Tags:

Share:
Twitter
Facebook

NYT registration wall, zarq's solution.
September 13, 2010 11:18 AM Subscribe

Zarq appears to have offered up a solution to the NYT registration wall in this thread.

I made a free New York Times account for anyone who wants to read the story and can't access it without registering. (I could read it without logging in.)

name: nytmefi
password: metafilter
posted by zarq at 10:25 AM on September 13 [3 favorites -] [!]

Assuming it remains usable, it seems like a wonderful idea, and one we might usefully publicize in NYT related threads to avoid a fair bit of grumbling.

posted by Ahab to MetaFilter-Related at 11:18 AM (134 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

I always made use of noamchomsky/noamchomsky myself, and I remember someone in metafilter posting that combo ages ago.
posted by ShawnStruck at 11:20 AM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

This is an old solution is does not change the fact that it's a ridiculous extra step to play ball with a corporation that doesn't want to play ball back. If they want to be part of the online conversation let them join it honestly.
posted by DU at 11:21 AM on September 13, 2010 [2 favorites]

There have been a number of these mefi-related accounts created over the years and they all work for a while and then stop working.
posted by enn at 11:22 AM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

Is there nothing Zarq can't do?
posted by crunchland at 11:23 AM on September 13, 2010

NYT got you frustrated? Has your favorite periodical published content online... but behind a registration wall? Well, folks, I've got a solution for you!

My one of a kind product, Throw-Away Email Address™ (patent pending), takes care of all your registration-wall woes! It's customizable, and unique to your personality and desires! It's free, easy, and lifetime guaranteed to never wear out. Just MeMail 19.99USD to user carsonb and instantly receive your free Throw-Away Email Address™!
posted by carsonb at 11:27 AM on September 13, 2010 [10 favorites]

Awww. Just like old times.
posted by Gator at 11:28 AM on September 13, 2010

Bugmenot also is a longstanding trick around those (very low walls). Really, is it going to kill you to use a webmail account to sign up to view some news? The NYT is by no means perfect, but there is a lot of content there. Before the web if you wanted to read something other than your own town's rag you had to pony up for it. The sense of entitlement is childish.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:30 AM on September 13, 2010 [15 favorites]

Is there nothing Zarq can't do?

Keep a low profile, apparently. ;)
posted by zarq at 11:32 AM on September 13, 2010 [6 favorites]

> If they want to be part of the online conversation let them join it honestly.

How is it dishonest? The don't want to be part of a conversation, they set the conversation (within certain limits). Then they let people have horrible conversations in the comments sections.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:32 AM on September 13, 2010 [3 favorites]

If I recall correctly, there have been problems with shared accounts historically. I used to offer one of these on my own blog and someone, not being terribly clear on the concept, paid for something when they were logged in using the shared account. This instantly made the account into one with an attached credit card which made the user, upon realizing this, nearly hysterical. We straightened it out [I had to close the account at the time, there was no way to un-credit-card the damned thing] but I think shared accounts solve some problems and create other ones. In general, people can use bug me not or something and handle it that way.

And just for the record, linking to stuff behind a PAYwall is generally not okay. Linking to something behind a "register here" wall, is annoying as hell, but generally okay though if people make a habit of it, we'd like to ask them to consider finding other things to link to.

Me personally, I get a little tired of relentless NYTimes linking regardless of the pay/register status of the link. It's a big internet out there.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:32 AM on September 13, 2010 [2 favorites]

> Me personally, I get a little tired of relentless NYTimes linking regardless of the pay/register status of the link. It's a big internet out there.

Indeed. And come 2011, the old gray lady probably won't get linked very much around these parts anymore.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:33 AM on September 13, 2010 [2 favorites]

This is an old solution is does not change the fact that it's a ridiculous extra step to play ball with a corporation that doesn't want to play ball back.

I've got to admit that I'm baffled by this attitude, which I've seen repeatedly here and elsewhere on the internet. So one creates an account. So what? What, precisely, does it cost , other than the 60 seconds it takes to create an account?

I mean, seriously, get over yourselves. The Times spends millions of dollars generating often-excellent content, and they're not even asking readers to pay for it-- they just want people to register. What's the big fucking deal? Are people afraid you're kowtowing to "the Man" or something?

