Despite the insultingly hollow claims of MarketSmith that they are "working diligently to find a final solution to this issue", inaccurate data is once again showing up in these reports.  This has been going on for over 10 months - so long that I don't even need to mention the reports by name anymore.  I've posted on this forum, and other forums, numerous times.  Prior to that, I contacted MarketSmith support via direct email and phone.  Every time, the same lame bromides are tossed out by MarketSmith, and evert time, the reports go bad in the same way as before.

Clearly, for MarketSmith, the term "working diligently" means "ignore the problem until a paid subscriber finds it, then slap on the same temporary patch we've been slapping on for a year, and  hope it goes away".

Yes, paid subscribers are Beta testers for sloppy MarketSmith programmers.  These reports went bad, AGAIN, last week.  I didn't report it  then, on the extremely remote chance that MarketSmith would actually notice and correct the problem.  I had NO expectation that MarketSmith would do so, and, surprise surprise, MarketSmith data is still inaccurate and unreliable.

As noted in the forum threads "Bells and Whistles", and in the "Innacurate data still a problem - for 8 months" , and in the "Innacurate data still a problem, now nearly a year", and others, some reports have been unreliable or downright innacurate since Daily Graphs changed over to Market Smith, and still have not been corrected.  The most recent attempt to patch faulty reports lasted a while longer before the regression popped up, but the reports still went obviously bad last week (again).  So it was yet another temporary patch.  What a surprise...

• Unclear how long it will take before another temporary patch is slapped on.
• Also unclear is how long the data in the reports was bad before the more obvious regression took place.
• Also unclear is what other data on this site is of questionable accuracy.
• Also unclear is what data used to produce charts and graphs on this site is of questionable accuracy.

Probably not all of the programmers at MarketSmith are this sloppy, but it's unclear how many there are, and what areas they work on besides these reports.  Considering that chronic problems are routinely tolerated by MarketSmith management, sloppy programming appears to be the status quo.

When sloppy programmers are at work, the obvious problems are only the tip of the iceberg.  Sloppy programmers are clearly at work at MarketSmith.

Take heart, folks.  Even the lowliest of subscribers to MarketSmith have the ear of the king.  I know this because I received a personal phone call to my home from Scott Smith himself about this problem !!!

Well....he said he was Scott Smith.  Odd though, he sounded  a lot like one of the MarketSmith customer service reps that have called after my other posts about inaccurate data.

I also found it odd is that "Scott Smith" said essentially the same thing as the MarketSmith customer service reps did when they called.  That being - "Let's have a discussion to resolve this situation".

Huh ?  For Real ?  Sad that I have to actually put this in print, but here goes:

Data problems are NOT solved by "talking it over" with the guy who points out the problems.

Data problems are only solved by talking to the programmers who rolled out untested and defective programming on the site.

Granted, this is also a management issue.  This problem has been going on for nearly a year, and a problem can only go on that long as the result of either

1. Deliberate management policy to run the new site as cheaply as possible, data problems be damned.  OR...
2. A management style of willful neglect.

Being on the oustide, I can't say which is the case at MarketSmith.  Of course, they're not mutually exclusive - it could be both.

Ken,

I very much appreciate your recognizing my involvement with our MarketSmith subscribers.  All of our MarketSmith associates (customer service reps, product coaches, etc.) are well educated, stock market savvy individuals who take customer service and satisfaction seriously, as I do.

I also want to thank you for your persistence in bringing this matter to our attention: it shows how seriously you use the service, and helps us continue to improve. I do want to highlight that your continued concern is about a report, not the data behind it: we stand behind the data we provide.  But you are absolutely correct that the report does not meet our standard of excellence. We thought we had solved the problem but were wrong, and we will be removing the report from MarketSmith in the next week until it can be properly corrected.

Ken, on a lighter note, I thank you for the promotion to “King”; however, everyone here considers my father the real Guru. I appreciate the gesture and would be more than happy to discuss with you, personally, how we can resolve your issues to your satisfaction. Just give me a call at MarketSmith at your convenience.

Best,

W. Scott O’Neil,

President, MarketSmith, Incorporated.