Evelyn C. Roth

Evelyn C. Roth
Contributor since: 2011
Good call David! We completely agreed with you..it was made an Editor's Pick at the same time that it was published.
Great idea Smarty Pants. I'll add the link within the next 24 hours. Thanks!
Robert,
It's a pleasure to have you on board as both a contributor and a commentor. We're always eager for additional income investing material that's thoughtful and useful and downright smart.
Huge kudos to David Van Knapp for all he does for the SA income investing community (articles, comments, ideas), and now additionally helping new authors become published authors.
If anyone else is interested in contributing posts, and would like some help, please contact me directly, either via SA internal email (use my name, above), or via regular email: eroth@seekingalpha
Great minds David! It is indeed an Editor's Pick, but that designation showed up a bit more slowly then the article itself. If you check out our homepage, or the article itself you'll see that all is now in sync.
That correction has now been made on our site. Apologies and thanks to GeeDee and Enpassant, as well as to Jeff for pointing us to the right chart.
Thanks for the nice catch. That correction has now been made to the original article. Much appreciated!
That link has now been corrected. Thanks JWG, and thanks Cam
Jeanne, you rock! And long may you continue to rein in our worst spelling and grammatical tendencies
Thanks, keithpiccirillo, and thanks Alan for letting us know what keithpiccirillo found. It's now been corrected
love the idea of these short, pithy posts Jeanne. Hope this is the first of many.
Thanks Jeanne for ensuring that such things as "economic cross winds" never actually anger our readers, and that if an author wants to 'cow-tow' they understand such actions are best done in bovine company. You keep us honest and accurate, and we're continually grateful. Keep those homophones coming!
Thanks so much for posting this. What a profound, fresh and oh so smart view of the situation. And one that publishers will certainly not like. But if they're smart, they'll certainly take note.
That's a big oops. Looks like it's time for websites with side-by-side editorial and advertising content to emulate their print magazine older brothers and sisters...Prior to publication, print production departments generally create what's called a 'brown book', pasting each edit page next to whatever ad is scheduled to appear next to it. This insures that the juxtaposition of ad and editorial doesn't inadvertently create an embarrassing situation for the publication. One would have thought that a print dinosaur like the WSJ would have already been clued into this problem.
Though I do agree with the author that the magazine business model is in peril, I find it interesting that Jarvis, as well as just about everyone else who has commented on Portfolio's demise, seems to have missed a key point. Portfolio was a magazine that never actually found its footing, published by a company that never had any understanding of what a business magazine should be, and was launched into an environment that neither needed nor wanted yet another business-related publication. In an effort to be all-things to so many readers it ended up being hardly anything to anyone. From the get-go it was poorly conceived, lacking both a real mandate and a real vision of who its audience was supposed to be. Granted, during its short life the magazine published some really good articles, and featured some very good writers. But it's a mistake to use Portfolio as yet another example in the conversation about the demise of the magazine model. Portfolio proves nothing about the state of the magazine business. It was a misbegotten idea that never should have been started in the first place.
It's gratifying and amazing to see the level of conversation here. Disappointed by some of the less tolerant views, but grateful to all for the feedback.
Some thoughts: Our editorial staff works hard to filter the volume of posts we receive, with quality our primary goal. Remember, however, that quality can be a subjective attribute. Which is why we offer watchlists. It's a feature available to everyone and great way to filter for quality on your own. Plus it's an effective way of voting with your keyboard. It lets us know whose material readers value. And it's infinitely better than trashing a contributor whose opinion you don't agree with.