Okay, time to clear out the mailbox ...
Some of you wrote in to complain about energy prices and the country's economic situation. Others were in search of winning stock picks. Wish we could help you out on both fronts, folks. But we're limited to what we can really influence.
All Things Search
A number of you don't think much of my search engine optimization post. Either you think I'm a dope when it comes to methodology or I'm hopelessly out of date. Probably valid on both counts.
Allen, seriously, that is not search engine optimization. I mean, it might have been in 1998, but it's not today. Thanks for contributing to the world of misinformation. -- Paul
If you call that SEO then you're drunk. -- Ken
What you wrote was an example of search engine spam, not search engine optimization because it makes the page/content worse for readers not better. SEO is about making the website better for both search engines AND users. Not about stuffing keywords everywhere. -- Jill
Hey, I just know what our tech folks tell me. Still, a small few got the point I was trying to make.
Shoot for the folks who really want your writing, not for the folks who you wish wanted it ... if they only read once and never come back because your writing is idiotic (as in the example), what's the point? -- Travis
Now how is this for coincidence? Someone was watching the same dang movie I was and had the same complaint about the ad!
I was watching the same Indiana Jones movie with my 16 year old granddaughter and 18 year old grandson. I would have thrown something through the TV if I had known the KY Jelly people would have been hit. We've gone round the bend. -- Nancy
And we got a typical comment about negative news ...
I find the much of the financial news is negative. Newscasters seem to be happy when oil reachs a new high, even though that is a report that may mean problems for some people. The people reporting are there to report the news, and not to make it. Your opinions are not needed. Report the news, dont try to make it. -- James
Well, we strive to make it straight. You sort of have to work with the news you got, right? And at least one reader thinks we hit the mark.
While some of your folks do interject their opinions ("let them eat cake"), CNBC by far presents the best coverage even if some find it too negative. -- Mike
On our Buffettstock coverage ...
A few of you wrote in thinking we give too much attention to Warren Buffett, the Omaha billionaire and investing legend ...
Personally, even though he (Buffett) was a all-time great, I would place him in a group with Roger Clemens and Shaq--way past his prime. Wouldn't you agree that his investment record has been very mediocre not to add that he violated his own warning about derivatives? -- Charles
Well, I watch our stats pretty closely and a lot of people read the Buffett stories. I mean A LOT.
Anchors, Shows and TV stuff
We get a regular stream of mail complaining about on-air folks and particular exchanges and such. Some of it is pretty mean. Not everybody is going to be perfect all the time folks and somebody will always be irritated by somebody else at least some of the time.
Wouldn't the world be a better place if we all just cut one another a little slack once in a while?
Anyway, thanks to all those writing in.