The old charts were a lot easier to read.
old charts were a lot easier to read for a semi-novice like me. the moving averages are obscured, e.g., the 4ema. details like that were crystal clear in the old charts.
61 commentsComments are closed
Stephen Castellano commented
Where are the stock price figures on the expanded charts? All I see is percentages -- these new charts are missing some basic information.
Jim Richardson commented
Generally the new charts have a lot of nice features, but I think Yahoo needs to have a stable version on their website rather then what seems to be a beta version that is always changing with problems popping up occasionally.
For instance, today, Nov 29, 2017, a very old and intermittent problem is occurring again. On a candle chart I see the candle for 11-27, followed by the candle for 11-29, with Tuesday 11-28 missing.
Why does this problem keep recurring? Because you are beta testing with your live website?
Matthew Feeney commented
I disagree. I think the new charts with more functionality are very nice. Yes, there a few items that need to be brought back, but, overall, I like the new charts. One thing I would like back is the ability to change the thickness of the line(s) for indicators. For example, I'd like to have a 3pt wide line for the 200MA and a standard 1pt line for 50MA.
Anders Smedbäck commented
The answer to Yahoos own question"How can we improve ..."? Answer - You cant. The best improvement You can bring about is: "The best if You honestly want "improve" is - STOP THE IMPROVEMENTS".
Besides - the new design is way too complicated for me. I dont understand anymore or what values should be inserted = now useless to me..
So I can only appeal - probably in vain if handled by people not understanding differrence between basic notions like change and improve etc - to let people who want that get back access
to the old charts?
Anders Smedbäck commented
Yahoo states constantly strive for improvements. But the concept "improvement" does certainly not equals "change". Most Changes in our World=deterioration. So one has to be very careful when/if changing things since there seem to be a mania in our time to change as much as possible and as rapidly as possible without proper consideration? In particular very important not to change things that already works Close to perfection? In such cases the NEED for change is almost insignificant? Risk for deterioration is also skyhigh. Don´t wise people agree and in such a choice speaks for status quo?
Shouldn´t such a stand be the rule and the exception to change?
The concept of improvement also means the scale in the perfect end has a Point where improvements are no longer possible? Change applies only to some things. A methafor could be for instance the old Egyptian pyramids. If you have reached the top - you cant get higher?Further "Improvements" in that matter is impossible?
The old charts were, to my mind, very Close to the pyramids top. The new reprepresents a major slip/slide downwards = deterioration.
I dont have English as my native language so that also make it much hard when these entierly unnecessary Changes occur. Change have seldom an intrinsicvalue, as have already achieved almost topdesigns. Change, in itself, is a very inferior value compared to Close to topdesigns?
For me the new designs destroyed 75% of what i could do with the old ones. I practically cant use the new ones - which makes me very sad.
If one ticker on the old charts over lapped another ticker's info, you could "ghost" (temporarily hide) the first ticker, allowing you to read the 2nd ticker's data. This seems to be missing on the new charts.
This feature would save having to delete the first ticker, read the 2nd ticker, then go through re-entering the first ticker, re-selecting its color & its line width, and re-saving it.
j.w. carpenter commented
poor quality data
Why no co. names in the finance page. Who can remember all the symbols.
Please return to the old charts. Tks
R Hnath commented
Are these new charts a cost cutting measure? They definitely are NOT an improvement over the old charts, so cost cutting appears to be the only reason for their introduction.
It seems Yahoo finance doesn't care for our comments ... most people want the old charts back, or at least one of its features.. but yet, nothing happens..
Bye Bye Chart DUMP IQ!
Good riddance Yahoo Fiance. You lost a faithful client.
stupid yahoo programmer with new chart unreadable not user friendly. Idiot will only know how to read the new chart. Sayonara Yahoo. go elsewhere better.
Harry Maltby commented
Why do you not just take down this feedback feature since you are trying to put a bandage on something that must have everyone totally frustrated. You are picking needles out of a mountain and what type of life is that. I worked on the Space Shuttle as an Electrical Project Engineer and I would have been released immediately if I was getting feedback like this.
zunish zehra commented
I am unable to sees the complete chart with event trendy effects.
P Hidalgo commented
Some of the new changes are good. I like being able to move the price chart back and forward, and I like the additional data time frame provided, but really would love to have candlestick charting option back.
Jenny Givney commented
Change is only good if it's BETTER, it's Not. People were happy with the old charts. It's not rocket science, go back to what people were happy with otherwise you aren't going to have any people to make happy! I can't even get the charts, they won't load.
Disgusting, arrogant. No consideration for people taking the time to give feedback. chartIQ is a disaster. NO DATA, NO CHART, NOTHING. This is how you killed a a working product )yaho chart) and ***** on your client.
Dan Taylor commented
yahoo's new chart format has encouraged me to look elsewhere. two biggest complaints are 1.) can't make volume disappear, 2.) indicator, data box for one doesn't seem to carry over to next
Ken Jones commented
I use moving averages & now find it far more difficult to check a MA for a past date. Also, when a MA for the current date is covered by another reading, it's impossible to find the precise MA I may be looking for.