Or are people with this attitude worried about spam? I don't think I've ever received a single piece of email from the NY times, and I've had an account for years. (A decade, maybe? Not sure how long, precisely.) If you don't want them to have your email address, just create another one. I'm sure "disgruntled_internetter_nytimes at gmail" or some other free email service is available. OH NOES THAT MIGHT BE ANOTHER 60 SECONDS OF YOUR TIME, but guess what, almost nobody's time is actually that valuable. Certainly nobody who's taking the time to actually, y'know, read this comment.
posted by dersins at 11:34 AM on September 13, 2010 [42 favorites]

I once fell off my bike and scratched my leg pretty bad. Zarq arrived with bandaids, antiseptic, a meat pie, a bottle of whiskey, an iPad, an ounce of gold, a BMW 323i and the military's secret space shuttle. It made everything all better..
posted by nomadicink at 11:34 AM on September 13, 2010 [4 favorites]

Ah, it would seem that the NYT will make exceptions to their new policy for referral links. We don't have to tell anyone that, though.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:37 AM on September 13, 2010

"honest" not as the opposite to "dishonest" but as the opposite to "simulated". A one-way conversation is not a conversation. NYT, with their registration (and re-registration and re-re-registration) is That Guy who only ever talks to you to push some product and can't even remember your name. Yes, it is possible to just pretend that really is your name and nod and smile until he leaves but wouldn't we be better off if he just didn't do that?
posted by DU at 11:38 AM on September 13, 2010

Heh, someone did this way back when I was still a wee lurker. Got much use of it back then, and hey it still works! Name/password = mefi1/mefi1
posted by yellowbinder at 11:42 AM on September 13, 2010

> "honest" not as the opposite to "dishonest" but as the opposite to "simulated". A one-way conversation is not a conversation. NYT, with their registration (and re-registration and re-re-registration) is That Guy who only ever talks to you to push some product and can't even remember your name. Yes, it is possible to just pretend that really is your name and nod and smile until he leaves but wouldn't we be better off if he just didn't do that?

I really have no idea how you got so many favorites.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:43 AM on September 13, 2010

Sometimes, when I'm playing Halo and suddenly encounter half a dozen Grunts and I only have Rocket Launcher and the Plasma Cannon, I pause and ask myself "What would Zarq do?" It is only then that I realize that lobbing a grenade is the one, true answer.
posted by nomadicink at 11:44 AM on September 13, 2010 [3 favorites]

I don't know how this got turned around to be about me. Maybe I should force people to register to reply to me and that'd earn me a bunch of "he's got to earn money SOMEHOW" love.
posted by DU at 11:47 AM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

Sometimes, when I'm playing Halo and suddenly encounter half a dozen Grunts and I only have Rocket Launcher and the Plasma Cannon, I pause and ask myself "What would Zarq do?" It is only then that I realize that lobbing a grenade is the one, true answer.

I pretend they're goombas and jump on their heads.
posted by shakespeherian at 11:48 AM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

Hey guys I just made an account at DU.com if you want to read and comment on his comments.

it's login: Meatf
password: pitchforks
posted by Potomac Avenue at 11:52 AM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

dersins: DU, and others like he, believe that newspapers use this info about you as a demographic to sell you (in some abstract way) as a product. They hate the idea that they are a product, and therefore say no thank you.

They offer no solutions as to how a newspaper is supposed to exist without selling anything to anyone, beyond a sort of shruggy "they should think of something soon because otherwise they're going to die out lol" before going back to lamenting the low quality of all the free information available to them at all times.

It's a matter, you see, of principal.

Everyone is entitled to everything for free on the internet, didn't you get the memo? it started with the free music (record companies are terrible for wanting to sell the music). then it was the free books and the free records.

Its all in the first amendment, which says that everything is free!!!!!
posted by Ironmouth at 11:52 AM on September 13, 2010 [3 favorites]

It's a matter, you see, of principal.

I disagree — it's a matter of interest!
posted by Mister_A at 11:53 AM on September 13, 2010 [5 favorites]

> Hey guys I just made an account at DU.com if you want to read and comment on his comments.

He looks very stylish texting wearing a ghutra...
posted by Burhanistan at 11:55 AM on September 13, 2010

It's a capitol idea, but whose to say what the affects will be?
posted by Potomac Avenue at 11:56 AM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

Why is every thread this week turning into a giant argument laden with sarcasm and refusals to lend benefit of doubt?
posted by shakespeherian at 11:57 AM on September 13, 2010 [3 favorites]

This seems as good a place as any to half-heartedly complain that I thought that today's NYT FPP was fairly weak. It's a mostly-interesting concept, but the story was thin and it seems barely worthy of the front page.

As jessamyn pointed out, it's a big internet out there. Can we just assume that everyone is already widely reading and disseminating the lifestyle articles in one of the world's most prominent dailies?

Also, I'm a little sick and feeling rather curmudgeonly today, so please take this extremely mild umbrage mildly.

