Outside of fixing code... another example why I don't trust SE answers... tell me I am wrong

Question

Why can't GameStop split their stocks?

This is an example why I use SE about 10 times less than 5 years ago. I basically realized there are people who just talk and answer questions and for whatever reason, they just don't get it. That means a lot of answers that are out there are wrong or partly wrong and users have to decipher what is what.

I have people commenting on my understanding of exchanges and company listings when I might be one of a handful of people in the US that has expertise in exchange networks, rules, and trading. I have seen everything and written every rule imaginable for all US exchanges... especially NYSE.

So when a high rep member of the site comes on trying to diss my comments and discount them when I am the expert. Yea makes me laugh but signals the issue with SE. Most sites are a matter or gaining popular opinion, not having the right answer. Please tell me that I am wrong.

A better example is this meta question. Let's replay this in order.

1. User argues with me and has no idea what they are talking about but badgers me to provide links. I honestly could but for someone acting like that - absolutely not.

2. Another user hits me on the question and on this meta question. Provides this link - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02920618 - to disprove my argument - let me get the quote right or I will be disparaged more...

"Stock will go up way higher than market average when announced. Stock will go up way higher than market average when implemented."

3. If you bother reading link it says higher rates of return until 11 months and then lower average after that.

4. Please comment on the ridiculous timeframe that the study was done in the link - we are discussing modern trading and the guy going off on me supplies a link from the mid 90s. What? What? Not one user calls him out.

5. He has the most upvoted answer on my meta. That's all I can say for this site. A guy that has a link in his comments that HE THINKS refutes my initial answer but actually is a source for my answer (a really really bad source) is the most upvoted meta answer.

6. I should accept it. His answer is EXACTLY why I wrote this.

Answer 1

A technically correct answer that answers at a level above the asker's head, implying something different than the 'practicable solution', is not a great answer. An answer containing some technically correct statements but incorrect or opinionated conclusions that will be the focus of a naive reader, is even worse.

The flood of GME questions coming in seem to be largely coming from those who prior to last week had never heard of a 'short', and may have only basic understanding (if that) of investing in general. That warrants 2 things for a good answer, in my opinion:

(1) Inserting caution to the reader where risk exists or is implied by either the question or your answer itself; and

(2) Keeping things less technical unless needed.

Your answer, in my opinion [though I hadn't seen it before you asked this on Meta], was not great. In particular, a broad sweeping statement like this is relatively foolhardy, as the finite conclusion given:

"Stock splits have two basic effects on market: Stock will go up way higher than market average when announced. Stock will go up way higher than market average when implemented."

I don't even care about whether you could show evidence of this being on average the case historically [though you gave no such evidence nor even referred to its existence, assuming that your not even stated and definitely not provable to the reader expertise should attract the reverence of belief] [and, keeping in mind correlation vs causation, and stock split announcements occurring alongside other stated plans from management etc.].

The fact that you use definitive clauses with no caveat makes it a bad answer, plain and simple.

It is true that SE is less good on technical areas where accuracy is hard to self-identify, because the crowd-sourcing vote system might sway a less informed user to upvote something incorrect. But that isn't what's going on here.

Answer 2

Sorry, but there's a lot to unpack here.

One issue is comments. The Intent and Purpose of Comments made my view pretty clear. Simply put, most issues arise from comments as opposed to the actually Q or A. (Again, in my opinion) comments should auto-evaporate in X days, say 3. If in that time, a comment thread runs 10+, it should auto-move to a room.

The other issue is that technically, wrong answers should be voted down, not flagged, not deleted. I've seen factually incorrect answers get voted up, and I've used my own answer to counter it, only to be told that I was simply offering my own 'opinion.' I thought I was pretty clear in my own mind the distinction between opinion and fact.

I acknowledge that your issue may have occurred anyway, but the current news event regarding one stock has spawned a flood of questions, many of which I'd declare 'bad'.

