Bob Wenzel holds no punches in a speech this week to the NY Fed: "The noose is tightening on your organization, vast amounts of money printing are now required to keep your manipulated economy afloat. It will ultimately result in huge price inflation, or, if you stop printing, another massive economic crash will occur. There is no other way out." [View news story]
Here's why I love SA (my bias notwithstanding): Where else can you actually spectate and participate in a balanced and civilized discussion about exceptionally loaded and polarizing topics?
Axion Power Concentrator 90: April 21, 2012: History Repeating? The Chart Pattern Before The 2011 Run And Now. [View instapost]
Hi Folks,
I don't think there's a Mac/PC issue here. The persistent notification bug is something you helped us discover and we're going to fix it. It's the result of a notification going out on an article that has been deleted or reverted to draft; since you can't land on the URL for the article, you can't clear the flag.
Otherwise, I believe all notifications are working correctly.
Seeking Alpha Passes One Million Members -- 5 Things You Need To Know [View article]
Amazing achievement.
It's been a thrill to have experienced most of SA's growth firsthand (I'm user # 6383).
It's been amazing to get to know so many awesome contributors and site enthusiasts; read so many awesome articles and Market Currents; and be part of so many awesome conversations.
Thanks David for bringing us here. Here's to 2M - by this time next year!!
To be clear, SA didn't write nor contract the article. It is the author's original thoughts. My initial response - in which I floated the idea of a "Hidden Gems" email alert - was something that occurred to me as I was responding. I wasn't trying to "bait" anyone, but simply considered the problem presented in the comments stream ("How can we write articles about long-tail stocks if no one will read them?") and offered a potential solution. I'm not sure whether there's enough interest among SA readers to make an amorphous Hidden Gems email a successful product, but it would be interesting to see.
There is, obviously, a tremendous amount of interest in Apple and other focus stocks, and we do receive an inordinate number of submissions on them. But I would love to think that SA can continue to create an audience for "niche" topics that at times may provide more real value to readers than yet-another-Apple-arti...
One example of this is our Dividends & Income section. David Jackson recognized earlier than most just how important fixed-income investing would become over the coming years, and made it one of our key "Dashboards" and emails well before it became the topic de jour. As a result - and more importantly due to the amazing efforts of contributors like you - I believe SA has the No.1 fixed-income investing section on the web, bar none. Over time, as you note, it has also led to exceptional performance for smart authors that bring value to the discussion, whether measured by comments or by pageviews. I expect this will continue to grow.
We've struggled to achieve similar success for "alpha seekers" who take pleasure in discovering and researching hidden gem stocks. I don't think by any means that hidden gems by definition are "trader oriented." Many alpha seekers are long-term investors (whether of the value or growth ilk) who look to take a position early in a stock that they believe will outperform its peers over the long term. At any rate, I am cautiously optimistic that we can grow and improve our content offering for this group as well.
To respond to the question about our article ranking system, it's still in early-stage testing right now, so we're studying the results internally in an effort to understand what types of articles typically generate the highest (or lowest) rankings, and what the implications might be. Of course we're also looking at mitigating factors like "fan boy" stocks; contrarian opinions; strong articles about little-known stocks; etc.
Initially, it appears that articles that receive high rankings and a strong participation rate (x rankings per 1,000 pageviews) tend to be articles that we'd subjectively identify as well-written, original and convincing, while articles that receive low rankings paired with a strong participation rate (lots of boos) tend to be weak and poorly conceived. The middle area is a bit trickier.
And yes, there are currently two different systems being tested, one with 5 stars of usefulness and one with a Yes/No question. Results seem to be similar across the two systems, although participation rates for Yes/No are consistently higher than for the 5 stars system.
Some very interesting feedback (and criticism) here. Allow me to share a few thoughts...
1) The premise of the above article -- that use of an "SA interest index" provides a measure of possibly undiscovered/under-res... opportunities -- sounds like a home run. The problem, highlighted by Alan and others, is that the cost/benefit analysis of researching and composing articles about stocks that have a small following is underwhelming. Fewer people are likely to read the author's article, resulting in fewer pageviews and smaller earnings. (For those who don't know, SA contributors earn $10 per 1,000 pageviews for articles exclusive to SA. (Shameless plug to all our great commenters that we'd love to see publishing articles: More on becoming a contributor here: http://bit.ly/oKsaZ5)
2) For contributors for whom writing articles is primarily a way to: i) stress test their own thinking, ii) "talk their book" now that they've taken a position in a stock, or iii) position themselves as a thought leader in a given area, the gross number of PVs may not be a huge issue. The cash they earn on articles is probably "lunch money," but on balance they'll write about what they're investing in and ignore the implications of readership breadth.
