Order Block Indicators: What They Draw & How to Test Them

If you open three charts with three different order block indicators, you will often see three different sets of boxes. The pair is the same. The timeframe is the same. The candles are the same. Yet one tool marks a single small candle, another shades a wide range covering several bars, and a third draws nothing at all where the others look busy. That disagreement is not a fault in your chart. It is the starting point for understanding what these tools actually do.

An order block indicator does not detect orders. Your retail feed does not contain the order book of a bank, a liquidity provider or any other large participant, and a script running on TradingView, MetaTrader 4 or MetaTrader 5 has no access to that information either. What the script can do is apply a rule to candles you can already see. It looks for a pattern, decides that the pattern qualifies, and draws a rectangle. The rectangle feels concrete, which is part of its appeal and part of its danger. A tidy box can make an interpretation look like a measurement.

This guide takes a deliberately plain approach. It explains what traders usually mean by an order block, why published definitions differ so much, what indicators on TradingView and on MT4 and MT5 are really drawing, and how repainting and lookahead can make a weak idea look strong on historical charts. It then gives you a step-by-step audit you can run yourself, without trusting a sales page, a screenshot or a backtest. The aim is not to persuade you for or against order blocks. The aim is to help you describe any indicator in exact words, test whether it follows its own description, and decide how much risk, if any, that evidence justifies.

Read this risk first, because it applies throughout. A zone on a chart is not support, resistance or protection in any assured sense. Price can pass through a well-drawn zone without pausing, especially around news, at session opens or when a broader trend is strong. If you trade from zones, the decision that protects your account is never the zone itself. It is the stop, the position size and the willingness to leave a failed idea alone.

What traders mean by an order block

In its most common retail form, an order block is described as the last candle, or the last group of candles, moving in one direction before a strong move in the opposite direction. A bullish version is often described as the final down candle before a forceful rise. A bearish version is the final up candle before a forceful fall. The body, the wicks or the full high-to-low range of that candle then become a zone, and the trader watches for price to return to that zone later.

That description sounds precise until you try to code it. Almost every word hides a choice. What counts as forceful? How many candles count as a group? Does the later move need to break a previous high or low, and if so, which one? Does a wick through the zone use it up, or only a close beyond it? Two careful people can start from the same sentence and write two different indicators, both honestly described as order block tools.

There is also a story attached to the pattern, and the story needs separating from the drawing. The story says that large participants placed orders in that area, that some orders remain unfilled, and that price returning to the area will meet those orders again. It is a plausible-sounding narrative, but a retail chart cannot confirm it. You cannot see whether orders sat there, whether they were filled, cancelled or moved, or whether the original move had anything to do with a single participant at all. A responsible way to use the term is therefore descriptive, not explanatory. Say: this candle meets my written rule, so I mark it. Do not say: the box proves that institutions are defending this level. The first statement can be tested. The second cannot, with the data you have.

Keeping that distinction matters for risk. If you believe a box is defended by someone larger than the market, you may size a trade too large, place a stop too close or hold a losing position because the story says price should turn. If you treat the box only as a location where you will apply your normal rules, those errors are less likely. The box becomes one input among several, and a failure of the box is just a normal loss, taken at the size you planned.

Why definitions differ, and why it matters

Definitions differ for at least four ordinary reasons, and none of them requires bad intent. First, the idea spread through videos, courses and forum posts rather than through a single published specification. Each teacher simplified it in a slightly different way. Second, coders must turn vague words into numbers. A phrase such as a strong move must become a threshold in points, pips, multiples of average true range, or a count of consecutive candles. Third, platforms handle candles, sessions and timeframes differently, so the same logic can produce different boxes on different feeds. Fourth, many scripts add extra filters, such as market structure breaks, fair value gaps, volume conditions or higher-timeframe alignment, and still keep the short name order block on the label.

Consider four common variants you are likely to meet. The first is the single-candle variant: mark the last opposite-coloured candle before a move that breaks structure. The second is the sequence variant: mark the full range from the start of a small cluster of candles before the move to the end of that cluster, which produces a wider zone. The third is the displacement variant: require the move away to contain a large body relative to recent candles, or to leave an imbalance, before any candle qualifies. The fourth is the refined variant: start with one of the rules above, then shrink the zone to the body only, to the mean threshold of the candle, or to a portion of the range where the coder assumes most activity sat. Each variant will claim some touches as valid and reject others. Their histories will look different because they are, in effect, different methods sharing one name.

