Talk:Tesla, Inc.: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
## I think this has been fixed now. | ## I think this has been fixed now. | ||
# The report is different to other reports. | # The report is different to other reports. | ||
## Different can be good, so nothing to fix here. | |||
# Check that the minimum investment amount is indeed £10. | # Check that the minimum investment amount is indeed £10. | ||
## I think this has been fixed now. | ## I think this has been fixed now. | ||
| Line 20: | Line 21: | ||
## I think this has been fixed now. | ## I think this has been fixed now. | ||
# I'd rate the quality of the report 2 out of 10. | # I'd rate the quality of the report 2 out of 10. | ||
## I think this has been fixed now. | |||
# Add to the report recent news. | # Add to the report recent news. | ||
## I think this has been fixed now. | |||
# Add to the report information about Tesla's quarterly earnings. | # Add to the report information about Tesla's quarterly earnings. | ||
## I think this has been fixed now. | |||
# Change the format of the report to the following headings: summary, company background, strategy, recent trading, recent updates, etc. | # Change the format of the report to the following headings: summary, company background, strategy, recent trading, recent updates, etc. | ||
# Change in the report the word "lifespan" to "time horizon". The time horizon of 60 years questionable. | ## I think this has been fixed now. | ||
# Change in the report the word "lifespan" to "time horizon". | |||
## I think unless more people provide the same feedback, then it's best to keep the word how it is. | |||
# The time horizon of 60 years questionable. | |||
## An explanation about the reason behind using 60 years is provided. Without knowing why the person thinks 60 years is questionable, it's almost impossible to fix. That said, a later version of the Stockhub platform will enable users to amend the underlying assumptions of the financial model. | |||
Revision as of 12:33, 3 June 2022
Feedback from an anonymous user on the report:
- The report contains repeated information, such Elon Musk's bio, the place(s) that the offerings are promoted and marketed.
- I think this has been fixed now.
- The description of the target audience seems inaccurate.
- I think this has been fixed now.
- The report is wordy.
- I think this has been fixed now.
- The report is too dumb-downed. For example, no need to describe what a car is.
- I think this has been fixed now.
- A suggestion is to remove the sub-headings.
- I think this has been fixed now.
- One of the table includes one or more silly categories. For example, "is the car safe?"
- I think this has been fixed now.
- The report is different to other reports.
- Different can be good, so nothing to fix here.
- Check that the minimum investment amount is indeed £10.
- I think this has been fixed now.
- The valuation of the investment is unclear and complex; make it clearer and simpler. See a high-quality research report for an example.
- The report seems robotic.
- I think this has been fixed now.
- I'd rate the quality of the report 2 out of 10.
- I think this has been fixed now.
- Add to the report recent news.
- I think this has been fixed now.
- Add to the report information about Tesla's quarterly earnings.
- I think this has been fixed now.
- Change the format of the report to the following headings: summary, company background, strategy, recent trading, recent updates, etc.
- I think this has been fixed now.
- Change in the report the word "lifespan" to "time horizon".
- I think unless more people provide the same feedback, then it's best to keep the word how it is.
- The time horizon of 60 years questionable.
- An explanation about the reason behind using 60 years is provided. Without knowing why the person thinks 60 years is questionable, it's almost impossible to fix. That said, a later version of the Stockhub platform will enable users to amend the underlying assumptions of the financial model.