Remix.run Logo
delegate 4 hours ago

This has been true for years on Amazon and is true for most big services now.

Over time the concept of search has mutated from 'locate the exact item I'm looking for' to 'show me a list of semantic search results'. Somehow nobody noticed.

Oh and of course those are not random results - you can literally feel how the platform is trying to nudge you into buying what IT wants, not what you wanted. The search is just purchase intent, the platform will choose what you'll buy.

Powerful algorithms, subliminal design - I feel like a lamb in a dark forest full of wolves when I search on amazon, netflix, prime video ..

There are no '0 search results' anywhere.. each search yields thousands of results.

I remember what a revelation Google search was when it came out in 1999 - it would actually find the exact thing you were looking for ! You no longer had to sift through directories of links, you could just filter it..

We're back to pre-google, but it's a lot worse now, since this is by design, not by lack of technical knowledge of how to make search work.

stillpointlab 13 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

The dark pattern I've noticed a few times is the exact match I type into Amazon search doesn't even return the item I entered but 2 or 3 entire pages of alternatives.

I know the item is there because Google returns it, either as a search response or in their "shopping" widget. I can click through Google to Amazon and see the item, sometimes even from the certified seller. But if I enter the exact search term in Amazon's search bar it doesn't show up in their own results.

jambalaya8 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Searched for jeans a few days ago. I got about 3.3% each, scattered through several dozen pages, of two American brands; 1.65% each another couple of brands; a smattering of one or two results for another couple of brands; the remaining approximately 90% were the almost exact same jeans (maybe the same), under several names... pages and pages of them. It is almost impossible to shop for clothes on Amazon now. It used to be just selecting for 1 or 2 day delivery only would trim down the chaff, although now those products are also serviced through the warehouses (and there are less options for one day or same day delivery than years ago, Prime or not).

Some of the products aren't that bad (most are at least better than these sorts of results would spit out when it first started, years ago), but the prices are also at the same not-too-cheap, not pricey moderate price-point as the (of course I know many of those brands are not American but I know how they fit) known brands. Whoever is coding language parsing at Amazon.com must be really challenged by the brands; I get that; but there has to be a way to make it less stressful to shop. Maybe Bezos is just secretly trying to get us all to buy clothes where we don't buy food and books. Ha.

But yes, the language and sorting models being used by Amazon suck.

jonhohle 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It’s not just clothes. Unless the item is a very specific name brand thing, I find Amazon nearly useless for discovery. It’s effectively Ali Express with much higher markup and much faster shipping. I suppose there’s a market for that.

Unfortunately for them, I’d rather buy cheep Chinese crap from a local retailer where there is still a human buyer in the loop choosing something that’s not the lowest bottom of the barrel junk.

When I worked there a long time ago I spoke to the search team about moving more towards a New Egg style filtering model. When I’m looking for something there’s often very specific features I want. Now they’ve decided to go in the complete opposite direction and it doesn’t matter what type, they’ll show me the items they think I want. I’ve bought more than a few wrong things due to this. Returns must not factor into whatever fees they’re making off everything else.

RobotToaster an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Most of the stuff Amazon search spits out by default now is identical to what you find on temu, just at 5 times the price.

You can make it slightly more useful by changing the sort order to average rating or best selling, but for many "normie" things the bestselling will just be the crap amazon shows people by default.

muvlon 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This "dark forest" feeling is what has recently driven me back to brick-and-mortar stores. Of course they can and do manipulate me via ads, store layout etc. but at least the store looks the same for me as for the person before or after me. They can't algorithmically optimize the store around my behavior in particular.

baxtr 4 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Recently I was looking for a fun summer book and spent around 30 minutes (?) browsing amazon and asking google AI with no luck.

Came by a bookstore yesterday, went in, asked the nice lady, she recommend 3, one was a pretty good match, bought it on the spot.