Zone edges deserve the same attention as the selection rule. Some indicators draw from high to low. Some draw from open to close. Some draw only the body plus one wick. A few pips of difference in an edge changes whether a later touch counts as a reaction or a failure, and it changes where a stop beyond the zone would sit. On a pair such as EURUSD the difference may look small. On XAUUSD, where ranges are larger and intraday movement can be fast, a body-only zone and a full-range zone can imply very different stop distances and therefore very different position sizes for the same account risk. Comparing two indicators without comparing their edges is not a comparison of accuracy. It is only a comparison of drawings. Compare this with Best Currency Strength Meter Indicator for MT4/MT5 Free before you decide.

Invalidation and mitigation language adds another layer. Mitigation usually means that price has returned to a zone and, in the author’s view, used it. Some scripts delete a zone on first touch. Some keep it until a close beyond it. Some extend it indefinitely to the right until it is broken, which means an old chart can accumulate boxes that would have been removed under another rule. Freshness language, such as fresh, untested or unmitigated, sounds objective, but it simply encodes those choices. Before you judge any tool, write down its answers to three questions. Which candles qualify? Where exactly are the top and bottom? When does the zone stop being shown as valid? If the documentation cannot answer those questions, you are not looking at a complete method. You are looking at a drawing aid with unstated discretion built in.

What TradingView order block indicators actually draw

On TradingView, order block tools are usually written in Pine Script. That is an advantage for checking, because many public scripts publish their source, and even a non-programmer can learn to read the few lines that decide selection, drawing and deletion. A typical script follows the same broad sequence. It identifies swing highs and swing lows using a lookback length. It watches for a break of a recent swing. When a break occurs, it searches backwards for a candle or a group of candles that meets its condition, stores the high and low in variables, and draws a box that extends to the right. Settings then control how many boxes remain visible, whether broken boxes are removed, and whether labels such as bullish or bearish are shown.

Each step contains a decision you should notice. Swing detection needs a pivot length, sometimes called left and right bars. A short pivot length creates many swings and therefore many candidate zones. A long pivot length creates fewer, later zones. The break rule matters just as much. Some scripts count a wick beyond a swing as a break. Others require a close beyond it. A close-based rule will confirm later than a wick-based rule, and on a live chart that delay is visible. A wick-based rule reacts sooner but may also mark breaks that immediately fail. Neither choice is automatically correct. The point is that the choice changes the live timing, and historical screenshots hide the timing entirely.

Drawing choices can also mislead. Pine boxes persist and extend, so a finished chart can look as if a zone was known long before price returned to it. In one sense that is true: the zone was identified after the move away, and price returned later. In another sense it can flatter the method, because the box is drawn backwards over candles that had already closed. A viewer sees a clean rectangle starting neatly at the origin candle and may assume the trader had that exact information at that moment. Often the confirmation only arrived several bars later, after the break that the rule required. By then the origin candle was in the past, and any entry connected to the original move was no longer available at the prices inside the box. The box may still be useful as a future reference level, but that is a different claim from saying the script identified it in real time at its left edge.

If you use TradingView, take advantage of the bar replay feature where it is available to you, and step forward one bar at a time on a section of history you have not studied. Note the bar on which each box first appears, not the bar at its left edge. Note whether it moves, resizes or disappears as new bars arrive. A script that is honest live will still redraw in limited ways, for example by extending a box or by removing it when your invalidation rule triggers. That is normal behaviour for a developing chart. What you need to distinguish is extension from invention: a box that appears late but is drawn far back in time, without any indication of when it was confirmed, asks you to judge it by information you would not have had.

Also read the settings panel before you read the marketing description. Look for inputs with names referring to pivot length, swing length, displacement, volume, internal and external structure, mitigation method and maximum boxes. Change one setting at a time on the same chart and watch how much the picture changes. If a small change in pivot length replaces most zones with different ones, the method is highly sensitive to that input. Sensitivity is not a defect by itself, but it does mean that any claim about the indicator must name the settings used. A screenshot without settings is not evidence. It is an illustration.

