Partial Quote from Pete - IB:
The problem is .........
Wise Solutions???????
========================
Mr. Pete/IB;
I dont consider ''check for updates a problem because ;
dont update untill I am required to.
Something i /many traders see time,, time, time again & i mentioned it several times over the years,can you get the volume numbers on you charts fixed, like ES,SPY,QQQQ are usually way off.
For example on your otherwise helpful charts;
QQQQ is showing first 3 hour hour candle charts[premarket today 1+1=1=3 hours total ,premarket]about 54,000 total and its actually much closer to 5.4 million.
Also i am following your advice and using another chart service also; so its pretty much stardard in industry to have chart volume actual numbers [not have to multiply by 100 realtime]
In other wordsActually with multiple time frames/2 chart services as IB suggests,it would be a big improvement to have actual volume[QQQQ,SPY,ES.....] Interestingly daily volumes are usually right
And constistancy in that [actual volume numbers]]would help;
ES has NOT needed to multiply its volume by 100, so actual volume numbers as many other traders mentioned would help.help much .Thanks, this is really a public problem, not a private problem.
IB waaay behind on tech support?
- Thread starter FullyArticulate
- Start date
That sounds logical; However. I have TWS on 2 of my computers and the version field in the registry was 99999 on one and 8647 on the other. Perhaps both are wrong and are not being correctly updated when upgrading TWS. Both computers are running TWS version 867.4. Pete, we need a verification on what needs to be entered in the registry for the version.
Catoosa
Please vote 5 points for suggestion 2185 in IB's new features poll. Suggestion # 2185 is that IB shift priorities away from constantly adding new features that don't work, and shift priorities toward debugging existing features and core critical functions, like order execution and data streaming, so that they do work 100%. The suggestion is that IB focus first on quality and reliability, and that expanding its offerings should not be done at the expense of quality and reliability of what it already offers. The suggestion is that quality of features is more important than quantity. Debugging efforts should not be neglected and backlogged while IB programmers spend their time developing new features. Please take a look.
Previous polls for "IB work on fixing bugs first" have already been marked as "Complete" by IB.
I my opinion, IB has lost sight of what is important to their customers; a reliable and solid trading front end with the best in customer service.
From time to time I continue to have issues with their data feed, market orders that do not fill or just hang, and disconnects/re-connects with tws.
I will leave my accounts active and continue to trade with IB on higher timeframes 3+ min, but for fast moving markets I have made other arrangements.
From time to time I continue to have issues with their data feed, market orders that do not fill or just hang, and disconnects/re-connects with tws.
I will leave my accounts active and continue to trade with IB on higher timeframes 3+ min, but for fast moving markets I have made other arrangements.
Yes very much so. I don't know about others, but I've had issues now with
1) incorrect or missing volume
2) quotes lagging in order management screen or on charts
3) charts not updating
with the latest release (actually with each new release) I thought the issues were going to be fixed, but guess what... now I'm seeing all the candles without bodies?!
as for problem tickest, I've had several open for 2 months now... most of the m without any decent reply...
you would think that fixing issues is a priority rather than added extra features we won't be using...
thumbsdown for IB last couple of weeks and months... don't know what is going on there but support is lacking and stability is becoming a serious issue...
when we had those massive down days a week ago, I just lost market data several times... really frustrating, these things can cost you big bucks... who's going to cough up for that?!
Suggestion #2185 recognizes that IB "implemented" a previous suggestion, making it IB policy that debugging existing features take priority over adding new ones. The new suggestion is that since IB has already adopted the policy change we want, IB should now actually begin to follow its own policy in reality, not just in theory!
Come, on guys, if you have time to bitch in this thread, then you have time to vote in the features poll! Don't be discouraged just because it takes some persistence to be heard on this issue.