It’s so easy to get lost online when you’re looking for something these days…

4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
micromacrofoot 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

ah but what they can manipulate around you is the price, which is a behavior some places are trying to get ahead of

https://www.nj.gov/governor/news/2026/20260723a.shtml

muvlon 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Has that actually happened in retail stores? All I can find on the topic is about online purchases (or ordering/paying online and picking it up at the store).

To do this in brick-and-mortar, you'd have to use remotely programmable price tags and detect who is looking at what, which seems doable, but then you still run into all kinds of tough questions with no good answers. If I happen to see the price tag change from $3.49 (perhaps set for the person in front of me) to $4.49 and I put that item in my cart, which price am I getting charged at the register? And did a legal sale even occur if I wasn't aware what I would be paying? I don't think it's going to work.

paconbork 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"Please scan this item with our app to see the price"

SoftTalker 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

As of now, my local supermarkets still have price tags on the shelves. And if there's a higher price at the register when the item is scanned, they will honor the shelf price if you call it to their attention. The biggest supermarket now has e-ink shelf tags so I assume those are synced with their item database so that doesn't happen anymore.

micromacrofoot 2 hours ago | parent [-]

it's the other way around, the shelf prices can be stable and they decide which discounts you can get based on your shopping profile which they built using surveillance

SoftTalker 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Well,,, OK?

If I buy a lot of Scott toilet tissue, I'm happy to get a discount on Scott toilet tissue.

Though mostly, the discounts I use are already posted on the shelf, I just need to "clip" an e-coupon in the app to get it.

They do send me emails and even postal mails with coupons too, but those all go in the trash.

phil21 17 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

It's not really a "Well, OK?" situation.

The local supermarket chain near me has more or less done away with normal low prices on the shelves. If you want anything resembling a deal, you get to deal with their shit-tier quality app plus other friction inducting time wasting crap like "clipping" digital coupons. Plus opting in to all the associated tracking the app does in order to use it.

They effective raised prices 10-20% for the entire store and then the only way to get a deal is use the app. This is only currently slight hyperbole - every month it rolls out more and more in this direction.

This way they can tell regulators "we only give discounts in a discriminatory manner! We don't raise prices!" when the time comes.

With any luck a judge will see right through that unmitigated bullshit, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

ThrowawayR2 4 minutes ago | parent [-]

[delayed]

micromacrofoot an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

is that still ok when you're paying more because you don't shop as much as the people who live in the wealthier part of town? or what if you get fewer discounts for being male?

zahlman 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Okay, and what happens at the register?

evereverever 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"Please scan this item with our app to see YOUR price" -ftfy

xp84 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Somehow this doesn't scare me at all. Fast food restaurants have been doing this for like 8 years. Almost any order you could make normally, you could get a buck or two off of it if you order through their incredibly sluggish, bloated cross-platform-framework "app" and redeem a "deal." And they tell you this with giant ads.

The function is to get incremental sales (and hopefully establish a pattern of repeat business) by discounting selectively to people who might not buy at all otherwise.

If you're thinking "But they should give that discount to everybody!" that's not a thing. There's not enough margin in the first place, especially at a supermarket or Walmart, that everyone could just have lower prices on everything.

My grocery store already sends me individualized paper coupons every month.

All of this is promotions. It's all just trying to get some incremental sales, and hoping that if you get an offer for free hot dog buns you'll also buy the hotdogs.

phil21 15 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> There's not enough margin in the first place, especially at a supermarket or Walmart, that everyone could just have lower prices on everything.

Strange how this totally worked until a few years ago. I never cut coupons or any other time wasting shenanigans, but was able to stop up on deals on the commonly used shelf-stable items I buy without even needing to signup to a loyalty program.

I understand price segmentation is a thing. But it's gotten pretty exhausting and only increasingly so.

Fast food you can simply opt out of. My health improved due to them shifting all the "deals" to the app, and doubling menu prices. Groceries are a different thing.

hakfoo 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I've always figured the dream would be to be able to advertise a low price without ever having to deliver it.

