|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Don:
My experience with Quotes Plus is similar to yours. I am much happier since
I've been able to bypass the Metastock Downoader for downloading.
Shortcomings in QP:
1. They have not always issued an alert when a ticker is no longer trading.
2. They do not notify when a symbol has only changed.
3. When the system cannot find a ticker that is in my MS files, all it says
is that symbol XXXX cannot be found. It would be helpful if the message
also gave the name of the security and the name of the folder(s) that hold
this ticker.
4. Same as 3 but with stock splits
QP seems to use a similar file system that FastTrack uses. The data base
apparently holds the stock data, and the chart layout is applied when the
chart is accessed. The present MS file system and Downloader are quite
obsolete, which is why they dont work as well as competitors'. If Equis
updated the file system and the Downloader, all they might need is a
utility to convert the old format to the new format. I use other software,
like Quicken and Microsoft Word, that does this on request when the files
that are being accessed are in an older format.
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Hughes <daringdon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, January 05, 1999 8:33 PM
Subject: Standards for EOD Data Providers
John:
You hit the nail right on the head. I was going to send you this message
privately, but I felt your message was so accurate that it deserved
re-posting on the metastock list. Wake up EQUIS.
Don Hughes
daringdon@xxxxxxxxxxx
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 1/5/99, at 3:10 PM, John R. Fritch wrote:
>From: "John R. Fritch" <jfritch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>Alain:
>
> I find it incredible that anyone who has used both Equis and QP
>would have anything good to say about Equis. With regard to API's,
>I've found QP's DLL's to be complete and very easy to implement. In
>less time than it takes Equis to upload my request to give me the
>day's activity on the three U.S. exchanges (ca. 14 minutes), QP2
>downloads that information, updates my database with it, and then
>allows me with its read DLL's in Visual Basic to translate the entire
>QP2 database into Swahili or any other format you can dream up. So
>what need is there for "write API?" With regard to support, the best
>support is that which is never needed, and QP's support of its DLL's,
>despite all the recent program changes, comes close to this standard.
>I've had one problem, and it was fixed with appropriate priority.
>
> There are significant issues regarding QP's products and service.
>But when it comes to comparing QP with its “competition,” I just don’t
>see that QP has any competition. I wish that it did have competition.
>I don’t like not having a real choice. But presently, there is no
>real choice.
>
> Quotes Plus is the only vendor which seems to understand that
>there is absolutely no reason why maintenance of their customers'
>databases should ever require them to see or specify a single security
>name or ticker symbol. There is no legitimate excuse for acquisition
>and maintenance of stock data causing as much trouble and squandering
>as much time as it does. So many other much bigger and more
>complicated things get done without much hoopla or a second thought.
>In comparison to the requirements of other technical disciplines, our
>needs seem reasonably modest. For a historical data base of ticker
>symbol, date, open, high, low, close, and volume for all securities
>traded on NYSE, AMEX, and NASDAQ, we need:
>
>1) Early and snappy daily updates of our databases with the current
>day's trading data. With a typically two-minute download followed by a
>typically two-minute database update procedure completed by 6:30-7:00
>pm New York time, Quotes Plus satisfies this need. With
>Equis/Reuters, you have a minimum of two problematic 40-minute
>download procedures that are often aborted in repeated failures until
>after midnight. That’s in addition to the two ca. 14-minute uploads
>to Equis that accomplish nothing more than delivery of your request to
>download the day’s data. With i-Soft's StockWiz, updates from
>downloaded files are plagued with inexplicable crashes.
>
>2) Automatic changes of ticker symbols and seamless accumulation of
>data delivered under the new ticker symbol onto that previously
>accumulated under the old symbol starting on the date the symbol
>change becomes effective. Quotes Plus attempts to do this, but
>sometimes there is a delay of 1-3 days. It's done well enough that I
>don't have to worry about it or hassle with it. With Equis/Reuters
>and i-Soft, you have to change the ticker symbols manually, and, if
>such change with Equis/Reuters is done after data has already been
>received under the new ticker symbol, you have to merge the data files
>for the new and old symbols. In Equis/Reuters, notification of symbol
>changes is encrypted under the "additional information" portion of the
>download report. The notifications are often misleading, ambiguous, or
>just flat wrong, requiring you to go to external sources such as
>Zack's to get the real scoop. i-Soft doesn't bother to give any clue
>regarding symbol changes.
