In the past few weeks, I’ve seen a number of board posters mention Tipranks because an analyst/writer had a high or low rating on it. I checked it out and found it amusing that I was ranked because I write articles on the public side of Motley Fool.
FWIW, from what I can see they have me ranked #1,756 out of 6,420 bloggers and #3,749 out of 11,208 overall experts with an 83% success rate. Nothing that follows is a complaint with how I’m ranked. In fact, I have no idea if what I’m going to point out would give me a higher or lower ranking on the site.
My main concern with the site is that it is ranking me on the basis of 24 picks when I’ve written at least ten times that number of articles, many with more than one pick in the article! Furthermore, one of the 24 rankings was the opposite of what I actually wrote - It had me down for a “sell” on Corning when I actually wrote this: https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/02/14/why-its-a-big-mist… “Why It’s a Big Mistake to Sell Corning Shares Right Now”.
This just just seems like a sloppy, slapdash ranking system and I wouldn’t want people putting too much stock in such a ranking system. I saw someone upboard was asking if they should pay for the premium version of Tipranks too. It would seem to me that there is better money to be spent but, of course, feel free to disagree.
Again, for all I know, if the system ranked me more throughly/accurately, I could easily be ranked lower. Primarily, I just want to point out that it seems to be a fairly incomplete way of ranking writers/analysts.
MasterCard (MA), PayPal (PYPL), Skechers (SKX) and Square (SQ) Ticker Guide
See all my holdings at http://my.fool.com/profile/TMFCochrane/info.aspx