I'm wondering now if it's bad form to bring up a different post in a MeTa, other than the one being called out. But I've already typed all this, and with the HTML too, so.
posted by pineapple at 11:58 AM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

Why is every thread this week turning into a giant argument laden with sarcasm and refusals to lend benefit of doubt?

It's not just this week.
posted by zarq at 11:59 AM on September 13, 2010 [3 favorites]

It is quite possible that it's just me/confirmation bias/whatever, but it seems really awful lately.
posted by shakespeherian at 12:03 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

9/11 changed everything.
posted by nomadicink at 12:07 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

This is a ridiculous idea. I'll never understand this kind of helplessness. "Ooooh, I need somebody to create a shared account for me to use, otherwise I couldn't possibly read these articles, it's just soooo hard." mailinator. 20 seconds to create an account, and login once. After that you never have to do anything -- you don't even have to remember a login name or password because the nytimes cookie doesn't expire. If you forget it, just create another.
posted by Rhomboid at 12:08 PM on September 13, 2010 [4 favorites]

Why is every thread this week turning into a giant argument laden with sarcasm and refusals to lend benefit of doubt?

If we're talking about MetaTalk, I humbly suggest part of the problem is the threads being allowed to stay open long past the point where they might have been useful or helpful.
posted by Gator at 12:11 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

MetaTalk, but also things like this.
posted by shakespeherian at 12:13 PM on September 13, 2010

dersins: "If you don't want them to have your email address, just create another one. I'm sure "disgruntled_internetter_nytimes at gmail" or some other free email service is available. OH NOES THAT MIGHT BE ANOTHER 60 SECONDS OF YOUR TIME"

Or you could just use Spam Gourmet, which has been meeting my disposable email needs for the last decade and has probably saved me days in those sixty second increments.
posted by the latin mouse at 12:21 PM on September 13, 2010 [6 favorites]

...I humbly suggest part of the problem is the threads being allowed to stay open long past the point where they might have been useful or helpful

It's up to us to not act like jackasses and turn MeTa to complete shit. Do we really want the mods deciding when a thread should be closed? Do we really need that?
posted by nomadicink at 12:22 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

Sometimes it sure seems like we do. Especially the ones where the people with no self-control or concern for the community are allowed to grar it out until somebody pushes the button.
posted by Gator at 12:25 PM on September 13, 2010

But really it seems like (and I'm sure I've contributed to this) there's developed or developing a culture of too-cool-for-schoolism that's pretty analogous to firsties in a lot of other online communities. Someone wants to be the first person in a thread to shit on something in a creative or humorous fashion, whether it's a lazy 'news at eleven' comment or argument with what they assume the linked article is about based on the title or whatever. I know this has been a thing for a while, possibly going back to the very beginning of MetaFilter (if not Time Itself), but some kind of unpleasant conjunction of this and the growing userbase and maybe some difficult-to-quantify bad vibes based on any number of factors (unemployment, Sarah Palin, 9/11, not enough movies about astronauts) seems to have made pretty much every topic contentious and GRARy and everyone seems pretty on-edge. I dunno.
posted by shakespeherian at 12:30 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

If we're talking about MetaTalk, I humbly suggest part of the problem is the threads being allowed to stay open long past the point where they might have been useful or helpful.

How long would that window be? 45 seconds? 5 minutes?
posted by sonika at 12:33 PM on September 13, 2010

Ok, how can we have less of that? I'm not being snarky, just curious if anyone has any ideas.
posted by nomadicink at 12:33 PM on September 13, 2010

I really don't know, other than to try to encourage people on an individual basis as the need arises to do less of it.
posted by shakespeherian at 12:43 PM on September 13, 2010

I'm going to say this, then duck out of the thread. Precedent has proven to me that a severe lack of sleep + stress + MeTa is a bad combination for me.

I tried to make a small, helpful gesture. In doing so I wasn't trying to make some sort of abstract meta comment about the New York Times, it's registration policies, internet advertising, big corporations or the state of the newspaper industry. Some folks in the original thread couldn't read the article and didn't seem to be aware of possible work-arounds. If I have the ability to help someone out and there's no real harm being done and it costs me nothing to do so but a couple of minutes of my time, then I honestly don't see a down side.
posted by zarq at 12:45 PM on September 13, 2010 [9 favorites]

I can not wait for the NYT to go back behind a paywall.
posted by stoneweaver at 12:52 PM on September 13, 2010

To this day whenever I encounter a login to enter a walled site, I still find myself trying "cypherpunk" as both the username and password. Surprisingly it still sometimes works.
posted by quin at 12:55 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

How long would that window be? 45 seconds? 5 minutes?

