That seems to be the question of the year. There has been a lot of back and forth regarding indie authors vs. traditional.
Indie authors can't write, otherwise they'd be published. Is that true? Maybe, maybe not. I've read some outstanding books published traditionally...I've also read outstanding books from indie authors. I've read lemons written by tradionally published authors, and I've read lemons from indie authors. Are there more lemons among the indies? Maybe, and maybe some of the books aren't as polished, but you can't label *all* indie authors as "sub-par" because of that. And yes, I've read books that have been published the traditional route with formatting and spelling errors. It happens. We're human.
The most glaring issue lately, for readers, is the over-zealous self-promotion of indie authors on social media.
Yeah, I can see their point. You don't want to be inundated with hundreds of "read me! read me!" messages when you're trying to have a discussion. The indie authors just want to get the word out--they don't have the backing and promotional ammunition of the big publishing houses--but they have to be smart about it, otherwise they will alienate the very people they want to see their work...the reader. There are many books and advice on forums on how to market your book that do not entail pissing people off...I'm learning the ropes myself in this regard.
So, I say, give indies a shot! Read the reviews of specific books and heed word-of-mouth recommendations, and then base your decision to buy a book based on merit. Not all indies are bad.