What MT4 and MT5 order block indicators actually draw

On MetaTrader 4 and MetaTrader 5, the same ideas are implemented as custom indicators, most often producing rectangle objects on the chart or buffers that another tool or an Expert Advisor can read. The logic is usually similar: detect swings, detect a break or a strong move, search backwards for a qualifying candle, draw the zone, and manage the zone as price returns. The practical difference is transparency. Many MT4 and MT5 files are supplied only in compiled form, as an EX4 or EX5 file, with no source to inspect. You then have to judge the tool entirely from its behaviour, its documentation and its settings, which makes the live audit described later in this guide more important, not less.

MetaTrader brings two further complications. The first is the broker feed. Candles are built from your broker’s prices, and brokers differ in spread, in the number of daily candles per week and in the handling of the Sunday open and the daily close. A zone drawn from a high or a low on one feed may be drawn a few points differently on another. A swing that qualifies on one feed may not qualify on another if the break was marginal. This does not make one feed true and the other false. It means an indicator is feed-dependent, and a test carried out on one broker does not transfer automatically to another.

The second complication is history handling. When you change timeframe, scroll back or reconnect, MetaTrader may recalculate the indicator over available history. Objects can be recreated in a slightly different order, and a zone that looked stable during a session may be redrawn after a refresh. Keep that in mind before you accuse a tool of repainting or excuse it from the charge. The test is not whether the picture after a refresh looks tidy. The test is whether, during live bar formation, the tool showed information that later changed in a way that would have altered a decision. A refresh test is still useful: save a screenshot with the time visible, refresh the chart, and compare. Differences tell you that the historical picture is partly reconstructed, which is another reason not to rely on old charts alone.

Settings on MetaTrader deserve the same slow reading as on TradingView. Look for the swing or fractal length, the method used to confirm a break, the maximum number of zones, the rule for deleting or keeping mitigated zones, and any filter that uses another timeframe. Higher-timeframe filters are a common source of confusion. An indicator on a fifteen-minute chart that checks an hourly condition can change its mind as the hourly candle develops, because the hourly candle has not closed. A zone that appears in the morning may vanish in the afternoon, not because the coder was dishonest, but because the higher-timeframe condition was provisional all along. If the documentation does not state whether higher-timeframe data uses closed candles only, assume you need to test that behaviour yourself.

A note on alerts is worthwhile here, because many traders rely on them. An alert that fires when price enters a zone is only as reliable as the zone logic behind it. If the zone can move or disappear, the alert can fire for a level that the chart no longer shows an hour later. If you use alerts, log them at the moment they fire, with the zone edges at that moment. Without that log, you will remember the alerts that were followed by a reaction and forget the rest, and your impression of the tool will drift away from its record. You can also check Stop Loss Take Profit MT4 Indicator | Free Risk Control for a second view.

Repainting and lookahead, explained without euphemism

Repainting is an overused word, so it helps to separate three different behaviours that traders often lump together. The first is benign redrawing. A zone extends to the right as new bars arrive, a label updates, or an unconfirmed current candle changes colour until it closes. Nothing in that behaviour pretends to know the future. The second is revision. A provisional zone is shown and then removed or moved when a later condition fails. This may be acceptable if the tool clearly marks zones as provisional, but it becomes misleading if screenshots only show the survivors. The third is lookahead in effect, even when the coder did not intend it. The script waits until several future bars have confirmed a pattern, then draws the zone as if it started at the origin candle, with no marker showing when confirmation arrived. On a completed chart this looks impressively early. Live, it was late.

Pine Script and MQL both make lookahead possible in ordinary ways that are easy to miss. Requesting a higher timeframe value without allowing for the fact that the higher candle is still forming can import developing information into a lower-timeframe decision. Using a pivot that requires bars on both sides, then plotting the result at the pivot bar rather than at the confirmation bar, shifts knowledge backwards in time. In backtesting, filling an order at a price that was only known after the bar closed creates a similar distortion. None of this requires a conspiracy. It requires only that the person showing the result did not separate what was drawn from when it was knowable.

You should also be alert to a subtler form of flattery: selective history. A script may keep only a fixed number of recent zones, deleting older ones as new ones form. On a screenshot, the visible zones are the most recent ones, neatly placed near current price. The zones that price cut through earlier may have already scrolled out of the display or been removed as mitigated under a generous rule. The chart therefore shows a tidier record than a trader lived through. Ask how many zones were drawn in total over a test period, how many were touched, how many were broken, and what happened after each touch under a fixed entry and stop rule. If those counts are unavailable, the honest conclusion is that the tool is untested, not that it is accurate.

