I wonder of any of them actually looked at the site in any detail (that is rhetorical – I know they did, I know…). At best it is Yahoo extra-lite. (IMHO, based on what you can look at today, Yahoo’s is infinitely better). It doesn’t even come close to what a Bloomberg or Reuters offers. So I’m lost… interactive charts are meant to be really, really exciting news?
And here is an interesting point from the WSJ: “Unlike many other finance sites, Google doesn’t have its own editorial staff.”
This kind of coverage either points to the power of the Google brand over any kind of matter or substance. OK, now I’m ranting… sorry… but what is right for Google isn’t necessarily right or needed by consumers. Maybe they should stick to their own truisims (thanks for the pointer GMSV):
2. It’s best to do one thing really, really well.
“Google does search. Google does not do horoscopes, financial advice or chat.”
— “Ten things Google has found to be true,” circa June 2004