|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
> Janene:
> 1. Yes, you have had a few e-mails bounced back to you. This is a problem
> with iname.com. I have discontinued using that address.
>
> 2. You largely ignored my requests for assistance with the spurious
tickers
> that kept showing up as not in the database. I finally found a brute force
> solution.
Weren't they simply symbols that were no longer trading -- and yet you were
trying to get updated quotes for them? By brute force, do you mean you
simply deleted them from your old lists of symbols or that you created new
lists? That's not difficult, and would seem to be part of normal maintenance
of the lists one creates. Symbols do change.
>
> 3. Most of your published scans are defective
If by "published scans" you mean the sample scans in the program, this
simply isn't true. In fact, it's ridiculous. If you mean scans you've found
elsewhere, there's usually a quick explanation for why you couldn't get them
to work (and it's not because the scans are "defective").
>and your scan language doesn't
> seem to provide sufficient capability to control the size of the scan or
the format and size of the output.
This makes no sense. What do you mean by controlling the size of the scan?
It's a powerful scanning language, and one can write just about any custom
scan one can dream up. And it's easy to control the size and content of the
output, and the format. One can format the output as an html document, too.
Like most things (especially those involving technical analysis of stocks),
writing QP2 scans does take some effort on the part of the user. There's a
learning curve. One doesn't need to be a programmer to write good scans.
It's not a difficult language to learn, if one applies oneself to it. I
wouldn't give up on QP2 so soon, Lionel.
>
> I am pleased that you check the comments about QP.
> Lionel Issen
> lissen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Janene" <janene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 2:55 PM
> Subject: Re: QP2.x Alternatives.
>
>
> > On May 15, Lionel Issen wrote:
> >
> > > QP has always included mutual fund data.
> > We started out with stocks only. We added mutual funds for an
additional
> > charge about 3 years ago.
> >
> > --------------->snip<----------------
> > > I have other complaints with QP. Their tech support is deteriorating,
> > --->snip<----
> > >and they don't answer all queries.
> > If you can let me know which messages you did not get a response to I
> would
> > be glad to help you. The last message I sent to you was sent back to
me.
> I
> > also suspect you did not receive some of the others that did not get
sent
> > back. I know you were having trouble with your ISP in March. Did you
> ever
> > get that resolved? Let me know where we left off and I will try to
catch
> > up. I know you were having trouble with some symbols that are no longer
> > trading. Did you get that sorted out?
> >
> > > You might want to look at TC2000.
> > Just keep in mind they charge more and offer less.
> >
> > Janene
> >
> > janene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Quotes Plus Tech Support
> >
> >
>
|