My browser "Home" page has been a finance page for the last 10+ years and it's usually been Yahoo Finance. The page has been worsening and they made an update which caused it to suck beyond what I can take. The videos start to play and there is no info that I want. Google Finance is okay but not great.

What page do you go to as a Finance portal? Free only.

WSJ.com While not completely free, there is plenty on the site that is for non-subscribers.

Morningstar

quote:

---

WSJ.com While not completely free, there is plenty on the site that is for non-subscribers.

---

Many Chrome extensions have been created to bypass paywalls; including WSJ.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/

Finquiz... morning summaries are great too.

I'm a Bloomberg man. The free site is pretty solid as well.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Pretty sure that would violate the Aggie code of honor.

---

How? Copy/paste any WSJ article title into Google and you get it in-full from WSJ. They give it to you free for SEO. Extensions automate that process for you.

Not to mention this extension is in the Chrome Store. Which is subject to Google's terms and approved by Google.

---

Because Google is an unbiased arbiter of morality... Riiiiiiiight.

I'm pretty sure that loophole (via googling) has been closed. It's like $100 a year and is one of the few good news sources left. Just pay for it you cheap *******s. If everyone tries to get around it, it's going to go way of the dodo and your only news sources left are going to be online blogs and cable news websites.

Then the same people who are too cheap to pay for it today will complain that there aren't any good news sources left.

Bloomberg is the best

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Pretty sure that would violate the Aggie code of honor.

---

How? Copy/paste any WSJ article title into Google and you get it in-full from WSJ. They give it to you free for SEO. Extensions automate that process for you.

Not to mention this extension is in the Chrome Store. Which is subject to Google's terms and approved by Google.

---

Because Google is an unbiased arbiter of morality... Riiiiiiiight.

I'm pretty sure that loophole (via googling) has been closed. It's like $100 a year and is one of the few good news sources left. Just pay for it you cheap *******s. If everyone tries to get around it, it's going to go way of the dodo and your only news sources left are going to be online blogs and cable news websites.

Then the same people who are too cheap to pay for it today will complain that there aren't any good news sources left.

---

It's still open and I've been using it for years. Many other newspapers like the Chicago Tribune also have the same loophole.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Pretty sure that would violate the Aggie code of honor.

---

How? Copy/paste any WSJ article title into Google and you get it in-full from WSJ. They give it to you free for SEO. Extensions automate that process for you.

Not to mention this extension is in the Chrome Store. Which is subject to Google's terms and approved by Google.

---

Because Google is an unbiased arbiter of morality... Riiiiiiiight.

I'm pretty sure that loophole (via googling) has been closed. It's like $100 a year and is one of the few good news sources left. Just pay for it you cheap *******s. If everyone tries to get around it, it's going to go way of the dodo and your only news sources left are going to be online blogs and cable news websites.

Then the same people who are too cheap to pay for it today will complain that there aren't any good news sources left.

---

It's still open and I've been using it for years. Many other newspapers like the Chicago Tribune also have the same loophole.

---

Interesting. I thought they had closed it. Honest question - it doesn't bother you at all that you do that?

There is a dearth of quality news sources out there, so I reward the ones that have maintained some semblance of journalistic integrity (Economist, FT, WSJ). If we don't they'll be gone too. Just find it interesting that so many people loathe paywalls and do anything to find ways around them.

Obviously, if I was WSJ, I would put forth effort to close the loophole - but as a consumer, I don't mind paying for something from which I get a lot of value.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Pretty sure that would violate the Aggie code of honor.

---

How? Copy/paste any WSJ article title into Google and you get it in-full from WSJ. They give it to you free for SEO. Extensions automate that process for you.

Not to mention this extension is in the Chrome Store. Which is subject to Google's terms and approved by Google.

---

Because Google is an unbiased arbiter of morality... Riiiiiiiight.

I'm pretty sure that loophole (via googling) has been closed. It's like $100 a year and is one of the few good news sources left. Just pay for it you cheap *******s. If everyone tries to get around it, it's going to go way of the dodo and your only news sources left are going to be online blogs and cable news websites.

Then the same people who are too cheap to pay for it today will complain that there aren't any good news sources left.

---

It's still open and I've been using it for years. Many other newspapers like the Chicago Tribune also have the same loophole.

---

Interesting. I thought they had closed it. Honest question - it doesn't bother you at all that you do that?

There is a dearth of quality news sources out there, so I reward the ones that have maintained some semblance of journalistic integrity (Economist, FT, WSJ). If we don't they'll be gone too. Just find it interesting that so many people loathe paywalls and do anything to find ways around them.

Obviously, if I was WSJ, I would put forth effort to close the loophole - but as a consumer, I don't mind paying for something from which I get a lot of value.

---

You raise a good and difficult question.

At some level it does bother me because if we don't pay then they will die sooner or later. And I like having newspapers even though I don't read physical papers anymore. But on the other side, it is also true that the world is full of cut throat competition and everyone is out to eat everyone else's lunch. I have been blamed and impacted several times at work and have been cheated by managers and corporations I have been employed at. I know that I should not be making a connection because these are two different things, but then I am human and I end up doing this.

I think corporations which are slimy and unethical by nature should not expect consumers to be moral and ethical. They should either close the loophole or change their model to make money through ads. "stealing" is not cut and dry as it used to be earlier.

