Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Quote.com QCharts -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Matthew L. Jones who wrote (4448)	11/21/1999 8:49:00 AM
From: Mark Z	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17977

Matt - Thanks for taking the time to respond and no, you're not butting in. I don't care if I get a response from you, Gibbons, Jay or Bill Clinton. I'm just trying to understand the data I'm seeing. Here's some stale (from a mid-October Onelist msg) data that doesn't reconcile to your definitions and, coincidentally, happen to include data for the Dell Nov 45 calls. If you'd like 'current' data, just msg me on Monday (preferably EMail as I don't monitor SI as regularly) and I'll point you to some. -------------------------------------------------------------------- If you need some examples, DLQKI currently shows Best Bid of 2 1/8, Best Ask of 2 1/16, Bid of 2, Ask of 2 1/16. Level II shows the bids as P-2 1/16, C-2, X-2, A-1 15/16 and asks as A-2 1/16, C-2 1/16, X-2 1/16 and P-2 3/16. So where does the Best Bid of 2 1/8 come from? How about the Bid of 2? (edit: Dell options' primary exchange is the CBOE) CYQKL. Quote sheet Best Bid of 9, Best Ask of 8 3/4, Bid of 8 5/8, Ask of 8 7/8. Level II shows all 4 exchanges on the bid at 8 5/8 with asks of C-8 3/4, P-8 7/8, X-8 7/8 and A-9. (edit: Cisco options' primary exchange is the AMEX) MSQKR. Quote sheet Best Bid of 3 3/4, Best Ask of 3 5/8, Bid of 3 5/8, Ask of 3 7/8. Level II shows bids of X-3 3/4, A-3 5/8, P-3 5/8, C-3 1/2 and asks of A-3 3/4, C-3 3/4, P-3 7/8, X-4. (edit: Msft options' primary exchange is the PACX) Similar results can be found on most options at any time during market. I've noticed this on the Herndon, Jersey, Mt. View, Santa Clara and non-named, IP identified servers. (edit: I've since learned 'non-named' are the Chicago servers) ----------------------------------------------------------------- First, thanks for clarifying the bid/ask. These data support that it comes from the primary exchange as you noted. Second, the best bid/ask data doesn't reconcile with your definitions. Any idea why? Is the conclusion that this is just another data issue? And if so, what, if anything, is being done to resolve it? And if nothing, can we just be told that honestly so we know that Quote.com really doesn't intend to provide reliable options data and we should not use it. These data are 'close' which can be more dangerous than wildly outrageous data (e.g. average daily vol of 60+million on thinly traded stocks) as decisions may be made on them. My options broker will route to the exchange I specify and given the volume of options trades I make each month, a reliable quote service is worth paying extra for. Should I not be using Quote.com? What I find puzzling about this is that Schwab claims they get their option quotes from Quote.com and their real time 'level II' (by exchange) option data is quite consistent with their consolidated quotes. So it would appear Quote.com has the right data but just can't seem to feed it to their retail (QCharts) customers. Finally, my problem is not with Gibbons per se (that's not entirely true, I don't like the fact that he tries to bury data issues by sending us to data@quote.com which has proven to be a black hole). The fact that he has to work weekends & late nights suggests his management isn't inclined to make the necessary investment in support resources and I find that troubling. I'm also disturbed by an apparent attitude that says 'we can advertise that we provide Island book, option chains, etc. We never said they were accurate so we don't have to provide accuracy'. The option & Island problems have existed for months - far longer than it takes to get a reliable circuit installed in my experience. Presumably, a bad connection is at the root of this per Gibbons. Again, it just suggests a 'we don't really care' attitude along with a 'we have the right to mislead in our advertising' attitude & I have a problem with that. Its the latter reason I get vocal when a prospective customer comes on SI & asks about the service. I'm of the opinion they should know the reality of what they're getting, not just the false impressions Quote.com's management prefers to lay on them. It'll be interesting, going forward, to see how many more 'false advertising' lawsuits come forth in light of the Papa John's ruling last week.

To: Matthew L. Jones who wrote (4448)	11/21/1999 12:31:00 PM
From: jebj	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17977

>Thread in general. Gibbons has taken a lot of time to address in detail many of the issues that have been raised. I agree - however, this "detail" is very late in coming when one considers the many posts about problems over the many months. >While QC has had some server problems, the service has by and large been working well through the interim for anyone who took the time to read the many posts about servers that were working properly. Why do I feel that a service that has been "by and large been working" is NOT what I am paying for. Do they hold themselves out to be supplying "sometimes" useable data? >Also, as it turns out (and was predicted on this thread) the problem turned out to be subnet problems around one server farm and not a QC problem per se. And how long has this been going on? Has this been the problem all along and, if so, is it now solved? Why did it take so long to find the problem? Inquiring minds want to know. :) >Nevertheless, Gibbons has taken a good deal of time (and done a great job doing a one man tech support gig on what is probably his day off). I, for one, appreciate the extra effort. I think I am speaking for many of us on this thread as well when I say, thanks again Gibbons. - Matt And herein may be the biggest problem of all - WHY does it fall to Gibbons to be a "one man tech support" person? Where are all the others when needed since one man can not possibly handle the problems they have? This company has repeatedly shown that it is not willing to spend the capital necessary to train and staff properly. And IMHO, they have shown repeatedly that they are far, far more interested in the software design and "goodies" that the program will do than in the correct data side. It is clear that they have someone that is the tops in their field in writing code and really knows how to design a stock charting program. It is also painfully clear that they do not have this quality of expertice in putting together a delieverly system for the program. In short, they have their priorities backwards - it should be correct data first and then presentation. I also appreciate Gibbons taking the time to come here and try to help - I have the feeling that these problems are clearly not of his making and that he may be having to fight management to get anything done. As a customer, I have resigned myselfto the fact that our only hope is the quick merging of QC into the new company - only then will we see some management that MAY care what the quality of the delievered product is and what problems the customer base is having. jb