> UKB
>
>
>
> I agree 100%.
>
>
>
> If anybody really wants a glossary he/she can have it published
tomorrow on
> the UKB. Tomasz created the UKB for this type of use and he already gave
> permission to draw on existing AB Help content if used on that site.
Don't
> underestimate the value of this. It means that you already have 95%
of the
> work, structure and content, done for you by Tomasz. I have no idea
what all
> the fuss is about. I can further clear copyright issues with him if
you want
> to go this route.
>
>
>
> The UKB comment field's can be used to add notes, code snippets,
references,
> etc. Volunteers can screen, polish, and add this to the main item to
make it
> look nice - with minimal effort. The tools are there and they are
already
> supported by AmiBroker. Just dump the whole thing in one post from Word
> (minimal formatting) on the UKB (contact me for details) and the search
> engine will find the required item. The UKB will have more
permanence than
> any other private site.
>
>
>
> I think 90% of all the talk in this thread is due to a desire to try
some
> new layouts and try a new glossy user interface. All that won't add any
> value to the contents of the site; it only adds lots of work to set
it up
> and maintain.
>
>
>
> If you want something done, simply do it.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> herman
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sunday, August 31, 2008, 12:58:43 AM, you wrote:
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> I don't reply to many emails - in fact VERY few, but this one and
many of
> the replies forced me to write something.
>
>
>
> Maybe AmiBroker should be more like MetaStock where errors remain
for many
> upgrade cycles ( ie months to a year or more) and NO BETA upgrades ever
> occur. In the 6 1/2 years I have used AmiBroker Tomasz has provided
> literally far more than 100 beta versions - FREE of charge, often fixing
> bugs within a few hours to a couple of days. No other investment
software
> that I know of does this that fast. MetaStock's Enhance Backtester or
> Optimizer still has included errors in its handling of returns -
which in my
> opinion renders it less than useful for "real" investment work
where
money
> is on the line. Enlighten me if I am wrong. Each "one tenth"
upgrade for
> MetaStock costs $99 or more while Tomasz was providing 5 "one
tenth"
> upgrades and MANY betas FREE for about the same price. Checking
MetaStock's
> manual - AmiBroker's is superior. Now I realize this is a comparison
with
> only one other available software package, but others will fail to
generate
> much improved comparisons. I think I would rather still have what
AmiBroker
> provides.
>
>
>
> Furthermore Tomasz is a virtual Help file to this message board,
although I
> think he would rather be programing new features for AmiBroker than
> answering questions here.
>
>
>
> Each investment software package has their own programming language.
As new
> features and functions are included into the language, it becomes more
> difficult to use and understand. The added complexity generates more
> questions. No other investment software package has generated much
in the
> way of third party reference texts, other the few Tradestation has.
Howard
> Bandy's book is the first of several I foresee for AmiBroker.
>
>
>
> Tomasz has been chided for "for failing to provide a 5.1 Manual
yet"
- geez
> give the man a chance - he will get it out ASAP. You can't have
everything
> at once - new features are better than a new Manual the day the upgrade
> comes out. People here on the message board will help your
understanding of
> new features if the Readme file and examples doesn't clear up the
problems.
>
>
>
> What other investment software package has been created and
maintained by
> one man that rivals the functionality of AmiBroker? AmiBroker is
evolving
> faster than any other package I am familiar with - or am I just wearing
> "rose-colored" glasses?
>
>
>
> I could write more but I think I have made my opinion clear. Yes I want
> more, but I can be patient - it WILL come.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> George Loyd
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> brian_z111 wrote:
>
>
>
> There are far too many Help Manual questions posted in this forum.
>
>
>
> This takes up our valueable time answering questions that should have
>
> been answered by AmiBroker.
>
>
>
> In fact they waste far more time than OT posts.
>
>
>
> Our precious time would be far better spent answering more interesting
>
> questions.
>
>
>
> Some of the features in AB aren't explained in the manual, some things
>
> are out of date and sometimes the explanations are a bit cryptic.
>
>
>
> Example:
>
>
>
> Prettify was added to the Formula Editor in beta version 5.04
>
> - included in devlog under version 5.05 Feb08
>
> - official release v5.10 in June08 which includes manual 5.10
>
>
>
> Ami website PDF manual is still version 5.00
>
>
>
> - Search PDF for prettify == nothing
>
> - Search AB manual version 5.1 for prettify == nothing
>
> - Use AB site search engine == nothing
>
> - Google amibroker.com == 3 hits from devlog
>
> - devlog records release but has no info about it and no explanation in
>
> the read me
>
> - searched KB == nothing
>
> - searched UKB == nothing
>
>
>
> The screenshot of the FE edit dropdown menu, in the Help Manual is out
>
> of date (at least it looks different to my version 5.10)
>
>
>
> http://www.amibroke <http://www.amibroker.com/guide/w_afledit.html>
> r.com/guide/ <http://www.amibroker.com/guide/w_afledit.html>
w_afledit.
> <http://www.amibroker.com/guide/w_afledit.html>
html
> <http://www.amibroker.com/guide/w_afledit.html>
>
>
>
> The Devlog just says that the Prettify function was added ... looked in
>
> the AFL function list and couldn't find anything... is it a function or
>
> a function()?
>
>
>
> New features should be explained in the official help manual that comes
>
> out immediately after the beta inclusion.
>
> We should not have to search elsewhere but even if we do we, in this
>
> case, we still find nothing.
>
>
>
> It shouldn't be up to volunteers to explain help manual items in this
>
> forum, or the UKB, or anywhere else.
>
>
>
> It saves AB some effort if they don't have to keep the manual up to
>
> date but the effort is transferred to the volunteers, who have to
>
> answer it scores of times, instead of AB answering it once.
>
>
>
> If we all took the rationalist approach, that some people are
>
> advocating e.g. "users should have skills or lower their sights or
pay
>
> Graham", and charged AB for the time we spend providing AB support
then
>
> the program would cost thousands of dollars and wouldn't look so cheap,
>
> up against other software, afterall
>
>
>
> brian_z
>