Some particularly skeevy car dealers were skewered many years ago for saying "Advertised price is less tax, title, and additional $2,000".

But they CAN get away with saying "The $8.99 burger is $11.99 unless you: - possess one of a range of sanctioned devices - have access to data services - are able to create and manage an account - are willing to opt in to whatever tracking/marketing gimmickry - can claim the "deal" in advance

Each of those steps is a funnel that opts out at least some potential customers from the deal. The 12-year-old who doesn't own a phone can't get the deal. The 85-year-old who can't operate Android can't. The person making impulse purchases and not pre-researching their meal selection misses the offer.

I feel like there's a argument for a precedent akin to "no purchase necessary to enter" for sweepstakes-- no additional purchase, software install, or commitment should be required to claim any advertised offer.

RobotToaster an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The idea of the price you pay could be far higher because your McSocial Credit Score is too low doesn't scare you?

butvacuum an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It doesn't scare you that $store can decide to double their lrice because they detected a brand new phone in your pocket?

This isn't even a little hypothetical- bluetooth had to anonomyze the MAC address to stop this, and it still fails sometimes.

cm2012 30 minutes ago | parent [-]

If a store does this, they will eventually be caught and lose business

watutalkinbout 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maybe you haven't got sufficiently developed imagination...

https://nypost.com/2026/04/21/business/jetblue-x-post-sparks...

wat10000 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't really care about fast food. That's strictly an optional luxury. If the experience sucks too badly, skip it. Grocery would be another matter.

I also think this hypothetical "scan to see your price" scenario is a lot worse. As things stand now, there's still a baseline price. If the shelf says $8.99 then you know that you may be able to get a better price through their loyalty program or with a coupon, but it will never be more than $8.99. In a fully dynamic pricing world where you have to scan scan to get a number at all, which is what a lot of businesses would really love to have, you'd lose that baseline. That item might ring up at $20 if the system decides I'm desperate or inattentive or just don't care. This is already possible online, of course. If it spreads to grocery stores, though, I'm going to start channelling Ned Ludd and it won't be pretty.

qurren 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Related: I've seen several local restaurants offering extremely good food come up and die simply because they could never get attention.

People only look at recommendations now, they don't look with their eyes anymore.

So now restaurants have to focus on growth hacking rather than food quality.

gretch 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This really isn't a new problem.

That's why the mantra in running restaurants has been "location, location, location".

Location was a proxy for marketing and attention, based on foot traffic. So yes it does need to be updated to be the 2026 version for what gets peoples' attention on trying your new thing.

I think almost all good restaurateurs know that. The rest, who hyper focus on food quality, are tragically doomed.

source: my parents were in the restaurant business

bobthepanda an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

To be fair, restaurants have always had very high failure rates (something like 75% close within the first year.)

Keeping a restaurant open is more about managing costs than having good food; many die because of not great inventory and supply chain handling, for example.

evereverever 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I've seen a lot of "Thai Food Near Me" as the name of restaurants.

skeeter2020 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is why the long-term survivors tend to be pretty mid chains & franchises. They've got the marketing down and the food is an afterthought.

znort_ 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> We're back to pre-google, but it's a lot worse now

a lot is worse now, but not shopping. on amazon some very specific items may be hard to find, and the search will throw a lot of crap at you, but you're still free to refine, compare and explore. finding exactly what you need and making an informed purchase has never been easier, and you get next day delivery (most of the time) plus exceptional return/refund policy and process. not sure about picking a, b or c? order all three, keep one, return the rest. i ofc don't (usually) do that, but i could. don't know how shopping could get any better/easier?

i don't like amazon as a company, it is evil and there is a lot to criticise, but the service and the value to the customer they provided has completely transformed shopping, for the better.

ofc long gone are the times where you could walk into a shop and talk to someone who actually had a clue about what they were selling and most likely was even an expert on the matter. that isn't coming back but that happened long before amazon.

