Talk:Technical analysis software

External Links[edit]

I suggest that we delete external links when there is not even a technical description of why and how the software is notable. Mfortier 20:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested on another page, why even have this page if every link is contested to be advertising? Either allow this page, and allow the internal links to relate to the software or do not allow this page and remove all software links. Andrew (28th November, 2006)

The subject of TA software is notable by itself while many TA software products are not. Mfortier 05:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Software Table[edit]

I suggest that we keep the format of the table such that the answer can only be an unambiguous yes/no or a number that relates to a verifiable technical feature.

Before adding a new column, first try to judge if it will lead to confusion or marketing abuse. Mfortier 05:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Pierre.imap (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC): I agree with Mfortier about the unambiguous answers . I renamed the online/download column into Online: Yes/No (as obviously, being an online sofware is an asset as it is more web 2.0). I also added 3 columns about operating system compatibility:[reply]

Windows: Yes/No
MAC OS: Yes/No
Linux: Yes/No

All the data is not filled in yet, but I'll come back later to try to finish the job.
I removed an external link that was contained within the table.
Also, I am not sure that the following columns are relevant:

Options: the table does not list other market types (such as futures, stocks, indices etc ...). Why should it list Options when it is not a major feature.
Charting: this is the basis of Technical analysis. Any software with no charts should not even be in this list.
Optimisation: this is a subfeature of backtesting which is already listed as a criteria in the table.

As the table is beginning to get "heavy", I suggest removing those irrelevant criterias. Are you all OK whith that?

-- Optimisation is not always a subfeature of backtesting and is definitely not always a desirable feature. This already shows from the fact that several products in the table don't have optimisation but do have backtesting. Actually, optimising or not can be an essential difference for many. I would keep that column. I agree with you other suggestions. Thengarch (talk) 06:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Pierre.imap (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC) If everyone is OK with these modifications, I will:[reply]

Rename the "Build-in indicators" column to "Nb build-in indicators"
Add the column "Automated Trading" which has become a major feature in TA softwares
Remove the external links from the table
Remove descriptions in the table that try to make some particular software more visible than other
Remove entries that are not software (ex: libraries).

Article Neutrality[edit]

The recent changes from Sensatus have been reverted. A few changes were good, but I had the following major concerns:

- The definition of Scanner has been changed to mean what the TimeToTrade product offer. Scanners are before all for building and sorting lists of traded instrument. User alarms are a minor variation of what could be done from the result of scanning. Alarms and notification deserve to be mention, but it is not what a scanner is.

- The definition of "Custom Indicator" has been reworded to promote TimeToTrade and graphical user interface (GUI). Just mentioning that custom indicators can be done with both script and GUI would be sufficient. The rest is opinion. By the way, neither Tradestation nor TimeToTrade should be mention there because script or GUI coding is not particular to these products.

- The description of EOD was better and the addition of Delayed definition is welcome, but the explanation of who is using each type of data feed is questionable. The explanation on price and licensing is an unnecessary "shopping guide".

- Online/Download could have been a good technical distinction, but it was twisted into a marketing speech in favor of online product (by the way, one of TimeToTrade product characteristic).

- About the new "Mobile Phone/PDA access" characteristic; these days the definition of the different medium of online access is changing. Think of the coming iPhone. This characteristic might quickly become outdated. I believe that the intent here was again to promote one of the TimeToTrade feature.

- Mentioning how much a software cost is a marketing tool, not a technical feature. This new "Free" column should go.

- The definition of "Open Source" is tainted with a negative opinion.

Other changes: - The introduction was in need of rewording, but it should not have been deleted. - Back testing is not specific to stock. - Sections are now incorrect. The whole article is under "Introduction". The table has been moved under "See Also". - The wiki links (such as "drawdown" and "Sharpe ratio") should not have been deleted. - The "broker interface" section has been changed to try to explain the intent of software providers. I do not agree with the new definition. Let’s keep it technical. Broker interface here means trading automation. Period.

The article sure needs some rewording and corrections, but I am hoping that Sensatus will resume doing changes with a neutral point of view.

Just to be clear, I have nothing against having TimeToTrade in the list of software. I am mainly concern about the article becoming a marketing tool. Mfortier 06:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have un-done the previous revert, as the original text is either incomplete or inaccurate and felt that the recent changes provided a better platform for building upon.

I acknowledge the comments on TimeToTrade and have changed them. The entry on scripting versus icons, was prepared to high light the differences between tools that require scripting languages versus point and click approaches and I did try to take a neutral perspective by pointing out the benefits of using TradeStations scripting language.

The scanning definition has been spilt into 'Scanning' and 'Alerting'. Scanning is typically a one off event that is meant to filter, whereas alerting is focused on constantly monitoring a specific equity and providing a notification of when investment conditions are met. The alert functionality for the various software solutions within the tables needs to be updated.

I've amended the description of data feeds, however feel that as a source of information, new investors who are going to be the type of people reading these entries, should be presented with guidelines as which type of data they should consider purchasing. A trader who goes for a buy and hold strategy with an time line of months or years, will not benefit from expensive tick by tick data.

As a seasoned trader who does not have time to spend every day sitting in front of a computer while the markets are open, mobile access is incredibly important; actually once you start using it, most people who have day jobs consider it essential. There is nothing worse than being away from your computer be it at lunch, customer visit or meeting when you are considering entry or exiting a positioning when there is a a lot volatility in the stock. A lot of existing online solution that are built around Java Applets that can not be viewed on mobile devices as they have to be re-written in J2ME. With the gradual introduction of Java Script and Flash on mobile devices, the fixed line / mobile device access issues will disappear with time, however this is currently not the case, therefore the text reflects the current environment.It is proposed that this section stays, and if you would like an alternative option to TimeToTrade, then companies like E Trade provide a solution that could be included.

