Thanks for the message. Sorry to hear about your disappointment.
Are there any authors you are specifically disappointed by, and how so? When you say this defeats the purpose of Seeking Alpha, what do you mean, and do you have any examples?
It's a tricky balance between finding the right business model, and then between making it work. We went the subscription route because we thought it would support better content, since writers could get compensation without chasing only the most popular stocks, which usually is counter to good investing. And why we are always monitoring the balance between free and paid, what I've noticed so far is that authors tend to write more on Seeking Alpha as they join the Marketplace, as they need to get people to see their work and consider signing up for more.
Looking forward to hearing from you, as we value thoughtful feedback to help us get the balance right.
Thanks for the reply. You can see Stone Fox Capital's full set of articles here - https://seekingalpha.com/author/stone-fox-capital#regular_articles. I haven't read the ACB articles, but we allow authors to write about stocks they have a position in, and expect a full disclosure of any positions they hold in stocks mentioned.
You're welcome to get in touch with our editorial team, as mentioned. You can also file a dispute if you think an article is factually wrong, see how to do that here - https://seekingalpha.com/page/dispute_an_article.
Thanks for the message, Jim. We don't have specific rules about whether an author can contribute positively or negatively, nor whether there's a limit on how much they write. We evaluate each article to see if it adds fresh analysis or perspective to the story and can help inform readers.
If you have any specific articles or authors you're concerned about, you're welcome to contact our editorial team with feedback at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Dougn, thanks for the message. We don't have an immediate fix, but we're working with Rocket Chat on providing users more control over how they see the threads which are what come up in small type. We'll share your feedback with them as well and I hope we'll have an improvement in the next couple months.
Thanks for the message. If you see factual claims that you think are wrong, we have a dispute process available - email email@example.com with any claims you think are wrong and evidence to explain why.
For questions like context and appropriate comparisons, comments or, if you'd like to write your thesis on Tesla, a separate article are better venues to address. Check out how to become a contributor here - https://seekingalpha.com/page/become-a-seeking-alpha-contributor
Hi, thanks for the message. I think you're referring to the article on Why Buy FireEye (https://seekingalpha.com/article/4263753-buy-fireeye)? It's available here - https://seekingalpha.com/symbol/BB?analysis=related. Since BB wasn't the focus of the article, it falls in the related analysis section. Please let us know if you have any questions,
Should be all set - https://seekingalpha.com/symbol/ARMP?s=armp. Thanks again for flagging this for us.
Thanks for the nudge, woca333, sorry we left this dormant. We'll flag for the team involved. Going forward you can email firstname.lastname@example.org directly for an issue like this - https://feedback.seekingalpha.com/knowledge-bases/2/articles/33-report-a-missing-or-incorrect-ticker.
Thanks for the message. We have a dispute process if you feel that any articles are making factual errors. The articles are opinion and analysis, but if there is a factual error, we have that review process. You can read it here and file a dispute if you see anything out of order. Please provide support for the issue being in error.
Thanks for the reply, rbfnet. That is the requirement right now, you need to click on the reply to the thread to see the full context. It's a trade-off, because one of the complaints we had frequently in the previous version was it was hard to follow as several conversations overlapped. I understand why the current version would be harder, though I'm hopeful that we can get some customization so you can set the chat how you prefer.
I'm not sure of a great solution now except that you can reply in quote, and if your preference is everybody does that, you can ask the author to request that of all users. Reply in quote is the same as the old version of reply, so that's a way to keep the conversation all together.
We will work on the customization as best we can, and if we can't get it satisfactorily, we will look at whether we can turn off threading. I'm hesitant to push that at this stage, because we're also hearing a lot of positive feedback about the threading, and I think it can enable better following of the chat rooms.
Customer support service by UserEcho