MSFT_Edging 18 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I went to a camera store in-person yesterday for work. We needed a lens for a camera already purchased by our company, and we were able to shoot the shit with a super knowledgeable employee absolutely surrounded by lenses, frames, accessories, etc.

We ended up not purchasing anything due to some unknowns, but when my PM told me we'd just order what we need I told him if the price is remotely the same we should go back to the store a few blocks away because had I not spent 15 minutes chatting I would have wasted hours reading blogs/ads trying to figure out what I needed.

ynac 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Frank and earnest question about using a company when you think they aren't a net benefit to society, especially when there are other options. I too have my reasons for thinking Goog, Amzn, and others are not good. I just don't use them. The other options seem great to me - I never long for what I'm missing. Momentum, habit, peer pressure, or something else going on?

saxelsen an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> Frank Nd earnest question

What's the question?

znort_ an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

i found that almost everything around me is evil, and after a period of hesitation i resolved to make the most of it.

wafflemaker 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>ofc long gone are the times where you could walk into a shop and talk to someone who actually had a clue about what they were selling and most likely was even an expert on the matter. that isn't coming back but that happened long before amazon.

Dude, nearly everytime I'm at a shop that's what happens. Not all are top top experts, but generally they have a very good idea about their subject and perform their jobs as if they liked them.

But that's Norway, not everyone is so lucky to live here.

colinrand 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>>Somehow nobody noticed.

I disagree, many many people noticed and we were irked by it, but it's extremely impractical to fight against it.

vinnymac 3 hours ago | parent [-]

As someone who notices a lot of things, I was talking recently with someone who notices almost nothing. When I spoke about my desire to seek out the truth, they simply replied, "I just want to live a happy life."

There’s a perception that those who seek knowledge and truth are somehow less happy. Ignorance, and the willingness to take the path of least resistance, can be seen as an advantage for those who would rather not look too closely. Fundamentally, perhaps the difference comes down to red pill versus blue pill, and the illusions we’re willing to accept.

mitchdoogle 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

A lot of knowledge and truth can be quite disappointing. I do think shielding oneself from truths and knowledge probably would make someone more happy. Think about it - do you think you would be more happy knowing the darkest thoughts and actions of those around you? Of those close to you? What if your spouse was having thoughts of leaving you? Would that make you more happy or less happy? I suppose you could say that if you were privy to their thoughts, you might discover that they love you and think about you more than you imagined, so that may be a net benefit, but I think we humans have a tendency to focus on the negative, and so an abundance of information leads us to focus on the negative things within the information, which makes us less happy.

SpicyLemonZest 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There's nothing wrong with being a curious or attentive person who likes to notice things.

What I often see, especially in the social media era, is people who are selectively curious and like to notice negative things. So they'll share lots of articles with titles like "The Amazon Tax", which I agree was interesting and informative, but they're not at all interested in e.g. "How Amazon Is Bringing Fast Delivery to Rural America" (https://www.wsj.com/business/logistics/how-amazon-is-bringin...). That's more of a problem, and I think it's what drives the idea that truth-seekers are less happy.

manarth 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Enjoy your steak, Mr Reagan.

Defletter 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Except that this holds true for everything. For example, I only just today found out about this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8yo7_Inikg&t=1157s, ie, Oracle's apparent complicity in genocide. Now that I know this, I now have to rethink things: what am I using that depends on Oracle that I need to migrate away from? This wasn't something I was concerned about just 24 hours ago. This is not to say it's not a valid concern: we should divest from companies and organisations complicit in genocide, but this is demonstrably a case where I have given myself more work, more worry, from gaining knowledge.

Henchman21 3 hours ago | parent [-]

You’re aware IBM was not just complicit but essentially made the Holocaust possible with their counting machines? Had technicians permanently staffed in the fucking camps? The the numbers on people’s arms corresponded to IBM punch cards?

Are you aware of the world you live in?