My family and I go to Barnes & Noble's and we read the magazines and browse through the books not always with the intention of buying. In fact I never buy magazines. But they allow people to sit and read and even provide couches. However, I do want the business to survive so whenever I have to gift books to a kid on his/her birthday, I purchase from B&N.

That's fair. It's not necessarily an easy question. The issue is that so many people avoid even asking the question. Everyone expects to get things of value for free - people wonder why cable news is so rotten. They can't afford to have journalistic integrity and survive as a business at that scale.

John Oliver has a skit about digital news sources that is quite good. Ironic that I linked to his show (generally paid HBO content) on YouTube, a free site. At least this is the official channel that they have monetized.

quote:

---

That's fair. It's not necessarily an easy question. The issue is that so many people avoid even asking the question. Everyone expects to get things of value for free - people wonder why cable news is so rotten. They can't afford to have journalistic integrity and survive as a business at that scale.

John Oliver has a skit about digital news sources that is quite good. Ironic that I linked to his show (generally paid HBO content) on YouTube, a free site. At least this is the official channel that they have monetized.

---

Buck, but if you think about it every kind of business has this experience. It starts of with all kinds of perks, it is seen as upscale, and then slowly as they gain more customers and become commonplace, it becomes cheaper and the standards fall. Flights were considered to be for the rich many decades ago. Today, it is no different from Greyhound in the air and fully commoditized.

So as consumers we have to think whether it is our responsibility to prop up a business. I think it is not. That is what the CEO is supposed to be doing and is paid millions to do so. The CEO should be wondering about the business model and how things are changing in the industry, not the consumer.

I think that this whole paywall thing is childish and silly. It is no different from pron nowadays. Just type in a female name like Melissa or Amber into bing and you will see loads of nudity and pron for free. If a website like Playboy thinks they can have a paywall, it is laughable. It's the same for news agencies. News is free and universal today, so the only way is to have good content and advertise on the site.

That WSJ popup is really an ad (Javascript running on top of the content), not a paywall.
A real paywall wouldn't load all the content & then try to cover it.

Oh, I'm not talking about propping up a business. I mean I am willing to pay for a service because most of society can't or won't demand useful news. If all you depend on is advertising, then you wind up with a ****ton of kardashian stories and stuff to get clicks. That's an indictment on our society, but will spell the end of useful news for intelligent people that can use it.

Some people say models like seeking alpha will prevail, but there is some absolute malarkey posted on places like that. I know our society is trending elsewhere, but I still feel like a peer-reviewed paper with an established editor still has a place in the world. If my paying a measly sum each year helps slow the takeover of BS Hollywood or "10 ways to know if you have incurable cancer in under 5 minutes" stories, then I'll keep paying it and hope enough other people do too.

quote:

---

Oh, I'm not talking about propping up a business. I mean I am willing to pay for a service because most of society can't or won't demand useful news. If all you depend on is advertising, then you wind up with a ****ton of kardashian stories and stuff to get clicks. That's an indictment on our society, but will spell the end of useful news for intelligent people that can use it.

Some people say models like seeking alpha will prevail, but there is some absolute malarkey posted on places like that. I know our society is trending elsewhere, but I still feel like a peer-reviewed paper with an established editor still has a place in the world. If my paying a measly sum each year helps slow the takeover of BS Hollywood or "10 ways to know if you have incurable cancer in under 5 minutes" stories, then I'll keep paying it and hope enough other people do too.

---

I think this is actually a very difficult question and no one has the answers as yet. What's a good business model for the internet age?

Corporations around the world are seen as evil blood-sucking entities. No one has any sympathy for them, and this is worldwide. So expecting people to not use loopholes to get what they can is asking for too much. The corporation has the prerogative to tighten up security and closing the loophole to protect themselves. I am pretty sure that they know about this but the problem is not so widespread that they will do something about it. Only tech-geeks know and care to use it, everyone else just pays or avoids the site.

I also feel that there is no clear-cut right or wrong today. If I hacked their website then I would be clearly wrong. Using this loophole, I don't consider it wrong. I don't even feel bad for them. If corporations treated people well, then I most likely would. I would not use a loophole at a charitable institution.

For example, we have a temple close to home that we visit every few months. We buy tokens for mango lassi (a drink) and the lady gives you a cup that you go and fill up. Now technically you can go and get refills even through they have a sign which says you cannot refill. No one will know and you can get away with it every time. In this case, I would not use the loophole because the institution does many good things for people and helps poor kids through school so my conscience would not allow that.

A corporation like WSJ or CT? Sure. I know that this is a very personal decision.

quote:

---

That WSJ popup is really an ad (Javascript running on top of the content), not a paywall.
A real paywall wouldn't load all the content & then try to cover it.

---

I think WSJ lets you read 3-4 articles for free and then applies the paywall. I think there is a time period associated with it so if you go in the next day, you can read a few articles free before it comes up again.

http://www.finviz.com/

the home page has a ton of info crammed in on a single page and it's all free, probably as close to a bbg home screen as you can get for $0.

quote:

---

http://www.finviz.com/

the home page has a ton of info crammed in on a single page and it's all free, probably as close to a bbg home screen as you can get for $0.

---

Thanks F&F, hadn't heard of it, will check it out.

Yahoo finance was a great site for many years. It is terrible now. Every time I go there now I miss what it used to be.