Talk:Intuit Mint

Websites: Computing B‑class Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Potential for expansion

is this an ad? there should be articles on other similar websites like wesabe.com,or expensr.com and Geezeo.com to balance things out.98.195.185.125 15:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Was this post written by Aaron himself or the marketing department at Intuit? I guess they have to justify overpaying for this load of shite website. It is all "Look at us", "We did this!" "Are you not proud of us?" What a load of saleshack crap. I want the last three minutes of my life back.

I agree, there should be pages created for the other free personal finance type applications as well. --05runner (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and create them. :) --יהושועEric (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel this is an ad. I was already aware of the site, but being unfamiliar with it I came here looking for a NPOV explaination of it's reliability/security. I agree information on other sites should be added. Yoda of Borg (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added the NPOV tag to the discussion about the security of the site, as it definitely doesn't read as neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.142 (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not an ad... Dmarquard (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could benefit from some expert info on the controversial "limited power of attorney" clause in the terms, section 9. I, like many others, don't speak legalese, and rely on wikipedia to give me the gist of things.

For purposes of this Agreement and solely to provide the Account Information to you as part of the Service, you grant Mint a limited power of attorney, and appoint Mint as your attorney-in-fact and agent, to access third party sites, retrieve and use your information with the full power and authority to do and perform each thing necessary in connection with such activities, as you could do in person. YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT WHEN MINT IS ACCESSING AND RETRIEVING ACCOUNT INFORMATION FROM THIRD PARTY SITES, MINT IS ACTING AS YOUR AGENT, AND NOT AS THE AGENT OF OR ON BEHALF OF THE THIRD PARTY. You understand and agree that the Service is not sponsored or endorsed by any third parties accessible through the Service.

NPOV

I removed a paragraph with some pretty heavy POV about the security of the site, calling the creators "dishonest" and saying they "should" worry more about security. 74.92.148.250 (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section on "security concerns" is really low on information of any kind. It mentions the association with Yodlee as if it were a negative thing - to me, if anything, that's a big plus for it's reputation... I'll be tempted to remove the security concerns section alltogether if some citations don't show up. JoshDuffMan (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and agree with the need for NPOV, but I don't feel security information should be removed. I came here looking for a NPOV explaination/discussion of any security/reputability issues there might be. If someone familiar with "Yodlee" or any of mint.com's security holes could put information here, I think there should be a security section. Yoda of Borg (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came here looking for unbiased information about the site's security, too. Yodlee#Privacy looks relevant, and a little scary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.62.174 (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.62.174 (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Awards" section seemed like ad copy, I unified the formatting but I'm a little worried. At what point does a list of awards begin to violate WP:NOT? Greg Ravn (talk) 06:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion Needs

Several sections including awards, finances, and security concerns need expansion. Please make an effort to help this article get better. --יהושועEric (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Competitors

I removed the Competitors section. It was, and has been, a marketing tool for Mint's competitors, none of which have a "competitors" section of their own. It is inappropriate for Mint's entry. There is already a Comparison_of_personal_financial_management_online_tools. That is the appropriate location for a comprehensive list of competitors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Octavecat (talk • contribs) 05:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

There is a variety of criticism regarding this product and should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.148.31 (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too impressed by the allegations of security issues, but I will offer the following criticism. It stems from Mint's site scraping strategy, and their ability or inability to respond to protocol changes on the sites they support. It is not unusual to suddenly lose access to one or more of your accounts, and the time it takes for Mint to update their software can be weeks or even months. This appears to point to a lack of a coherent strategy for responding to updates. Mint's logical long term strategy is to partner with the financial institutions in question, but whether this strategy will succeed is unclear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddssff (talk • contribs) 15:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lying Press Releases vs. Original Research

There is a sentence near the beginning of the article that reads as follows: "On April 19, 2010, Mint.com announced expansion in its reach to connect securely and to download transactions from virtually every bank, credit union and credit card account in the United States with online banking capability."

I recently tried Mint.com because Quicken just shut down their own online service. Mint.com could not connect like Quicken could with my accounts at the following:

Bank of America
Chase
Navy Federal Credit Union (the largest credit union in the country)
ING Direct

I know, I know this is all original research, blah blah blah. But the rather strong claim in the current article relies on dead link from MarketWatch.

MarketWatch does present some original articles and analysis but the vast majority of their content is reprinted press releases.

Now I'm not saying my original research should be in the article but neither should a presumed press release, in my opinion. What do others think about striking this sentence until Mint's connections with banks is established one way or the other by an independent source?RevelationDirect (talk) 03:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]