There is a simple mental test that cuts through most of this. Freeze your attention on a single moment in the past and ask: at the close of this bar, with only the bars up to this point visible, could the indicator have drawn exactly this box in exactly this place? If the answer requires a later break, a later swing confirmation or a later decision about mitigation, then the box, in that form, belongs to a later moment. A good indicator can still be useful despite that delay, provided the delay is acknowledged and the trading rule uses the box only after it was actually confirmed. A poor presentation hides the delay and invites you to imagine entries that were never available.

How to audit an indicator against its own definition

You do not need to prove that order blocks work in general. That question is too broad to settle on one chart, and it invites endless argument about whose definition is authentic. A narrower question is both answerable and more useful: does this indicator, with these settings, on this feed, do what its author says it does? The audit below is designed for that question. It uses the downloadable Order Block Identification Worksheet that accompanies this guide, but a notebook or a spreadsheet serves the same purpose if you keep the same columns.

Begin by writing the stated definition in your own words, in full sentences, before you open a live chart. Record the qualifying candle rule, the move-away rule, the break rule, the zone edges, the extension rule and the invalidation rule. Leave a visible gap next to any point the documentation does not specify. Those gaps are findings, not inconveniences. If you cannot state when a zone expires, you cannot score its failures, and any later judgement will be impression rather than evidence.

Next, choose one instrument and one timeframe and stay with them for the whole audit. Changing instruments mid-test mixes different spreads and different intraday rhythms into one judgement. EURUSD on a one-hour chart is a sensible starting point because its spread is usually tighter than more exotic pairs and its sessions are well defined, but the instrument matters less than consistency. Record the broker or the TradingView exchange feed, because the same audit on another feed is a separate audit.

Then run the chart live, or in bar-by-bar replay, and log every zone at the moment it first becomes knowable. For each zone, write the time the origin candle closed, the time the zone was confirmed, the top and bottom as first drawn, and the settings in force. Take a screenshot at confirmation. This step is tedious, and that tedium is the point. Most misleading impressions survive because nobody kept the first version of the drawing. Software remembers selectively. Your log should not.

After logging, follow each zone forward without adjusting its edges. Record the first touch, whether price closed inside the zone, the furthest movement in your favour after the touch before any close beyond the far edge, and the first close beyond the far edge if it occurs. Avoid scoring a zone as successful merely because price paused in it. Pauses happen at many levels, including levels nobody marked. Score it against a rule you wrote in advance, for example that success means a close back out of the zone in the original direction within a stated number of bars, without a prior close through the far edge. Your rule can differ from that example. What matters is that it was fixed before you saw the outcomes.

Finally, compare the log with the stated definition. Count zones that should have been drawn under the rule but were not. Count zones that were drawn but do not meet the rule as written. Count zones whose edges moved after confirmation, other than simple extension to the right. Those three counts tell you more about the tool than any equity curve supplied by someone else. A tool that faithfully implements a modest definition is more usable than a tool that draws beautiful zones by rules nobody can state. Faithfulness can be improved, documented and traded with care. Mystery cannot. A closely related guide is Best MT4 Scalping Indicators: Top Custom Tools.

Reading a zone without inventing an edge

Suppose your audit shows that an indicator is faithful. Its zones appear when it says they will, with the edges it promises, and they disappear under the stated condition. That is a genuine achievement, but it still does not establish an edge. Faithfulness means the drawing matches the description. An edge, in the only sense that matters for your account, would mean that acting on those drawings under a complete set of trading rules produced results that remained acceptable after spread, slippage, commissions where they apply, and the losing sequences that every method endures. Those are different claims, and keeping them separate will save you money.

A complete set of trading rules needs more than a zone. It needs an entry trigger that can be described without judgement in the moment, such as waiting for a close back in the direction of the original move after a touch, or declining to enter on the touch itself. It needs a stop that sits beyond the zone by a margin that accounts for normal spread widening, rather than exactly on an edge that many other traders can also see. It needs a target method or an exit method, a maximum risk per trade expressed as a small fixed fraction of the account, a rule for correlated exposure if you watch several pairs at once, and a daily or weekly loss limit at which you stop altogether. Without those elements, two traders can use the same indicator on the same chart and have entirely different experiences, because the indicator was never the method. It was only the highlighter.

