Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 22:21 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 550090
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-11-29
I think about it like this:
If company A has a bad quarter, then it makes sense to write about when they have a good quarter. A lot of analysis is done based off of these posts (Just not this one, because Google is a rather boring company to follow.).
I think some of the criticism is that when a company has a terrible quarter, the naysayers and dooms day people are out in full force. When they show signs of growth, its marginalized. When they have a stellar quarter, its not reported on.
I think its important to tell the whole story, because it may be indicative of a particular strategy working/not working. As much as I disagree with for example, the conclusions drawn when Nokia has a bad quarter, I know this is the very first place I go when the news breaks. Its fun.