You have to wonder how much people really know about the industry of the internet when a company like Yahoo is perennially referred to as "flagging" or "underperforming."
Yahoo has been around from the begining, and has had pretty solid, steady growth, almost uninterupted. They survived the dot-bust, re-orgnaised, and kept making money.
They have a large stable of web properties that tick away without having to be overly managed. Yahoo Groups, along with Yahoo Instant Messenger, their web based chat rooms have meshed seemelessly with the YIM client chat for a decade, along with Geocities and a raft of other features, make them arguably the first, and possibly largest social network around.
Their newsgroups work like a charm, and they've had customizable personal homepages for longer than just about anyone. Their webmail is a bit clunky, but is still well within the top 10, if not top 5 for usability and features, not to mention the massive "installed user base" (ok, "installed" isn't the right word for web based email, but you know what I mean).
They get huge page views, and their content is sticky. The last stats I read indicate that they have a higher page view/month than google, and the time on page per view is much higher than google.
Why do analysts keep whupping on Yahoo with snide remarks like "flagging" and "underperforming" etc. etc.?
Yahoo is a solid, profitable, growing outfit. In any other industry, they would be a darling of the analysts.