Why no more news without a subscription? This happened once before, I hope you guys change it back
Replies 8
I totally agree. I was unceremoniously cut off last week after being an active contributor for over 12 years, with over 3600 comments I posted and over 11,620 LIKES I received for my constructive comments. I was an active daily user who provided tons of clicks for their Authors. Obviously, SA bets that enough of us will succumb and pay the first year fee that seems reasonable, until they raise it materially next year. I am not going to play this game. So I am out!
I am deleting the Seeking Alpha application off my devices and hopefully you guys will change your mind on this. I don’t mind you pushing advertisements to me, but the information by many authors is not accurate enough to justify a subscription. For me, Seeking Alpha is a better version of Stocktwits for getting insight into what people are thinking.
This was poorly communicated and not well thought out. You are hurting your contributors who are trying to get us to buy their products. And quite frankly, your money grab price is too high. I might consider $49-$99 per year but lock it in- don’t do the 1 year price gouge to a much higher subscription. Right now, I won’t be in because of no advance notice, too high priced and a poor way to have to submit feedback. Will you respond to me?
Kind of pathetic making you pay for a subscription to read articles that certain authors who you are following are blocked! The authors should rebel because you are cutting off their readers!
I am really happy that SA implemented this policy. The only people they will lose are the one’s who don’t want to pay. The people that remain are the one’s who will pay. SA should have done this a long time ago.
I am really happy that SA implemented this policy. The only people they will lose are the one’s who don’t want to pay. The people that remain are the one’s who will pay. SA should have done this a long time ago.
I disagree. My 3600 comments and 11,621 LIKES over the past year created clicks from me and more from others who engaged and replied to my constructive comments. This move to monetize the site will adversely impact the authors whom I follow. My involvement created value in excess of the subscription fees sought by SA, and that value is now lost.
I disagree. My 3600 comments and 11,621 LIKES over the past year created clicks from me and more from others who engaged and replied to my constructive comments. This move to monetize the site will adversely impact the authors whom I follow. My involvement created value in excess of the subscription fees sought by SA, and that value is now lost.
Actually the value will be even greater now because comments will mostly come from paying members. The comments from those not paying will be gone after they reach their free article limit. SA is really going to benefit all around by implementing this policy.
This was poorly communicated and not well thought out. You are hurting your contributors who are trying to get us to buy their products. And quite frankly, your money grab price is too high. I might consider $49-$99 per year but lock it in- don’t do the 1 year price gouge to a much higher subscription. Right now, I won’t be in because of no advance notice, too high priced and a poor way to have to submit feedback. Will you respond to me?
I don’t think they have anything that needs a response. They have every right to charge what they want and communicate it how they want. You in turn can subscribe or not subscribe. You appear to have made your choice but really you want them to give in. Otherwise you would not care if they respond or not. I think it’s great that SA is charging and hope they stick to their new plan.
Kind of pathetic making you pay for a subscription to read articles that certain authors who you are following are blocked! The authors should rebel because you are cutting off their readers!