In the end I can't say that you're wrong. I'd prefer that for fact-seeking questions we eliminate factually incorrect answers. Of course, not every question can or should be fact-based. Advice often depends on risk tolerance, which isn't always definable with any precision.

Answer 3

As the person who wrote the answer that had a comment war that I didn't participate in, I do have a comment, which I will put as an answer.

It appeared that your comments were about a different question. Your comments on both the original question and on my answer were based on a general question about splits. The question was about this specific case that was in the news. You own answer later admitted that in this specific case the impact wouldn't be what the person writing the question thought would happen.

The comment war was 100% unrelated to the original question.

My suggestion is that you remove your comments, because they have served their purpose. It caused you to write enough words via comments that the only thing left to do was write your own answer.

Answer 4

I agree with the sentiment of your question and it was a contributing factor for me to take break from contributing here at all. After reading the other answers, I 100% simply agree with JTP and you can probably just skip my answer.

I've complained about commenters and commenting on this site before and agree that it's a monstrous flaw to the design of this site, particularly for topics like this where very few of the answers have a citeable factual answer like, "that goes on line 5 of IRS schedule C." or whatever. In the case of code, while there can be opinions about mechanisms, the answer either achieves a repeatable result or it doesn't. I wouldn't blame you for no longer contributing; I know I've found myself abandoning half written answers because it's not worth the all the caveats to avoid the inevitable comment battle, that will still happen anyway.

Ultimately, people are free to disagree, but the issue, as far as I can tell, is this system is intended to be well considered answers written in response to well considered questions, not a discussion. There are a lot of discussion boards, this isn't one. If a person disagrees with an answer their recourse is to vote the answer down, not write a disagreeing or disparaging comment and request supporting documentation (not simply out of genuine interest, but as some quasi-substantiation of their disagreement) . This is further compounded by the fact that, again, by nature of the topic almost all of the questions will have at least partially opinionated answers.

I'd argue that almost all of the questions regarding GameStop over the last couple weeks are not well considered and, I'd go a step farther and assert that most of the people asking the question don't actually care what the answer is and probably barely even care about the question they've asked. It would be interesting to know how many question askers even check back after a day or week. I'm a little surprised there haven't been questions asking about suing Citadel for "being in bed with Robinhood" or some other outrageous claim/situation.

With all of that said, the answer you wrote there has very little to do with the question asked regardless of whether or not there is data to support that split companies tend to outperform the market after the split. The person asking the question has the obvious misconception that changing the number of shares outstanding doesn't change anything else and would have some immediate impact on the short sellers (to this end why wouldn't every company just reverse-split every time a single share is shorted to squeeze them out).

I agree completely that the system is flawed and I still contribute here, though much much less than before, because I think it helps my writing and I haven't found a better outlet for that practice.

Answer 5

I will post an answer to my own question. Because 90% of the people that post a lot of answers on sites like this think they know way way more than they do. There is no way you can believe them and this might as well be a 1990s forum.

Example:
A user cited this https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02920618 to refute what I had in my answer.

1. The results of the analysis suggest that the cumulative abnormal returns (CARs) are positive and statistically significant through the eleventh month after a stock split.

Wait... Did my answer say Stock will go up way higher than market average when implemented. Oh man I must of really meant a year later when I said that. Oh no I didn't for those that can read English. Glad I caught that. Thank you for the cited article!

2. This indicates that initially the signaling effects dominate, but

later the consequences of investors' downward revisions of previous expectations and the increase in percentage transaction cost dominate.

Wait did I say .. Stock will go up way higher than market average when announced. For those that don't understand market talk - signaling can be used for market announcement! There we go.

So not only in the question did I get ridiculous feedback from a high rep user but also get hammered in meta by another user that can't even understand their own link. And don't say "its one person", because he had comments clearly flawed and seriously delusional that were upvoted.

So yea there are huge flaws in the voting model here. You can downvote because you don't like me or the tone of my answer, but I am right.