Not saying anything should be set in stone or automated, but I certainly think that once a contentious MeTa thread reaches, say, the 100-comment mark, it might benefit from a close look from the mods as to whether anything good is likely to be accomplished by letting the grar continue. I realize they don't want a barrage of emails about "shutting down the discussion" or "OMG CENXXORSHIP," but how does that weigh against the bad feeling that comes out of a lot of these threads?

Ok, how can we have less of that? I'm not being snarky, just curious if anyone has any ideas.

I said this in another thread recently, and the mods actually seemed sort of cautiously amenable to the idea, that a little bit more visible mod disapproval of jerkish behavior would go a long way. My point is NOT that we need heavier moderation or more deletions, necessarily, but the thing is, we are getting a lot of new users these days, and new users will take their cues from what they SEE. They don't see the behind-the-scenes moderation that occurs, the emails and MeMails that the mods engage in with people who might be crapping up the site or having a bad day and taking it out on us. If new users see a thread full of grarcops, grarjuggalos, grarChristians, people being snide and quick to assume the least-charitable interpretation of others' words, they're going to think that's what's okay and normal here. A few more judiciously-placed mod notes to the effect of "[Could everybody chill out please]" without actually "censoring" the discourse might be helpful reminders not to screw up the great thing we've got going here.

TL;DR: Some people are always going to be jerks until an authority figure tells them not to be.
posted by Gator at 12:55 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

Do we really want the mods deciding when a thread should be closed? Do we really need that?

We've talked about closing each and every problematic thread recently and decided that for the most part, leaving them open was a better idea. No one has to read them, none of them have turned into super shitstorms [any more than they were when they started] and at some level if people are angry and want to have an argumentative discussion, doing it here is better than doing it in the thread. I, too, feel that people seem to be extra pissed off, but maybe that's just my own feelings. Not making things worse is my main priority at the moment. A higher priority even than being correct, or being amusing, or this job being simple.

I'm sure I've contributed to this

Not calling out shakespeherian (who is not on my radar for any reason other than just having said this), but honestly if you admit that you are part of the problem and yet you wonder why everyone ELSE can't seem to keep it together, I'd just sort of work on your own responses first. And use the flag queue, and go for a walk if you're getting that "I am bashing my head against a WALL talking to you people" feeling. And realizing that other people are not having such great days either, and sometimes it's a kindness to let them just be cranky instead of chastizing them for their word choice.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:55 PM on September 13, 2010 [2 favorites]

"Can we just assume that everyone is already widely reading and disseminating the lifestyle articles in one of the world's most prominent dailies?"

No, sorry. I only read NYT articles if they're linked elsewhere.
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 1:03 PM on September 13, 2010 [3 favorites]

nomadicink: "I once fell off my bike and scratched my leg pretty bad. Zarq arrived with bandaids, antiseptic, a meat pie, a bottle of whiskey, an iPad, an ounce of gold, a BMW 323i and the military's secret space shuttle. It made everything all better."

what

wh~

what was the ounce of gold for?
posted by boo_radley at 1:03 PM on September 13, 2010

Taking a step that has tempted and terrified much of the newspaper industry, The New York Times announced on Wednesday that it would charge some frequent readers for access to its Web site

"I've given it a great deal of thought, and I think I've finally figured out a way to save our struggling newspaper."

"My struggling newspaper."

"Of course, sir; how silly of me."

"Quite alright. Now, let's hear this plan of yours, shall we?"

"Yes. Well, you know all those people who come back to our website--"

"My website."

"You know all those people who keep coming back to your website again and again to access its precious content?"

"Why, of course. My loyal readers."

"Yes, precisely. Your loyal readers. Well, I've come up with a foolproof plan to solve that problem once and for all, and finally get something out of those freeloading cheapskates."

"Oh, bother. It's not one of those cockamamie advertising schemes, is it?"

"Heavens, no! I call it a LOYALTY PENALTY."

"A LOYALTY PENALTY?"

"Yes, a LOYALTY PENALTY. Basically, we'd charge people a fee to access our precious content--"

"But surely we already do that."

"Indeed, sir, but on top of the initial charge, we'd add a LOYALTY PENALTY. The more they return to the website, the more we'd charge."

"But of course! A LOYALTY PENALTY! Why, it's positively ingenious!"

"Thank you, sir. I try."

"How soon can we get this LOYALTY PENALTY plan of yours implemented?"

"By my estimate, sir, it should take no less than a year."

"A year? Is that all? I would hate to rush it through too quickly. It would be a shame if the LOYALTY PENALTY were to appear half-baked."

"Oh, but one year is just the minimum. It may well take us far more time than that to fully integrate the LOYALTY PENALTY."

"And more money, I'd expect?"

"But of course, sir!"