Defletter 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I wasn't aware of that, no. I can say that it wasn't a feature of our history lessons in school, nor in various Holocaust documentaries I have watched, nor something that came up in conversation with friends and colleagues, nor have I personally seen it when it's been posted to HackerNews (if this is anything to go by: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=IBM%20holocaust&sort=byDate&ty...). I only learned about Oracle's complicity because it has resurfaced in coverage regarding the current ongoing genocide. But you are proving my point: what do I do now with this information?

zahlman 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> But you are proving my point: what do I do now with this information?

I would use it to question the premise

> we should divest from companies and organisations complicit in genocide

which in reality I decided was obviously wrong the first time I heard it, many years ago. In fact, I don't think this concept of "complicity" is morally valid at all.

Defletter 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Continuing the red/blue pill metaphor from earlier, what you're describing is not dissimilar to Cypher's betrayal to be plugged back in.

mitchdoogle 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Mass genocide happened plenty of times before the advent of computers, so I take issue with your assertion that IBM made the holocaust possible.

lucianbr 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Are you aware of the world you live in?

Certainly this world comprises many other things than the Holocaust and IBM's support of it. Perhaps your awareness is lacking if you think that is the main thing to be aware of in this world.

zahlman 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> Perhaps your awareness is lacking if you think that is the main thing to be aware of in this world.

I don't think that's what GP was saying at all.

zahlman 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Over time the concept of search has mutated from 'locate the exact item I'm looking for' to 'show me a list of semantic search results'. Somehow nobody noticed.

It's been noticed, just not put into words very often. And it's not as if anyone felt like they could do anything about it.

mutinyy 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yesterday I tried to buy a light bulb for my kitchen hood on Amazon. I searched for 130V 40W light bulb. I ended up buying a 120V one because I gave up trying to find the one I wanted. I think I'll run over to the hardware store next time.

laurencerowe 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Is there a difference between a 120V bulb and a 130V bulb?

I thought we basically had 110-130V North American voltage and 220-240V Euro and others voltage as the actual voltage you get from the grid varies within a range.

chrismartin 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, the 130 volt bulb lasts longer when operated on 120 volts. My family would buy these when I was kid.

Some probably non-LLM explanations:

https://blog.1000bulbs.com/home/why-buy-130-volt-light-bulbs

https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/14349/are-there-any-...

knollimar 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah no way theres a transformer stepping up the voltage in his hood.

Its 130V rated for safety but realistically hes getting like 115

SoftTalker 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I still sometimes get "zero results" on general DDG searches, if I'm specific enough. Never on a shopping site, though.

z_rho_one an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Over time the concept of search has mutated from 'locate the exact item I'm looking for' to 'show me a list of semantic search results'. Somehow nobody noticed.

I think many people noticed the change. However, when semantic search first came about, it was useful and not the only option. Being able to see items similar to my search term on Amazon was analogous to browsing products in the same aisle in a physical store, which was helpful when you wanted an item from a category but haven't decided on the exact one.

The enshittifying and infuriating difference now is that the choice of using semantic search have been taken away. It is often the only option, and the definition of things that are "semantic similar" is a mile wide. I appreciate semantic search when I have good use cases for it, but please give me the option to turn it off when I don't need it.

mrandish 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> search has mutated from 'locate the exact item I'm looking for' to 'show me a list of semantic search results'.

Years ago Amazon intentionally nerfed their own on-site search into complete uselessness. A step at a time they removed the ability to exclude a term by prefixing a '-', then they removed grouping terms into a phrase either with quote marks or plus+signs. For years these all worked well. It's no longer plausible that the reason is to serve semantic search results, they could still include synonyms lower in results while respecting exclusion and phrases but that would make what's really going on too obvious.

The real reason they nerfed their search so bad I often have to use Google with "site:amazon.com" is simply so they can serve up whatever results are most profitable which vaguely semantically match any term. This is a big profit center due to all the 'marketing programs' they push on third-party sellers. Paying for these is virtually required to get on the first page of any popular search. Amazon has a huge inventory of such listings and selling you one of those listing is more profitable for Amazon, but assuming the price is the same, less profitable for the reseller due to giving Amazon even more of their slim margin. Since playing this game has become required, it raises the ASP of all products - another Amazon tax.

