OK, what about one of those "other retail data providers" you mention?
Lionel Issen wrote: > Ron your response is inappropriate. It's like telling someone if you have > problems with your Chevrolet buy a Mercedes. > > Other retail data providers check the data before sending it out. > Doing this > would not raise the cost of the service to $24,000 per year. Besides data, > WONDA provides a lot of information that isn't available elsewhere, and it > is not designed for the average individual trader. > > Lionel Issen > > _____ > > From: [email protected] > <mailto:quotes-plus%40yahoogroups.com> > [mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:quotes-plus%40yahoogroups.com>] On > Behalf Of Ron > Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 9:21 AM > To: [email protected] <mailto:quotes-plus%40yahoogroups.com> > Subject: RE: [quotes-plus] Re: Attn: investor0329 > > For those of you who are unhappy with the data, I suggest you subscribe to > WONDA, William O'Neils database. > > http://www.williamo > <http://www.williamoneil.com/InstitutionalServices/Wonda.aspx > <http://www.williamoneil.com/InstitutionalServices/Wonda.aspx>> > neil.com/InstitutionalServices/Wonda.aspx > > I believe the current cost is around $24,000 per year. > > Ron Brown > > _____ > > From: quotes-plus@ <mailto:quotes-plus%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com > [mailto:quotes-plus@ <mailto:quotes-plus%40yahoogroups.com> > yahoogroups.com] > On > Behalf Of Lionel Issen > Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 8:53 AM > To: quotes-plus@ <mailto:quotes-plus%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: [quotes-plus] Re: Attn: investor0329 > > If QP has inaccurate data, it is the correct thing to bring it to > Gary's and > to everyone else's attention. > > By the way some retail data companies scan their data before sending it on > to their customers. > > 'Nuff said. > > Lionel Issen > > _____ > > From: quotes-plus@ <mailto:quotes-plus%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com > [mailto:quotes-plus@ <mailto:quotes-plus%40yahoogroups.com> > yahoogroups.com] > On > Behalf Of investor0329 > Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 11:26 PM > To: quotes-plus@ <mailto:quotes-plus%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com > Subject: [quotes-plus] Re: Attn: investor0329 > > I disagree with you. > > And QP doesn't carry pink sheet stocks, so I cannot comment on > data accuracy regarding those. Did you know that? > > I care about dividend omissions..doesn't matter if you do or not. > > I think having data accuracy based on how often a stock is traded, as > you suggest, is ridiculous. My research has indicated to me that > smaller companies are more profitable than big companies. I rarely > buy sp500 companies. Small value stocks are well noted to be the most > profitable. > > And it isn't only small stocks, it is large as well. If you check > message number 17240, you will see that msft was one of them. Does > msft qualify as a highly traded company to you. In that message I > stated that msft had duplicate divvys. I just checked and that has > been fixed. > > And frankly..different people have different methods of analysis. Who > are you to judge shat I or others want or should use/do? > > I have been a long time subscriber of QP. I do not subscribe to their > service to look at graphs. I can do that for free at many internet > sites. I use them so that I can manipulate and analyze data..and use > in Excel, etc. > > And..if you have, for example, a single datapoint that is 500 points > or so away from the mainstream, it completely makes that ticker > worthless for computer analysis as it throws everything off...and the > reason i post it is because it is irritating to me that there seem to > be a growing number of these, when it is so easy to run a scan to > find them and clean them up. Whoever supplies the data to QP should > be doing this. Apparently they are not. Imagine buying a car where > there was no quality control. > > Regarding you allusion to crooked ceo's/cfo's..I agree. They are > sucking money out of American companies and ruining things for small > time investors. I think a govt org should be set up solely to track > them all down..past and present..get back the $$ they stole, and give > them jail time...but that is another matter. > > This is all i care to say about this issue. Occasionally, i will > continue to look for systematic errors and report them as it appears > no one else is. When things look fairly clean I will cease. I checked > the other day and there were still scores of divvy duplicates and > late/missing divvys. Some are small issues..some on very large issues, > some are closed end funds, etc. > > --- In quotes-plus@ <mailto:quotes-plus%40yahoogroups.com> > yahoogroups.com, > "James C. Barone" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I happen to agree with Earl. Enough is enough. > > > > It's not so much that you might find errors, it's the kind of > errors you > > complain about. I venture to say that extremely few QP subscribers > give > > a rat's --- about dividend errors on thinly traded issues. Nor do > they > > care about price errors on obscure pink sheet stocks. > > > > You need to recognize the difference between precision and accuracy. > > Once more, it's hard enough to trust earnings that QP correctly > reports > > given the myriad of tactics CFO's use even when they follow proper > > accounting practices. Investing or trading in stocks, ETF's or > whatever > > is not an exact science. > > > > I venture to say the time you spend chasing these errors might > better be > > spent on more productive work. Like money management, timing of > > trades/investments or just a walk in the park for fresh air. > > > > There is one other alternative you might consider; spend $1,200.00 > per > > month to obtain data from another source. Maybe then someone there > might > > give you a direct line to answer your questions/hold your hand. > > > > IMHO, > > > > Jim > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: quotes-plus@ <mailto:quotes-plus%40yahoogroups.com> > yahoogroups.com > [mailto:quotes- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:plus%40yahoogroups.com> com] > > On Behalf Of investor0329 > > Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 6:04 PM > > To: quotes-plus@ <mailto:quotes-plus%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [quotes-plus] Re: Attn: investor0329 > > > > Perhaps you should check out some of your own posts..like #17215 > and > > #17337. > > > > Often times I do send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sometimes i get a > > response and sometimes not...and when not, the problem is often > still > > there...so sometimes i do both. How am i to know if their email is > > working or not? Gary has already stated that sometimes he doesn't > get > > the email. > > > > If my emails bother you, ignore them. > > > > Others may find them of use and may like to know of the problems > > should it affect their own analysis. > > > > Gary said that some of the data inconsistencies would be fixed by > end > > of last month. I sent an email just asking if they were (so I could > > proceed with some of my own analysis that requires the data be > > right)..but never got a response. So I assume he didn't get it. > > By the way..i usually sent to both the [EMAIL PROTECTED] email and > to > > gary specifically. I don't know where the 'data' one goes. > > > > > > --- In quotes-plus@ <mailto:quotes-plus%40yahoogroups.com> > yahoogroups.com, "EAdamy" <eadamy@> wrote: > > > > > > Is there anything we could do to induce you to route your > incessant > > data > > > problems directly to quotes-plus support? Or limit your posts to > > this NG to > > > just one message a day? Or even better to give it a rest for a > > month or two? > > > The volume of your posts and data complaints goes far beyond a > > service ... > > > it is a nuisance. > > > > > > Earl > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.25/669 - Release Date: 04/02/2007 >21:58 > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
