When you find a planet in a habitable zone around a G2V star that isn't tidally-locked, has a year approaching ours, and a mass somewhere in the same range as ours, then I'll be interested.
I think the folks responsible for searching for extra-solar planets need to more closely define the word "habitable". A planet that is tidally-locked (ie doesn't rotate) to an M3V star, with a year of only 34 days, and two to three times the mass of Earth does not seem to me to be "habitable" -- at least not by beings like ourselves.
If you want to call it "potentially life-supporting", I'll buy that...but "habitable" should be reserved for planets where humans would be comfortable.
Sounds like a cubicle I was once assigned to.