"Excellent! I do believe I'll give this LOYALTY PENALTY of yours my enthusiastic approval! I'll have Public Relations write up a press release straight away."

"Oh, thank you, Mr Shitforbrains!"

"No, thank you, Mr Dumbfuck!"
posted by Sys Rq at 1:04 PM on September 13, 2010 [7 favorites]

I'm pretty sure I signed up for my nytimes.com account at least 11 years ago, since they still think I have an email address that I haven't used since 1999.
posted by zsazsa at 1:12 PM on September 13, 2010

I've got to admit that I'm baffled by this attitude, which I've seen repeatedly here and elsewhere on the internet. So one creates an account. So what? What, precisely, does it cost, other than the 60 seconds it takes to create an account?

Well, not to be too fine a point on it... there's your answer. My 60 seconds, multiplied by the number of places that force me to create an account, multiplied by the chance that they'll unilaterally change their end-user license that they change at their whim, added to the fact that most places that make you sign up for an account have a less sterling no-spam reputation than the NYT.

It's a pain in the ass that doesn't benefit me or the NYT ("Oh look!" says their editor, rubbing his hands together in glee, "rob34587634@hotmail.com is now within our talons! Surely our advertisers will pay us more for being able to link him to a totally anonymous piece of identifying information!"), and it's easily defeated by installing BugMeNot. Some people don't use FireFox, and might benefit from having this sort of thing added to FPPs that point to something behind a login wall erected for no purpose. Everybody wins, with the possibility of the website whose profit model apparently depends on the cooperation of people who are so annoyed by their premise that they go out of their way to circumvent it.

The irony of the time savings from BugMeNot being totally eclipsed by the time it took me to compose this screed has not been totally lost upon me
posted by Mayor West at 1:13 PM on September 13, 2010 [4 favorites]

> It's a pain in the ass that doesn't benefit me or the NYT ("Oh look!" says their editor, rubbing his hands together in glee, "rob34587634@hotmail.com is now within our talons! Surely our advertisers will pay us more for being able to link him to a totally anonymous piece of identifying information!"),

I think they just want to know what zipcode you're in.
posted by Burhanistan at 1:15 PM on September 13, 2010

what was the ounce of gold for?

A hobby.
posted by nomadicink at 1:21 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

but honestly if you admit that you are part of the problem and yet you wonder why everyone ELSE can't seem to keep it together, I'd just sort of work on your own responses first

Yeah I'm definitely not trying to paint myself as blameless, and I have been attempting not to enter into most of the more GRARy discussions and to take a walk when I find myself in one. So I certainly don't mean to say 'Why am I the only good person on MetaFilter?' Mostly I've been noticing what appears to be a greater number of threads that I don't want to participate in for exactly these reasons, and my nonparticipation can only help this so much, and while I realize I of course don't have to read or participate in any given thread, I think things are generally better when folks are having fun and not fights.
posted by shakespeherian at 1:24 PM on September 13, 2010

I think they just want to know what zipcode you're in

Ah, like Radio Shack. Those bastards. I wonder if they've noticed an uptick in people from Beverly Hills, or Schenectady, NY (of ZIP code 12345 fame).
posted by Mayor West at 1:25 PM on September 13, 2010

Sing Your Address To This Tune
posted by not_on_display at 1:30 PM on September 13, 2010

I could have sworn I'd read it somewhere on MeFi before, but you can also use username: false/password:false to log in. On searching, I see that this workaround was posted in 2006 and again in 2009, along with an alternative everyone/everyone login.
posted by specialagentwebb at 1:52 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

what was the ounce of gold for?

I think it may have been gold from Acapulco.
posted by hippybear at 1:55 PM on September 13, 2010

The Shack no longer interrogates its victims re: zip codes. They have reached an asymptotic slope in terms of zip-code-based advances in knowledge.
posted by Mister_A at 1:57 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

what was the ounce of gold for?

I was assuming it was Kona gold.
posted by rtha at 2:00 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

pineapple writes "Can we just assume that everyone is already widely reading and disseminating the lifestyle articles in one of the world's most prominent dailies?"

Ya, No.

Gator writes "Not saying anything should be set in stone or automated, but I certainly think that once a contentious MeTa thread reaches, say, the 100-comment mark, it might benefit from a close look from the mods as to whether anything good is likely to be accomplished by letting the grar continue."

I'm a big ol' anti fan of this idea as it'll bias significant policy discussion to PST-EST daytime office working residents.
posted by Mitheral at 2:07 PM on September 13, 2010 [2 favorites]

"Ya, No."

Well then, I certainly look forward to continued Best of the NYT substituting for Best of the Web.

