"Ultimately, the uncertainty of Synavive convinced me to sell in advance of this news."
James, what changed between whatever time "ultimately" means here, and your article on Aug. 31 (http://seekingalpha.co...) in which you wrote: "As a SA author, I put my confidence in Zalicus (ZLCS) on the line... Now my plan is to win over and over with Zalicus, a small biotech firm that has an ion channel portfolio that's about to change the way pain is treated... Therefore, when push comes to shove, I know the risk that Synavive could fail, but I'm going to take responsibility for my choices rather than resort to name-calling..."?
Thanks for a thought-provoking post, Joe. It may not have fit our Just One Stock / ETF series, but I think you've taken the idea and run with it into a field we didn't initially conceptualize. I hope it was as fun for you to write as it was for us to read.
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.
Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer decides to run for IMF managing director. A former deputy head of the IMF, Fischer is pursuing a long-shot candidacy as strong support has already coalesced around France's Christine Lagarde. [View news story]
Mixed feelings on this. It would be a great honor for Stanley to win, but we'll miss him dearly in Israel.
I don't follow you, User 283977. How can the chance between double dip recession and not be compared to a coin flip? Are you saying that in any given year, there's a 50/50 chance of recession or not?
On Dec 31 05:46 PM User 283977 wrote:
> That's one way of reporting the result. I think the real story is > that at the present time only a small majority of poll participants > (7%) believe there will be a double-dip recession in 2010. The rest > are saying there will be some growth. A 7% difference from what > would be expected by chance (50 / 50) does not seem to qualify for > a "wow" with an exclamation point. > > What do you guys think? Count me in the small growth bucket.
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
That's funny. One of the things I like best is that the comment threads give you a taste of the bulls and the bears. I admit the bear voice has become a somewhat overpowering lately, but that's also useful data - whether you're a bull or bear.
On Oct 29 12:14 PM User18358 wrote:
> I'm tired of the negative comments on seekingalpha. I usually get > more from the comments here than some of the articles. Can we start > marking lead commenters with permanent bull or permanent bear tags? > That way when the GDP comes in at 3.5% I know not to read the bears.
Too Active, Too Passive: Too Little Understanding [View article]
Outstanding article! We hope SA has been, and becomes increasingly, a vehicle for investors to discuss and engage around disciplined stock-picking and intelligent portfolio management.
Chevron, A Dividend Champion In Trouble: What Is The Impact Of The Ecuadorian Judgment? [View article]
Caiman,
Fantastic summary of the legal challenges facing CVX. On the Argentinian front, it seems the Argentine government could face significant fallout should it proceed with its embargo (loss of CVX's current ops; future deal with YPF; tarnished reputation). How likely is it that Argentina will continue to press forward with the embargo given its self-interest?
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?
Zalicus Misses Key Secondary Endpoint [View article]
James, what changed between whatever time "ultimately" means here, and your article on Aug. 31 (http://seekingalpha.co...) in which you wrote: "As a SA author, I put my confidence in Zalicus (ZLCS) on the line... Now my plan is to win over and over with Zalicus, a small biotech firm that has an ion channel portfolio that's about to change the way pain is treated... Therefore, when push comes to shove, I know the risk that Synavive could fail, but I'm going to take responsibility for my choices rather than resort to name-calling..."?
Building an Optimal Dividend Portfolio: Keep It Simple [View article]
Seeking Alpha Celebrates 500,000 Registered Users! [View article]
Amazing job!
My best investment decision? Joining SA of course! (I assume my T-shirt is in the mail...)
By the way, I believe bubbawhite (seekingalpha.com/user/...) has the distinction of being number 500,000. Way to go bubbawhite!
Just One Safe Haven [View article]
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?
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer decides to run for IMF managing director. A former deputy head of the IMF, Fischer is pursuing a long-shot candidacy as strong support has already coalesced around France's Christine Lagarde. [View news story]
Wow! 57% of the 4,518 people who participated in Calculated Risk's Economic Outlook for 2010 poll expect a double-dip recession in 2010. [View news story]
On Dec 31 05:46 PM User 283977 wrote:
> That's one way of reporting the result. I think the real story is
> that at the present time only a small majority of poll participants
> (7%) believe there will be a double-dip recession in 2010. The rest
> are saying there will be some growth. A 7% difference from what
> would be expected by chance (50 / 50) does not seem to qualify for
> a "wow" with an exclamation point.
>
> What do you guys think? Count me in the small growth bucket.
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
Thanks!
On Nov 24 07:42 AM JoeWa wrote:
> Is it 23% of US homeowners or 23% of US homeowners with mortgages?
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
On Oct 29 12:14 PM User18358 wrote:
> I'm tired of the negative comments on seekingalpha. I usually get
> more from the comments here than some of the articles. Can we start
> marking lead commenters with permanent bull or permanent bear tags?
> That way when the GDP comes in at 3.5% I know not to read the bears.
Too Active, Too Passive: Too Little Understanding [View article]
Chevron, A Dividend Champion In Trouble: What Is The Impact Of The Ecuadorian Judgment? [View article]
Fantastic summary of the legal challenges facing CVX. On the Argentinian front, it seems the Argentine government could face significant fallout should it proceed with its embargo (loss of CVX's current ops; future deal with YPF; tarnished reputation). How likely is it that Argentina will continue to press forward with the embargo given its self-interest?
Periodic Table Of Dividend Contenders [View article]
Thanks for the helpful and creative presentation!
Mike (our editor),
Thanks for the creative work in getting this table to format correctly!
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]