When i was writing the news on how i came across some interesting papers in my mailbox ("The way Midas Gold Fund was growing" and "HYIP Downline Group"), i noticed that later on i was about to tell about the lists, recommended by various investors communities. Roughly speaking i divided these communities into "analysts" and "investors". First ones are involved in mass thinking process and the second ones are allocating funds.
This is rather sound approach, cause some persons can make up more reasonable evaluation. The experience of several people instead of one person is used. So, they get the average. Is this variant of a higher quality? Depends for what purpose.
If you need the opinion of a group of people regarding this or that program, this kind of opinion can only be provided by this group and there is indeed no better option. However, if you want to multiply capital, the only variant of a high quality will be understanding of what you are doing. Investing to the recommendations made up by a group of people involves the same risks as if made by a single person.
Hence i consider, one can evaluate any resource only assuming how much useful this resource is for the most valuable quality. And the most valued quality in the sphere of high yield investing is the ability to develop strategies. Cause the most successful strategy is a constantly growing organism. One must not have the strategy, unchangeable for too long.
Every investors or analysts club is only good for the club members. That is because they are the ones who work. That is why their income is stable. And you, being a "man of the street", just a "fellow traveller", defer to the club's opinion, only because you don't feel like working yourself. And lack of work, unfortunately, doesn't make possible to get profit on and on. The energy conservation law is offended without work. You do understand, no work, no energy is produced then...