3) For contributors who look to SA to generate a meaningful revenue stream (however they define meaningful), PVs matter. They're less likely to spend time uncovering that undiscovered gem if it's going to generate marginal PVs and earnings. Why not write about, say, JNJ, and earn triple or more? One might assume that gross earnings on article submissions is pocket change compared to the money one can generate by making smart investment decisions... but let's acknowledge the fact that some contributors don't invest their own funds (for a variety of reasons), and that if they can only share a given number of ideas (time constraints etc.), why not share those ideas that generate the most PVs - even if they're more generic than some of their "hidden gem" ideas.
4) This is one of the reasons we're actively thinking about ways to overcome the shortcoming of a pageview-driven model, which skews toward the most popular content. I love "hidden gem" ideas, and as this article (and Stone Fox's) illustrate, researching under-researched stocks provides immense value for our readers. On the other hand, decoupling contributor incentives from pageviews - our primary revenue generator - is complex. It may, as Alan writes, lead us in the direction of asking, "What would readers be willing to pay for this content?" in order to incentivize contributors to write such articles. Which then leads to questions of how to package "premium" content, how much to charge, and whether people would be willing to pay. We're thinking about this a lot internally, and I'd love to hear your thoughts...
5) One idea that strikes me here is the following: What if we were to launch a real-time alert category called something like "Undiscovered Gems"? Then, every time a Long Idea was published about a stock that has, for example, 250 followers or less, people who subscribed to the Undiscovered Gems real-time alert email would receive an email alert. We already have over 150,000 real-time alert subscribers, so if the Undiscovered Gems subscriber base were to grow, it could easily drive very healthy traffic to articles that otherwise might not receive broad syndication - thereby incentivizing contributors to submit great articles about stocks they've discovered, and providing an outstanding service to our readers.
Feb. Nonfarm Payrolls:+227K vs. consensus of +215K, +284K (revised from 243K) in Jan. Unemployment 8.3% vs 8.3% expected. Average workweek unchanged at 34.5 hours, inline. Average hourly earnings +0.1%. [View news story]
Perhaps... which leading indicators (besides ECRI) are predicting recession?
Feb. Nonfarm Payrolls:+227K vs. consensus of +215K, +284K (revised from 243K) in Jan. Unemployment 8.3% vs 8.3% expected. Average workweek unchanged at 34.5 hours, inline. Average hourly earnings +0.1%. [View news story]
Hope Springs Eternal At Ingersoll-Rand - But Should It? [View article]
Hope Springs Eternal At Ingersoll-Rand - But Should It? [View article]
Merck's Weak Pipeline Will Sink Stock By 2013 [View article]
Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Bob Wenzel holds no punches in a speech this week to the NY Fed: "The noose is tightening on your organization, vast amounts of money printing are now required to keep your manipulated economy afloat. It will ultimately result in huge price inflation, or, if you stop printing, another massive economic crash will occur. There is no other way out." [View news story]
Axion Power Concentrator 90: April 21, 2012: History Repeating? The Chart Pattern Before The 2011 Run And Now. [View instapost]
I don't think there's a Mac/PC issue here. The persistent notification bug is something you helped us discover and we're going to fix it. It's the result of a notification going out on an article that has been deleted or reverted to draft; since you can't land on the URL for the article, you can't clear the flag.
Otherwise, I believe all notifications are working correctly.
Best,
Eli
Don't Trade Apple Earnings Without Reading This First [View article]
Win An iPad In Seeking Alpha's 1 Million User Haiku Contest [View article]
The perfect portfolio,
Alpha - find me it!
The Best SA Articles Of All Time, As Chosen By Their Authors [View article]
Seeking Alpha Passes One Million Members -- 5 Things You Need To Know [View article]
It's been a thrill to have experienced most of SA's growth firsthand (I'm user # 6383).
It's been amazing to get to know so many awesome contributors and site enthusiasts; read so many awesome articles and Market Currents; and be part of so many awesome conversations.
Thanks David for bringing us here. Here's to 2M - by this time next year!!
The Seeking Alpha Interest Index: What's Hot, What's Not? [View article]
To be clear, SA didn't write nor contract the article. It is the author's original thoughts. My initial response - in which I floated the idea of a "Hidden Gems" email alert - was something that occurred to me as I was responding. I wasn't trying to "bait" anyone, but simply considered the problem presented in the comments stream ("How can we write articles about long-tail stocks if no one will read them?") and offered a potential solution. I'm not sure whether there's enough interest among SA readers to make an amorphous Hidden Gems email a successful product, but it would be interesting to see.
There is, obviously, a tremendous amount of interest in Apple and other focus stocks, and we do receive an inordinate number of submissions on them. But I would love to think that SA can continue to create an audience for "niche" topics that at times may provide more real value to readers than yet-another-Apple-arti...
