The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Motley Fool Investment Wiki / Wiki Contributors Forum
|Subject: Re: Different from Investopedia?||Date: 9/23/2008 2:15 PM|
|Author: Har1en||Number: 396 of 597|
Yeah, their search engine sucks. Also, not to display my ignorance too much, but frankly, I had never heard of Investopedia. I occasionally go to Wikipedia for some financial terms I want to research, but I don't trust what is written on either site to be... how should I say this?
Biased? Pragmatic? Reduced to the point of common sense? (Not a typo, these are things I want.)
I feel that the strength of the Fool community is that we respect readers' intelligent inexperience. We explain concepts in simple ways so someone who has the desire to learn but never took finance or accounting in school can quickly apply the information. I think that the drawback to those other sites is that they don't have an editorial slant that is serious about teaching normal people annoyingly esoteric concepts.
That's what it really comes down to for me. We're researching terms for our practical advantage -- we need to apply it in our daily investment decisions, we want to know how important it is and what we can earn from each item.
Also, Investopedia has a junky search engine. Reading through their description of the balance sheet, I thought to run a search for "capital expenditure" and got nothing. Going to Google and running "capital expenditure investopedia," I instantly got their CAPEX page, which has several words highlighted as links. Those links are not links to more information, but are rather links for paid ads.
In short, if I'm on the CAPEX page, there's no way to find the Financial Statements page from there, even though it probably should be linked, or at least grouped together in a cat