They're not completely worthless, though. Real data + automated analysis is far better than no data or no analysis.
>Next, we want to ensure that Gannett's stock has the ability to rise over the next five, 10, or 20 years. A company that's growing its net income has the best possible chance to see its share price rise over time. Of course, we can't predict the future, but we can look back to get an idea of how the company has performed in the past in order to try to ensure future earnings growth. Over the past five years, Gannett has shrunk its net income at an annual rate of 13.9%. Unfortunately, Gannett has run into its own share of problems, and the financial collapse of 2008 certainly couldn't have helped either. So the company has been unable to grow earnings, which doesn't exactly mean that it won't in the future, but it's certainly not the greatest of signs.
from http://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2011/04/26/should-you...
It's kind of clear that it's auto-generated after just one. The only other possibility would be that "Jordan DiPetro" had a real point to make about what stock stats can tell you without any real knowledge...
But upon reading them i'm impressed at exactly how generic this template is. I'm not sure they're actually doing harm, because frankly, these articles aren't analysis. They don't actually offer any judgement about the stocks in question. They're basically a textual presentation of some stock data that is designed to serve as a feeder into fool.com.
I can't say that i'm okay with it, but it's not as catastrophic as i had initially imagined. Still definitely SEO spam though :\ I am disappoint.