>
>3) Automatic recording of stock splits and adjustment of price and
>volume historical data accordingly. Quotes Plus and Equis/Reuters do
>this. Yes, information on all splits is easily accessible from the
>QP2 database. For all practical purposes, i-Soft does not provide
>split information, and when you attempt to input a split factor
>manually, the program often mutilates your data.
>
>4) Automatic recording of distributions (e.g., dividends) and
>adjustment of historical price data accordingly. Quotes Plus and
>Equis/Reuters do this. i-Soft? Forget it.
>
>5) Automatic recording of company name changes. Quotes Plus does
>this. For Equis/Reuters and i-Soft, the procedure is similar to
>ticker symbol changes.
>
>6) Automatic identification and correction of errors in data. Quotes
>Plus and Equis/Reuters do this. (Better yet, do it right the first
>time. What's the big hangup here?) Although they have far more data
>errors than their competitors, i-Soft would never even admit to
>sending bad data, let alone correct it.
>
>7) Automatic addition of new securities to the database as soon as
>they start trading. Quotes Plus does this. With Equis/Reuters, you
>have to download, unzip, and search a new file of all securities once
>a month to find the new ones, which you must then add to your database
>manually. This is a monumentally tedious task.
>
>8) Automatic deletion from the database of securities which are no
>longer traded. With Equis/Reuters and i-Soft, this must be done
>manually. With Quotes Plus, this is not done as promptly as it should
>be, and occasionally becomes a problem.
>
>9) Direct, practical, and free access to the entire database from any
>program of our choice. Quotes Plus accomplishes this by providing DLL
>procedures that can be used in anyone's Visual Basic or C++ program or
>any other company's application to retrieve directly and rapidly any
>information in the database. With the 255 or even 2000 security per
>directory folder limitation, Equis/Reuters makes a deliberate and
>calculated effort to prevent you from even building let alone
>accessing a complete database.
>
> At the risk of exposing my ignorance, it would seem that there
>might be an even better way to provide direct, practical, and free
>access to the entire database from any program of our choice. Why not
>just build and maintain a single core database as a single large
>delimited ASCII text file containing the entire database as records
>with ticker symbol, date, open, high, low, close, and volume fields
>for all securities and all days? Aren’t speeds and capacities of
>reasonably priced hard disks, RAM, and microprocessors finally great
>enough to handle expediently such an ASCII text file, even for ten
>years of 30,000 securities? Anybody or anybody's program could open
>such a file and get the data they want when they want it. There would
>be no data conversions nor smoke, mirrors, or excuses.
>
> I have to seriously question the motivation of any data or TA
>software vendor who asks me to store a database in some other data
>format, particularly one involving a proprietary encryption without
>supporting read DLL’s. The cost of providing any additional hard disk
>storage space required by an ASCII format is negligible. Compute time
>penalties with an ASCII format might be more significant, but are they
>still sufficient to justify putting up with all the insidious software
>glitches encountered with trying to use encrypted databases? I doubt
>it. Furthermore, any compute time disadvantage with an ASCII format
>will only continue to diminish.
>
> Now if a data or TA software vendor asks me to store my database
>with their proprietary encryption without supporting read DLL’s, why
>am I to believe that their intent is anything other than to put and
>hold me in the bondage of their data feed and/or TA software? (I am
>amazed at how many people just won't let go of their "precious" old
>MetaStock data!) Why won't they provide data in a form that I can
>access efficiently from my own programs or other companies'
>applications, or, better still, that I can read directly from a text
>file? There simply is no excuse for not doing so. It’s time to “just
>say no” to vendors who won’t.
>
> John Fritch
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
>to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at http://www.onelist.com and
>select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.
|