Hey guys, I didn't post that chart. Nor did I respond to it directly. Maybe the results mean nothing, but I'm just pointing out that rationalizing the results of that chart to be "good" for Tesla is absurd.
I understood that. The problem is that when quoting something clearly and obviously made up to represent a negative outlook, you repeat that this must somehow be:
"...rationalizing the results of that chart to be "good" for Tesla
...when the entire set of points is intended to make it crystal clear that the 'survey' itself is based inadequately. Of course, as always, FUD reigns regardless of facts. Bluntly, this silly 'survey' has no actual factual results that could not have been written without claiming to have surveyed anyone. Indeed, that may damage Tesla in some way, primarily by repeating nonsense.
Just so you and others who regularly post such things there are a few basic tenets of competent survey results:
1. The sample size and respondent sourcing are included;
2. The questionnaire and/or interview guide is included;
3. Response rate, response methodology and respondent verification process is shown;
Just so you and others know, the sort of survey and opinions we do here is not ever qualified as valid. It is done mostly to entertain ourselves and give ourselves more robust confirmation bias. That is why most of us, including me, find them to be fun. Who does not like to be told that his or her opinions are also held by others we admire? There is some value in that, emotional value.
In this case you
@Zaddy Daddy are suggesting that bad and useless 'research' might not be good news to TSLA. Technically you're correct FUD hurts. However, repeating FUD does NOT change the facts.
Let su be clear: Now more than ever, ever more sophisticated and well-constructed false information and data is being posted. Mods are becoming overwhelmed with sorting ridiculously irrelevant things from relevant ones. They cannot be expected to evaluate the credibility of every random unverified quotation.
In short we need some integrity. Integrity, by definition, cannot be superficial. When any of us quote something we need to make sure we know what we are quoting and verify its relevancy. That is work.
That also requires learning how to know what we post before posting it. That is often boring.
The end result will be for us all to have greater confidence in each other and have us all learn more.
As I have said a few times. One major benefit of our group si that among us are people who really know quite a lot about many subjects. Just within the last week I've been clearly and succinctly corrected when I expressed a view on a topic I thought I knew but obviously did not. The corrections I quickly received taught me valuable new information about Tesla technology that I had been unknowingly ignorant about. Now I am happy to know more than I did.
If we are to have more value here we need to be much better and faster to help each other to learn. That process was once easy here but as we have grown we've become a bit complacent.
Now we blather about share volatility, most of us who do probably aren't reading
@Papafox who devotes inordinate effort to ensure that we can understand the sources and consequences of daily volatility. We'd have fewer garbage post were his work be more carefully viewed.
Many of us blather about advertising when most of us who do have never studied the subject, much less Marketing and ignore obvious sources to understand what might or might now be relevant.
Then, too, many of us conduct our own version of 'mother-in-law-research' on Tesla adoption rates, impediments to growth and a wide variety of other issues. Those, like the advertising ones, are often titillating but almost never relevant.
Finally there are the complaints I class as 'panel gap' stories. Somehow we've been overloaded with complaints about Tesla vehicles (not so much other products) that either are misplaced or are incorrect. of course Teslas can and do have faults. We really should do better than to take our cues from short seller narratives. Perhaps I am naive just because my three Tesla's have had fewer problems than any others of my 50-odd new cars during my life. Perhaps, but the owner persistency at Tesla has ranked above nearly any other OEM, and that data comes from biased sources like Automotive News and JD Power, both of which depend on auto dealers for much of their revenue.
There are many other areas in which we can do better work to moderate ourselves and reduce the incessant frustration we are causing the people who are trying to help us be more responsible. Please, everyone, help us be better. If we do not we run a great risk of self-destructing. Valuable people have left. More will do so if we do not quickly act to manage ourselves better.
www.cnbc.com
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23382326/VRG_Illo_STK022_K_Radtke_Musk_Tesla.jpg)