Context filters are often presented as the missing ingredient, and they deserve a sober treatment. Traders commonly require that a zone align with the higher-timeframe direction, that it sit at a discount or a premium relative to a recent range, that it be approached after a sweep of a prior high or low, or that it contain an imbalance left by the move away. Each filter will reduce the number of trades and will remove some losers. Each will also remove some winners and add new discretion about what counts as alignment. If you add a filter, add it to your written rules before a forward test and keep it unchanged for that test. Adding filters after losses, one by one, until history looks clean is a reliable way to build a method that fits the past and disappoints in the future. The past is patient. It will let you fit almost anything to it, given enough conditions.

Session and news context matters in a more practical way. A zone formed during a quiet period may be approached during a central bank release, when spreads widen and a stop can be filled materially beyond its level. A zone formed on a Monday morning gap may reflect an opening artefact rather than a considered move. None of this means you must avoid those situations by rule, but your test should record them. If your losses cluster around releases or around the first minutes of a session, that clustering is information about your method, not bad luck to be ignored. Many traders choose to stand aside around major scheduled releases. That choice costs some opportunities and avoids the worst execution conditions. It is a risk decision, and it should be made in advance rather than in the seconds before a release.

Common mistakes when using order block tools

The most common mistake is treating a touch as a signal. A touch tells you only that price has returned to a previously marked range. In a strong trend, price returns to and passes through a series of opposing zones, one after another. A trader who buys every bullish touch while price is falling is not following several independent signals. The trader is making the same directional bet repeatedly against the immediate trend, often with increasing total exposure. If you recognise that pattern in your own log, the problem is not that the zones were drawn badly. The problem is that location was mistaken for timing, and repetition was mistaken for confirmation.

A second mistake is moving the stop to the next zone when the first zone fails. This keeps the original idea alive by enlarging the risk after the evidence has already gone against it. The loss that was planned becomes a larger loss that was improvised. A related mistake is averaging into a zone by opening several positions as price travels through it, without having defined the total exposure in advance. A zone has width, so entries inside it will naturally have different prices. That fact does not justify open-ended adding. If a layered entry is part of your method, define the number of layers, the size of each and the combined stop before the first entry, and treat exceeding that plan as a rule break, not as initiative.

A third mistake is changing timeframes to find agreement. If the one-hour chart shows no qualifying zone, dropping to five minutes will usually produce one, because smaller timeframes produce more swings and more boxes. Searching across timeframes until a box supports the trade you already want is confirmation-seeking, not analysis. Decide in advance which timeframe defines the zone and which, if any, defines the trigger. Keep that pairing fixed during a test. Otherwise every outcome can be explained afterwards by pointing to a different chart, and nothing can ever count against the method.

A fourth mistake is judging by the best example. Sales material, social posts and even honest trader journals tend to preserve the touch that turned precisely at an edge and omit the touches that failed quietly. Your audit log corrects for this only if it includes every zone, including the ones that looked unpromising at the time. Do not delete awkward rows. A method that only works on zones you liked in advance requires a definition of liking that can itself be written down and tested. Until it is written down, it is hindsight.

Finally, traders often ignore cost. A method that aims for a small movement away from a zone, with a stop beyond the far edge, can have a reward smaller than its risk before costs are even counted. Spread is paid on entry and affects the exit. On a wider-spread instrument or during a quieter session, that cost can consume a meaningful share of the intended target. Work the arithmetic for your own examples before you trade them. If the planned target is not comfortably larger than the planned risk plus realistic costs, the trade does not become attractive because a box is drawn neatly around its entry.

A conservative workflow you can actually follow

If, after an audit, you decide to explore trading with an order block indicator, keep the workflow deliberately plain. Plain workflows are easier to follow under pressure and easier to evaluate afterwards. The sequence below assumes a discretionary trader working manually. It is not a recommendation to trade, and it is not a promise about outcomes. It is a structure for keeping risk decisions ahead of chart impressions.

Start the day by confirming the indicator version and the settings file you are using, and note them in your journal. Software updates and accidental setting changes are unglamorous causes of inconsistent results. Then mark the scheduled releases that could affect your instrument, and decide in advance whether you will stand aside, reduce size or proceed normally. Write that decision down before the session, not during it. For more context, see Scalper Inside V7.9 Scalping Indicator: Honest Review.

