Topic: Different EA numbering between Collection and Portfolio Expert
Hi Popov,
1) I use the MT4 Tracker to track my EA's performance and use it to prune out bad EA.
2) I identify 1 good EA (941032, which supposed to be the 33th EA from the Collection folder) and pruned out the rest of the 99 strategies from this Portfolio Expert. And hence this Portfolio Expert has only 1 strategy/EA inside it.
3) Then I use the Validator to ascend/extract it to the Collection. This EA (941032) fortunately managed to be ascended into the Collection folder and I opened the EA and it's Identity number is ID 507.1
4) I opened the Collection file in EA Studio and looked for the 33th EA and it's not the same as one I managed to opened via the Validator (ID 507.1).
5) I searched for ID 507.1 and found it as the 1st EA in the Collection.
6) I did another search for EA 941066 (which supposed to be the 67th EA from the Collection) and I found it on number 58th of the Collection.
What's the Implication?
1) Users run the Portfolio Expert EA and use MT4 Tracker to track EA's performance and use it to prune out bad EA.
2) When asked whether the EA's numbering in the Collection file is correlated to the Portfolio Expert's number, we were informed that it is. i.e Collection file's 1st EA is Portfolio Expert's number "0" EA and Collection file's 2nd EA is the same as Portfolio Expert's 2nd EA labelled as "1", so on and on...
https://forexsb.com/forum/post/44455/#p44455
https://forexsb.com/forum/post/45921/#p45921
3) So we assumed that the number 32th EA in Portfolio Expert is the number 33th EA from the Collection file.
So imagined I looked at the EA's performance and found EA 941032 seem to be a good EA I want to use and I go back to the Collection file and searched for the 33th EA (since Portfolio Expert labeled the 1st Strategy as "0" and 32th EA from the Portfolio Expert is the 33th from the Collection file).
I found the 33th EA and assume this is the same EA as the one I see in the MT4 Tracker number 941032. (But this is not true).
So users could have been using the wrong EA all the long if we assume that the number is the same.
What's the Possible mix up?
1) Is it possible that when we upload the Collection file, the numbering of the EA will be Re-arranged according to the new/latest data (even though I didn't refresh it after I upload it).
2) If this is true, how then are Users going to identify a specific EA we want to use that is correlated to the numbering in the Portfolio Expert numbering we see on the MT4 Tracker?
3) Ideally, we must be given to option to upload our EA (for a pruned Portfolio Expert) to extract EXACTLY the EA we intended to use. However, currently this is not possible cos the only way to open an EA from the (pruned) Portfolio Expect is via the Validator, which often didn't pass my EA and hence they didn't get ascended to the collection folder for me to view them.
The Reason this issue is very important because
1) There are many EA from the Portfolio Expert that I want to open them up in the Collection folder/Editor so that I can view them individually and examine their rules and use them as Preset Indicators.
2) But since many of these EA can't be ascended back to the Collection folder because the Validator rejected them (as unprofitable), the only way left for me is to go back to the Collection file and search out for the EA by the using the Portfolio Expert's numbering such as 941032. But if this only method doesn't give me true and accurate extraction, then what other method do I have to extract good EA from the Portfolio Expert?
Can you kindly resolve this very essential and important issue. Kindly comment whether you intent to do something about it or you are going to leave users scratching their heads and having to resign to the fact that they can search for good Ea and ended up not able to re-use it again to generate better ones.
If you know of a better way that I somehow didn't know, kindly point me to the correct direction. I've been express this difficulties I've been facing and yet haven't heard any workable respond to it.
Thanks