As more authors "contribute" to SA the less valuable this service becomes.

  • updated

When searching for analysis of different stocks I'm tired of having to filter through authors that I do not value. Many authors use clickbait titles to get attention which makes it even more distracting.

Muting an author does not fix this issue, the author still appears when browsing through the website even when muted. When muting someone on SA I should NOT see them anywhere. Ever. As if they don't exist.

Not all authors are equal. Some authors have a pattern of being consistently wrong and furthermore continue to make bad calls on the same asset. Why would an author who is persistently wrong continue to be valued and compared with authors who do an excellent job? One could argue that some authors are not even trying to be correct but instead appeal to a certain type of reader pessimism, hype and etc. This undermines the value of SA's service.

Not all users have the same goal. There are many different ways to evaluate and analyze an asset (growth, value, technicals and etc.). It would much more helpful and convenient if users could view contributions ONLY from authors of similar interests and goals. This would be much more helpful over the current system of viewing articles from any and every author and having to filter through myself. 

The "SA Author's Rating" feature is vague and provides little value. The feature finds the average rating among authors who provide commentary on the asset being viewed. If the issues raised previously are realized then the issue with providing an average rating is obvious. How can an average author rating be of any value when calculating authors of different analysis methods and track records?

I realize that this topic I raised is viewed from the perspective of a reader on SA and not of an author. Despite this perspective the more users who think they have a valuable opinion and decide to "contribute" to SA the more SA becomes like an opinion forum for anyone to post about. I and many others did not pay a subscription to SA to be confronted with a bunch of self-important amateurs or persistently wrong authors to "improve" our investing research.

If others agree, I would suggest SA to seriously focus on improving the quality of information being provided. There are enough social media websites for people to get distracted and waste time on. This service would be much more useful if it focused on providing information valuable to the individual so that they can move on and look for their next investment.

TL;DR - SA needs to provide ways to filter out the noise, separate the wheat from the chaff and focus on providing value to the individual user.


I'll pile on here.  I am so tired of reading spreadsheet / financial walk thrus without any deep understanding and articulation of the business.  It seems like everybody looks at financials (DCF especially), repeats key analysts and gives a politician's guidance.  WTF?  Can we get some business deep dives - what differentiates, what products / services are on roadmap and what is probability of success of the roadmap, who are the competitors and how do the product offerings compare.  What is their platform for success over the next slice of time.

Stop giving authors a free pass to just rehash financials and information that we already have.  I have actually found that the comments are more important than the posts ... (some are trash obviously).

This requires some SA work as it appears as if all the 'good' information is hidden in marketplace; if that is the case, why am I paying for SA?

I am seriously looking at Koyfin as complete replacement for SA