One example of this is our Dividends & Income section. David Jackson recognized earlier than most just how important fixed-income investing would become over the coming years, and made it one of our key "Dashboards" and emails well before it became the topic de jour. As a result - and more importantly due to the amazing efforts of contributors like you - I believe SA has the No.1 fixed-income investing section on the web, bar none. Over time, as you note, it has also led to exceptional performance for smart authors that bring value to the discussion, whether measured by comments or by pageviews. I expect this will continue to grow.
We've struggled to achieve similar success for "alpha seekers" who take pleasure in discovering and researching hidden gem stocks. I don't think by any means that hidden gems by definition are "trader oriented." Many alpha seekers are long-term investors (whether of the value or growth ilk) who look to take a position early in a stock that they believe will outperform its peers over the long term. At any rate, I am cautiously optimistic that we can grow and improve our content offering for this group as well.
The Seeking Alpha Interest Index: What's Hot, What's Not? [View article]
We are indeed moving toward a collaborative model for the reasons you outline.
The Seeking Alpha Interest Index: What's Hot, What's Not? [View article]
Initially, it appears that articles that receive high rankings and a strong participation rate (x rankings per 1,000 pageviews) tend to be articles that we'd subjectively identify as well-written, original and convincing, while articles that receive low rankings paired with a strong participation rate (lots of boos) tend to be weak and poorly conceived. The middle area is a bit trickier.
And yes, there are currently two different systems being tested, one with 5 stars of usefulness and one with a Yes/No question. Results seem to be similar across the two systems, although participation rates for Yes/No are consistently higher than for the 5 stars system.
The Seeking Alpha Interest Index: What's Hot, What's Not? [View article]
1) The premise of the above article -- that use of an "SA interest index" provides a measure of possibly undiscovered/under-res... opportunities -- sounds like a home run. The problem, highlighted by Alan and others, is that the cost/benefit analysis of researching and composing articles about stocks that have a small following is underwhelming. Fewer people are likely to read the author's article, resulting in fewer pageviews and smaller earnings. (For those who don't know, SA contributors earn $10 per 1,000 pageviews for articles exclusive to SA. (Shameless plug to all our great commenters that we'd love to see publishing articles: More on becoming a contributor here: http://bit.ly/oKsaZ5)
2) For contributors for whom writing articles is primarily a way to: i) stress test their own thinking, ii) "talk their book" now that they've taken a position in a stock, or iii) position themselves as a thought leader in a given area, the gross number of PVs may not be a huge issue. The cash they earn on articles is probably "lunch money," but on balance they'll write about what they're investing in and ignore the implications of readership breadth.
3) For contributors who look to SA to generate a meaningful revenue stream (however they define meaningful), PVs matter. They're less likely to spend time uncovering that undiscovered gem if it's going to generate marginal PVs and earnings. Why not write about, say, JNJ, and earn triple or more? One might assume that gross earnings on article submissions is pocket change compared to the money one can generate by making smart investment decisions... but let's acknowledge the fact that some contributors don't invest their own funds (for a variety of reasons), and that if they can only share a given number of ideas (time constraints etc.), why not share those ideas that generate the most PVs - even if they're more generic than some of their "hidden gem" ideas.
4) This is one of the reasons we're actively thinking about ways to overcome the shortcoming of a pageview-driven model, which skews toward the most popular content. I love "hidden gem" ideas, and as this article (and Stone Fox's) illustrate, researching under-researched stocks provides immense value for our readers. On the other hand, decoupling contributor incentives from pageviews - our primary revenue generator - is complex. It may, as Alan writes, lead us in the direction of asking, "What would readers be willing to pay for this content?" in order to incentivize contributors to write such articles. Which then leads to questions of how to package "premium" content, how much to charge, and whether people would be willing to pay. We're thinking about this a lot internally, and I'd love to hear your thoughts...
5) One idea that strikes me here is the following: What if we were to launch a real-time alert category called something like "Undiscovered Gems"? Then, every time a Long Idea was published about a stock that has, for example, 250 followers or less, people who subscribed to the Undiscovered Gems real-time alert email would receive an email alert. We already have over 150,000 real-time alert subscribers, so if the Undiscovered Gems subscriber base were to grow, it could easily drive very healthy traffic to articles that otherwise might not receive broad syndication - thereby incentivizing contributors to submit great articles about stocks they've discovered, and providing an outstanding service to our readers.
What do you think?
Feb. Nonfarm Payrolls: +227K vs. consensus of +215K, +284K (revised from 243K) in Jan. Unemployment 8.3% vs 8.3% expected. Average workweek unchanged at 34.5 hours, inline. Average hourly earnings +0.1%. [View news story]
Feb. Nonfarm Payrolls: +227K vs. consensus of +215K, +284K (revised from 243K) in Jan. Unemployment 8.3% vs 8.3% expected. Average workweek unchanged at 34.5 hours, inline. Average hourly earnings +0.1%. [View news story]