The quality and usability of SEC filings under XBRL continues to be sub-par according to XBRLogic.com's quarterly scoring. Both Quality Score and Usability Score (Quality Score - Extensions) have improved little over the past two years.
It's clear that the issues that have plagued XBRL since it's inception are not being revisited either by filing companies or software vendors. So a bad tag made two years ago simply gets repeated in subsequent filings. A dubious extension (custom tag) is never reconsidered. An invalid subtotal never receives the scrutiny it deserves. Errors are perpetuated because there is simply no incentive to change. Enforcement of even the most basic errors and oversights is non-existent. And software vendors as a group remain indifferent despite the perception that the data they help create is riddled with errors.
Sadly, that perception is correct. XBRL filings are just plain sloppy. Thousands of examples prove the point. Institutional investors who eschew this data prove the point. And yet, time and effort are spent dressing up this mediocre data with Inline XBRL rather than tackling the underlying data quality issues.