During the session, act only on zones that were confirmed under your rule and logged, or that you can log in the moment with their confirmation time and edges. When price approaches a zone, write the planned trade in full before any entry: direction, trigger, stop, size based on the distance to the stop, target or exit rule, and the condition that cancels the idea without a trade. If any element cannot be filled in, there is no trade yet. There is only an interesting chart.

After entry, the work is mostly restraint. Do not widen the stop because another zone sits beyond it. Do not add exposure that was not in the written plan. If the invalidation condition occurs, exit and record the result without immediately searching for a reversing zone to win it back. Revenge entries after a zone failure are a well-worn path to a poor afternoon, and they contaminate any test you are running, because the second trade belongs to emotion rather than to the method.

At the end of the week, review the log rather than your memory. Count trades, count rule breaks, and separate losses that followed the plan from losses that followed improvisation. If most losses are planned losses taken at the planned size, the method is at least being tested honestly, and its results can be judged over a longer period. If most losses involve moved stops, oversized positions or unlogged zones, the indicator is not what needs replacing. The process around it is.

Who these indicators suit, and who should leave them alone

Order block indicators tend to suit traders who already enjoy working with price structure, who are willing to write definitions down, and who find that a small number of marked reference areas helps them organise a chart. For such a trader, the tool can reduce clutter compared with marking every swing by hand, and it can enforce a consistent choice about edges and invalidation that manual marking often lacks late in a tiring session. The benefit is consistency of description, which is a modest benefit, honestly stated, and a real one.

They suit traders who accept late confirmation as the price of a fixed rule. Many sound definitions cannot be confirmed until a break has occurred or a pivot has enough bars on its right. A trader who needs to act at the earliest possible moment will be frustrated by that delay and may be tempted to anticipate zones before they qualify, which quietly replaces the tested method with a different, untested one. If you find yourself routinely trading the anticipated version, test that version on its own terms or return to the confirmed version. Do not blend the records.

They are a poor fit for traders who want a tool to remove judgement while also expecting to override it whenever it feels wrong. That combination produces the worst of both approaches: the rigidity of a script when it is inconvenient and the looseness of discretion when discipline is needed. They are also a poor fit for anyone who will increase size because a zone looks particularly clean, or who will trade through major releases without accounting for spread, or who needs the next trade to recover the last one. In those states of mind, any marking tool becomes a justification device. The safer action is to pause trading, keep auditing on replay or on a demo account, and return only when position size and stops are being set by rule rather than by feeling.

Beginners deserve a specific word. Learning to read candles, swings and breaks by hand, slowly, on a small number of charts, teaches more than installing a suite of boxes on day one. An indicator can be added later, once you can predict what it should draw before it draws it. That test, can you anticipate the tool, is a good measure of whether you understand it. If the tool repeatedly surprises you, you are not yet using it. You are being led by it, and being led by a drawing you cannot explain is a fragile position from which to risk money.

Final checklist before you trust any order block tool

Before any order block indicator earns a place in your live workflow, you should be able to answer the following in writing, without opening a promotional page. What is the exact qualifying rule, including the move-away and break conditions? Where are the zone edges, and do they include wicks? When was each zone in your test confirmed, as distinct from where its left edge sits? Under what condition is a zone mitigated or invalidated, and does a wick or a close decide it? Does the tool use higher-timeframe data, and if so, does it wait for that candle to close? How many zones did your audit log contain, how many met the stated rule, and how many were drawn in breach of it? What are your entry trigger, stop placement, position size rule and daily loss limit, stated independently of any single zone?

If several answers are missing, the correct next step is not a larger account or a different indicator with a more confident name. It is more logging, on a demo account or in replay, until the answers exist. That may feel slow compared with the pace of videos and chat groups, where a new box style appears every week. Slowness here is protective. Money lost to an untested definition does not return because the next definition is drawn in a different colour.

Used with that care, an order block indicator is neither magic nor nonsense. It is a rule for marking certain candles and watching certain ranges, no more and no less. Some traders will find that discipline helpful within a broader, risk-controlled method. Others will conclude, after a fair audit, that the zones add nothing beyond the swings and ranges they could already see. Either conclusion, reached from your own complete log on your own feed, is worth more than any claim made for the tool, including any claim made in this guide. Keep the log. Keep the size small until the log is long. Let the record, not the rectangle, decide.