Maybe someone can write a Greasemonkey script that will block crappy SLNYT FPPs for me.
posted by pineapple at 2:18 PM on September 13, 2010

I was assuming it was Kona gold.

That's marijuana, right? Because it makes more sense if it's marijuana.
posted by heyho at 2:19 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

(And not the racehorse.)
posted by heyho at 2:20 PM on September 13, 2010

Not saying anything should be set in stone or automated, but I certainly think that once a contentious MeTa thread reaches, say, the 100-comment mark, it might benefit from a close look from the mods as to whether anything good is likely to be accomplished by letting the grar continue.

Honestly, I'd be surprised if they didn't already do that.

It's a grey line though. The sexism threads might have closed following the above guideline, so it I can easily see it getting tricky. Plus, shutting down grary people in the midst of their grar might cause blowback of some sort or hurt grary feelings being carried elsewhere.
posted by nomadicink at 2:20 PM on September 13, 2010

Metafilter: a giant argument laden with sarcasm and refusals to lend benefit of doubt
posted by John Cohen at 2:23 PM on September 13, 2010

Having thought it a bit more, my only "solution" to being less grary is to be the change you wish to see, while keeping things in perspective. Does MeTa seem a bit more darker these days? Maybe, but these things happen, sometimes it's sunshine and sometimes it's rain. Sort of like life. Keeping riding the roller coaster, you'll get a different view soon enough.

It's ok to be angry or upset some aspect as what has happened on the site and MeTa is the place to bring that if you need. Just remember that other humans are here also and just because you're angry that doesn't give you the right to treat people like crap. Keep it in perspective i.e. while your issue may be very important, you can always walk away from the computer and get a tasty beverage and a bit of sunshine. There's only 4 people in the world that Metafilter should be super important to, i.e. the mods and even they try to have lives. So yeah, perspective.

I'm rambling now. I should go, I have an ounce of gold to play with.
posted by nomadicink at 2:40 PM on September 13, 2010

That's marijuana, right?

Yes.

I mean, no! It's a special blend of coffee! I don't know anything about maryjuwana!
posted by rtha at 2:43 PM on September 13, 2010 [2 favorites]

Huh. See, that's what happens when you read MeTa in the morning. While many of you saw What Would Zarq Do? and thought it was a just, fair question, one that could guide you through life, I misread it as

What Would Zergs Do?

Of course, there's only one answer. They'd rush. I'm not sure that rushing is always the best answer.
posted by Ghidorah at 2:45 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

Basically, where are my kruggerands is what I want to know.
posted by boo_radley at 2:54 PM on September 13, 2010

What happens if a Zerg rush hits a paywall?
posted by qvantamon at 3:09 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

I can't believe no asked about the secret space shuttle.
posted by nomadicink at 3:12 PM on September 13, 2010

qvantamon: "What happens if a Zerg rush hits a paywall"

it'd be a kekeketastrophe.

... Zarq rush?
posted by boo_radley at 3:40 PM on September 13, 2010 [2 favorites]

Years ago (probably about 2002), I registered at NYTimes.com as "bullshit", password "bullshit". It still works.
posted by beagle at 3:58 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

if people are angry and want to have an argumentative discussion, doing it here is better than doing it in the thread.

That's valid. But I also think there is a degree to which allowing a "free zone" to exist on the site (i.e., people can pretty much be as nasty as they want on MeTa without deletion or repercussion) hampers civility on the rest of the site. We can all talk about the sections as if they're different—and having different rules on AskMe is useful—but ultimately, it's a cohesive website and you're trying to have a civil conversation on the blue with the same fellow who called you a fuckshit on the gray.

If y'all get a mind to try one of your "site experiments" again, I'd be curious to see whether there is any positive effect to nixing the policy on MeTa that mods don't approve of flat-out nastiness, but they also won't do anything about it. Does removing that steam valve make things worse, or do things get better?

I think they just want to know what zipcode you're in.
Ah, like Radio Shack. Those bastards.

I left a mom-and-pop Apple store in Salem, NH once and walked next door to CompUSA because the mom-and-pop store (both clerk and manager) refused to sell me a keyboard without getting my name, home address, and telephone number. I was paying cash.

That said, I don't mind if a company wants my zip code. There's a line somewhere, but that doesn't cross it for me. If I'm buying something at Radio Shack, then presumably I find Radio Shack to offer some value to me. If they believe that knowing the geography of their customer base will be helpful to them, then cool. Hopefully that will result in them succeeding as a business, and thereby offering even more value to me in the long run. Win-win.
posted by cribcage at 4:00 PM on September 13, 2010

"I once fell off my bike and scratched my leg pretty bad. Zarq arrived with bandaids, antiseptic, a meat pie, a bottle of whiskey, an iPad, an ounce of gold, a BMW 323i and the military's secret space shuttle. It made everything all better."