Through the Bezos era and up until around ten years ago, Amazon was "good", meaning their broad strategies and policies were generally a net gain for most buyers. Things Like allowing negative reviews and no-questions returns made me a fan and allowed Amazon to destroy all its competition. Since then they've gradually A/B tested their way into, IMHO, pure evil.

For consumers, the only real net gains Amazon still provides is massive inventory and faster delivery for Prime items (although you may have noticed they are now also strategically degrading Prime delivery consistency). Everything else about Amazon is objectively worse. Products are more expensive, search is intentionally broken, the site is rife with paid placements and dark patterns. And no one can compete because as soon as a new upstart offers search that works or lower prices by not forcing all sellers into high-margin programs, Amazon will un-nerf that specific enshittification just enough until the new threat is exterminated.

bluedino 2 hours ago | parent [-]

eBay search is still pretty decent about letting you exclude things and other 'power user' search abilities

chrismorgan an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> There are no '0 search results' anywhere.. each search yields thousands of results.

I’ve encountered “no results” on DuckDuckGo at least half a dozen times in the last couple of months when I know there should be relevant results, and Google gives me relevant results (sigh; I think I had gone for more than a year without using !g). Most of these have been exact keyword matches.

citizenpaul an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

To me its a bigger problem. The concept of Brand was highly diminished during the manufacturing outsource phase to cheap countries. You could pay $10 for the brand name of a simple product or get the 100% equivalent for $1 from a Chinese Knock off. So people felt ripped off and abandoned brands. (reasonable since the brands were keeping prices high artificially)

However that has lead to a massive drop off in quality and price/value ratio of all products. Now the brands and the knock offs are in a race to the bottom for the lowest quality product/profit ratio so there truly is no difference and no quality products below "luxury" tier exist anymore.

Even some high'ish tier brands shoes like Hoka/Ons shoes have major quality issues even though they exist at just below the "premium" price point. I had two pairs of the same Ons last year, one lasted 3 months and started falling apart the other pair is still going 1y later. I wore them roughly the same amount switching between them. I looked up online and it turns out both brands avoid long term production contracts to bank profits from the lowest bidder at expense of their own brand they built.

MSFT_Edging 9 minutes ago | parent [-]

> The concept of Brand was highly diminished during the manufacturing outsource phase

Ironically I'd say that this was what firmly cemented the concept. Brands truly gained their power when they separated themselves from what they produce and the name providing it. Previously, brands were tied to the quality of their items. When they separated the idea, it enabled brands to become lifestyles and cultural signifiers, which skyrocketed the profitability of being a brand rather than a producer of a good.

wat10000 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Amazon and a lot of other big companies feel like the corporate embodiment of the "This job would be great if it wasn't for the fucking customers" line from Clerks. We are not valued customers whose business forms the foundation of their success. We are obstacles that sit between them and the money in our bank accounts. They'd prefer to cut us out of the equation entirely, but failing that, they will do whatever it takes to overcome. The fact that they don't actually want us in the equation oozes through every bit of the process.

orofound 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> the platform will choose what you'll buy

Assuming they were any good at it. They can’t even figure out basic product design.

You cannot have the purchase funnels you describe without better UI/UX. Amazon’s is abysmal.

Very often people leave Amazon and boycott them entirely (like I do) because the experience is so awful across the board.

I don’t believe they are “guiding” anyone to anything. Amazon only became profitable after COVID when they forced everyone to shut down so we had to use Amazon. Everyone noticed that and remembers.

You put them on a pedestal.

Ever tried to login to AWS? Login. A regular login form. They can’t do it.

iamacyborg 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You might want to read some of their quarterly earning reports and research papers their teams submit. Your experience is not commensurate with financial reality.