I highly suggest you curate the quality of your posts, users and comments. Perhaps, even at the expense of potential users. I think reddit is a prime example of how badly quality can deteriorate. I know there's no metric for 'good' vs 'bad' comments we can appeal to but I think we can all understand that all the 'true' subreddits[1] denote the fact that once you get far enough on the adoption curve[2] quality will st…
I think you bring up an excellent point. With traffic, content certainly tends to deteriorate, or at least change. Like you've noted, most things are their best at the beginning. This being said, how do you try and stay on the cutting edge of the best sites in their early stages? I'm honestly too young to have an experience with this myself, and don't expect finding out the best new sites to be easy or quick, but wha…
These sites typically allow anyone to write financial articles, trading recommendations etc. and get paid for page views. There is little to no verification of the content, let alone diligence on the credibility of the authors, and the quality of the discussion is extremely poor.
Unfortunately, given the volume of content they can produce through crowd sourcing, they are also extremely popular. Examples include Forbes, Seeking Alpha, The Motley Fool.
EDIT: Assuming your question was in relation to financial news.