Pffff. I once fell off my bike and scratched my leg and Zarq arrived with a surgical team and a prosthetic leg. Man, you should see me jump now!
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:07 PM on September 13, 2010

I once flipped over in a Ford Explorer on a deserted highway in the middle of the night, and the first car to find us was a sedan filled with doctors carrying wool blankets. The second was an 18-wheeler with a CB to radio for help. True story.
posted by cribcage at 4:10 PM on September 13, 2010

If y'all get a mind to try one of your "site experiments" again, I'd be curious to see whether there is any positive effect to nixing the policy on MeTa that mods don't approve of flat-out nastiness, but they also won't do anything about it. Does removing that steam valve make things worse, or do things get better?

We are probably never trying a site experiment again, sorry. We can't just say "okay now here is the new experimental policy, let's see what happens!" because mostly what happens is that people flip out, obviating any sort of useful results you'd be getting from trying something new. Not that I blame them, I'm just saying it would happen.

That said, the site is more likely to adjust well to slight shifts than to respond well to sudden policy changes. MeTa is already much less of a no holds barred part of the site than it was a few years ago and this has happened with the predictable chafing from both sides of the equation -- people who want more and tighter moderation and people who already think the moderation is too much. People have quit because thy could no longer be as nasty as they had previously been allowed to be. Others have quit because it's too nasty here.

We've been discussing lately the fact that a lot of people flag stuff in MeTa as if we moderated it like the rest of the site. We rarely delete comments that aren't egregious here, but we will do it. That said, some people seem to flag an awful lot of stuff in MeTa and I'm unclear if they're confused or if they want the site to be different than it is. I know people still see flat out nastiness here, but it's significantly less than it's been in years previous, though I suspect there is more nastiness now coming from fewer people as opposed to a more general nasty tone being supported.

We play the long game, however. We have to indicate that something is not okay for quite a while before we start doing anything active about it "Okay we've told you a few times that you need to knock that off, you seem to not be knocking it off, now we're going to go to step 2...." and this seems to work mostly okay. There are repurcussions, but they're slow motion. Some stuff like people being cranky about NYT registration yes or no has been an ongoing "feature" of the site since the beginning of time and is unlikely to change. I know this is only a sort of answer to your question, but hopefully a useful look into what Metatalk looks like to us.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:15 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

I registered years ago to read Wapo, as an example. I registered as having an email address at a domain that doesn't exists and never can exist, according to RFC 2606. My password is also an example.

Feel free to use it, as far as I know it still works.
posted by orthogonality at 4:24 PM on September 13, 2010

An example... to others?
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 4:44 PM on September 13, 2010 [2 favorites]

"[S]ome people seem to flag an awful lot of stuff in MeTa and I'm unclear if they're confused or if they want the site to be different than it is."

Speaking only for myself, and as proxy for our two cats, I flag stuff in MeTa in case the mods miss some epic piece of jackassery in a fast-moving thread. I don't flag a lot but I've done more recently than I normally do because I think the MeTa release valve is getting a little extra releasy the last month or so.
posted by mrmorgan at 5:59 PM on September 13, 2010

Hey Zarq, thanks! It was a good idea and also quite nice of you to set it up.

My first (and only) post, done under my old name, was a NYT link. At the time I was not aware that the link would go behind the registration wall after a day or two. I suffered some snarky comments and quickly realized my faux-pas.
posted by sundrop at 6:22 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

I'd be curious to see whether there is any positive effect to nixing the policy on MeTa that mods don't approve of flat-out nastiness, but they also won't do anything about it. Does removing that steam valve make things worse, or do things get better?

I get where you're coming from, and I sort of agree with it, but I have a feeling the "steam valve" isn't the only reason MeTa comments are virtually unmoderated--another possible reason being that the current ratio of workload to manpower probably isn't exactly begging to be fucked with.
posted by Sys Rq at 6:29 PM on September 13, 2010

*streaks through MeTa*
posted by nomadicink at 6:47 PM on September 13, 2010

Since I work for the paper, I should probably recuse myself from the conversation, but since I maintain the FAQs for the site (and am trying to bring them into the 21st Century; don't hate me for existing content):

A registration page opens when others access the link to your Web site from my Web site; can I create a link that bypasses registration?

I'm not going to narc on anyone, but doing this in the open is probably Not Smart and should not be encouraged. IOW, keep it on the DL.

