Thread for Setting up ToS Scanners based on how I do it.
High Volume Scan:

Go to the Scan tab in ToS. It might have fields, just 'x' them out so it looks like mine. Then click the "add filter button"

Click 'stock' from the menu and it should add a scan query into your filter section. Click the drop down menu next to stock and select close and put in your minimum amount. I prefer 10
Next click add filter again, then stock. This will add yet another stock filter to your scan menu. I set this to market cap and put 500 into the box. The numbers are in millions to keep it easier:
Add filter again, but this time select 'study' which will place a new menu in your filter section. There should be a pencil to the right, click it to edit the study. We will place our code in here:
The window below will pop up. Ignore the Conditions window for now and click the thinkScript Editor and delete everything in it:
Add the code shown below. This will help you learn the logic of thinkscript by writing it out yourself. Ive found thats the best way to learn code at first, just typing it out helps you catch common errors that pop up. Then click OK:
Finally, click the 'Scan In' button shown below and in categories select the 'All Optionable' option. This for me has returned the best results. Other options have brought back warrants and other odd results.
Then hit the big green scan button and POW. You've got a scan you can run every night, especially during earnings season to catch those big vol rippers.

Then you can check it against my scan here:
https://t.co/mstmJNRMyc

But dont you feel better building something yourself?
If you want to save this for the future, which can also be used in your WL for faster chart scanning, just click the little hamburger menu shown below and save the query out. Happy scanning, and I will be posting more of my scans throughout the coming days.
If you have any tips, or tricks for me to add in to scanning PLEASE let me know, Im learning with the rest of you as I go and just want to help others out.

More from Watchlist

You May Also Like

IMPORTANCE, ADVANTAGES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF BHAGWAT PURAN

It was Ved Vyas who edited the eighteen thousand shlokas of Bhagwat. This book destroys all your sins. It has twelve parts which are like kalpvraksh.

In the first skandh, the importance of Vedvyas


and characters of Pandavas are described by the dialogues between Suutji and Shaunakji. Then there is the story of Parikshit.
Next there is a Brahm Narad dialogue describing the avtaar of Bhagwan. Then the characteristics of Puraan are mentioned.

It also discusses the evolution of universe.(
https://t.co/2aK1AZSC79 )

Next is the portrayal of Vidur and his dialogue with Maitreyji. Then there is a mention of Creation of universe by Brahma and the preachings of Sankhya by Kapil Muni.


In the next section we find the portrayal of Sati, Dhruv, Pruthu, and the story of ancient King, Bahirshi.
In the next section we find the character of King Priyavrat and his sons, different types of loks in this universe, and description of Narak. ( https://t.co/gmDTkLktKS )


In the sixth part we find the portrayal of Ajaamil ( https://t.co/LdVSSNspa2 ), Daksh and the birth of Marudgans( https://t.co/tecNidVckj )

In the seventh section we find the story of Prahlad and the description of Varnashram dharma. This section is based on karma vaasna.
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?