As for online or download, this is a real issue for non-professional traders who do not have the freedom to download software and run data feeds in corporate / work place environments due to productivity issues and security issues associated with data feeds.

I have removed the 'free' as this could be considered a marketing tool; as a knowledge centre I would like to know what I have to pay for and what is free, however if this is considered marketing, then so be it.

Open Source description has been amended. I like open source; I think it is great actually, however I accept that most investors want out of the box solutions.

Sensatus; 20 February 2007

Sensatus, you did resume doing changes with a commercial bias. This article should not be a "how to select" the right product. This is a dangerous down slope. Already, you are adding selection criteria that makes your product shine. Even your attempts to balance with pros and cons shows bias. You are not fooling me. In short, I beleive most of your changes are not from a neutral point of view. I will not revert again because I feel conflicted to impose a previous version that I have mostly written. I have also to restrain myself from defending strongly a position on this article because of my affiliations. I will step aside for a while and request comments from other parties. Mfortier 23:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a chance to fix the article progressively myself to attempt neutrality. First change will be to the "Custom Indicators" definition. Indicators are not used only for scan/alerts. Other examples of usages are input to money management logic or just plain visualization. I think the definition of what an indicator is should be left to the article Technical Analysis. Support for "Custom indicator" just means that the software end-user have the capability to define its own indicators. I did also remove the bias toward graphical programming. Mfortier (talk) 05:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I consolidated much of the platform availability information. This serves two purposes. It trims down some of the information that is more related to all software, rather than just technical analysis software (e.g. open vs closed source), and hopefully removes some of the biased sounding language around the open vs closed source issue. Harry1717 (talk) 04:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since improvements have been made, and since no new complaints have been registered, I'm going to remove the "POV" tag that's been on this article since March 2007. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Price[edit]

The debatable "these guys" under Open Source aside, can we please add a cost column to the comparison table? I believe this simple indicator (pun unintended) would contribute to the contrast between produts. Trippingpixie 03:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree about adding a price column. It is very hard to use the price information without its context (free trial, promotion, subscription, premium with data, basic, professional, free with ads...). Wikipedia is not a resource to conduct business by listing the latest price/promotion (See WP:NOT#DIR). Even if the first time it is done with the best intent of the world, I beleive this will quickly turn into a marketing circus.

About the open source description, I agree, it is now really bad. I was also tempted to fix it, but I am taking a step back from the edit done by the company Sensatus (until I have some feedback). I am the person who did create the open source column, but, in retrospective, I now beleive that we should remove it because it is not a characteristic specific to TA software. Mfortier 02:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting. With respect to price alone, perhaps a license column would be useful (such as Commercial/Free/Open Source). I was thinking price could be done similar to that in Comparison of wiki software: it seems to work quite well there. The "summary box" (or whatever it's called) on the right of software articles (e.g. 3dsmax, Windows) has License that I also believe is useful here. Trippingpixie

I don't agree that pricing/promotional information has an encyclopedic value. Showing another bad example is not convincing me. That being said, I won't oppose if you proceed. I think it is time for me to recognize that I am preaching alone in the desert. I have no doubt the change will be welcome by many looking to push their commercial agenda. Mfortier 02:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree pricing doesn't have encyclopedic value, but I wouldn't oppose adding it, provided a way can be found to make sense. Many of these products have complex pricing schemes, like monthly / quarterly / annual licenses, lifetime licenses, etc. NinjaTrader, for example, is free if you use it for charting and backtesting, but you buy a license if you want to connect it to a broker for trading. I just can't see how all that information could be incorporated into this article in a meaningful, easy-to-understand way.

What I'd really like to see is a column on what language the user uses to program it. Some products (like the charting-only products) don't have a programming language. Some have their own unique langauge (i.e. TradeStation's EasyLanguage). Some have a graphical drag-and-drop approach to programming. Some use javascript or C#. That information would have encyclopedic value. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

metatrader[edit]

how come metatrader is not mentioned here? Alex.g 14:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of stuff is not mentioned here. The list is woefully incomplete. Also missing are several titles for Mac and Linux. And it would be nice if the OS was identified for each title in the table. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright - optimisation (and possibly other sections)[edit]

[[1]] I haven't checked how much of the material on this page is copy/pasted from this or other sources, but the optimisation paragraph is a direct copy.

Well spotted - includes the grammatical error in the Optimisation paragraph "developing an investment strategies" and the blindingly obvious "The objective is to try and develop a technical analysis trading strategy based on technical analysis indicator criteria, which will generate a positive return." - well duh, of course it is. However the page credits "Written by Wikipedia" at the top but then asserts copyright at the bottom of the page.) Looks as though it's Wikipedia that's been copied JonathanWakely (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now fixed the grammar mentioned above, so you won't see it in the Wikipedia copy of the article now JonathanWakely (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure everyone that the wikipedia is the original. I have written most (but not all) of this paragraph specifically for wikipedia. Mfortier (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constant Spam Links[edit]

This article is not meant as a vehicle for advertising your product. None of the products have links in them to their websites. See the discussions from five years ago. One anonymous id has been consistently adding a link for a product as standalone that is not in the table. Not only is that inconsistent and spam, but the link does not even go to a product page, but rather to a mysql login screen (it redirects). We should consider blocking that IP address. What do other editors think? It is not my preference, but I cannot think of anything else. I don't want to ask to block the page. Thanks. Sposer (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]