(Not speaking as an official representative, btw. Pls don't fire me.)
posted by Eideteker at 6:51 PM on September 13, 2010

Too late, pack your things. You've made me register one too many times you accursed prestigious media outlet you.
posted by Think_Long at 6:54 PM on September 13, 2010

What would be cool is if someone could figure a way for mefites to get through the upcoming paywall. 'Course we'll have to kill Eideteker. We'll tell him he's going to get made and then badda bing.
posted by Trochanter at 7:25 PM on September 13, 2010

I can actually tell you how to get through the paywall, but only if you're nice to me. And it's supposed to be not-that-bad anyway. Though, of course, I'm only a contractor, so afterwards, my loyalty goes to the highest bidder (who can shield me from the eventual lawsuits)?

After working for small, no-name companies, it's so mind-blowing to have such a high-profile (for a technical writer, at least) job. It's like, I go online to relax and PPLZ ARE TALKING ABOUT MY JOB WHAT.

Sorry for talking about myself, as well, but like I said: mind-blowing.
posted by Eideteker at 7:56 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

I was thinking it's pretty cool. Hell, man I've been reading editorials from the Times circa the Civil War. Neat to be associated with that.
posted by Trochanter at 8:16 PM on September 13, 2010

Bugmenot also is a longstanding trick around those (very low walls).

My workplace filters don't tend to scare me much. It's not like I'm checking out outrageous stuff. But the filter blocks Bugmenot as a "hacker site". Which would be a laugh, if anyone responsible for HR were up to the task of understanding what it is, and what it is not.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:49 PM on September 13, 2010

Assuming it remains usable, it seems like a wonderful idea, and one we might usefully publicize in NYT related threads to avoid a fair bit of grumbling.

Another way to avoid grumbling is for people to stop being such fucking crybabies at the slightest provocation, but I reckon the other approach is a little more realistic.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:35 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

Maybe I should force people to register to reply to me and that'd earn me a bunch of "he's got to earn money SOMEHOW" love.

I would probably register using my honest-to-gosh actual personal info for something if it meant I didn't have to read your whining. I'd probably even throw in my Social Insurance Number.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:42 PM on September 13, 2010

That was probably crossing a line.

And I probably wouldn't throw in my SIN. Anyhoo.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:50 PM on September 13, 2010

This is an old solution is does not change the fact that it's a ridiculous extra step to play ball with a corporation that doesn't want to play ball back. If they want to be part of the online conversation let them join it honestly.

No one cares. Seriously, I've how many posts have you made bitching about the NYT on metafilter? Sign up or STFU.
posted by delmoi at 3:09 AM on September 14, 2010

I'm a bit biased since I have a friend who works at the NYT, but this post should be deleted, and the latent attitude of "NYT owes me this article" is pretty repugnant. How would you feel if I created an account here on MeFi to hand out to marketers who "just wanted to check out user profiles"?

MeFi shouldn't be associated with these kind of shenanigans. It reflects poorly on the site.
posted by mkultra at 5:37 AM on September 14, 2010

Durn Bronzefist writes "My workplace filters don't tend to scare me much. It's not like I'm checking out outrageous stuff."

My workplace is serious about their filters. They have a strict ban on streaming media. So much so that when I did a google search for a radio station in order to get their phone number the google search was blocked. I was unable to search around the block and had to break out a dead tree phone book.
posted by Mitheral at 6:04 AM on September 14, 2010

Well, the problem is that logins are old tech - it originates with the Greenspun book, which advocated logins for everyone viewing pretty much any sort of site. It made sense (mostly) back in the '90s, but nowadays, it's a big impediment to getting as many eyeballs on the ads you host as possible.

Which brings us to the real problem - web ads are devalued to uselessness for major content providers. Pay-per-click makes no sense for mass media campaigns, which is about purchasing brand recognition. It's enough that a logo or slogan made it to the readers' eyes.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:46 AM on September 14, 2010

"Indeed, sir, but on top of the initial charge, we'd add a LOYALTY PENALTY. The more they return to the website, the more we'd charge."

I think most business do indeed charge you more when you use their products and/or services more.
posted by kmz at 7:15 AM on September 14, 2010

I've been thinking about growing out the fingernail on my pinkie even though I quit sniffing cocaine years ago.
posted by slogger at 7:20 AM on September 14, 2010

but nowadays, it's a big impediment to getting as many eyeballs on the ads you host as possible.

I don't understand why this mindset is a good thing. I would prefer if my news sources were primarily dependent on their readers rather than on their advertisers. That means charging the readers.
posted by fantabulous timewaster at 7:50 AM on September 14, 2010 [1 favorite]

I don't understand why this mindset is a good thing. I would prefer if my news sources were primarily dependent on their readers rather than on their advertisers. That means charging the readers.

Yeah, Newsday here in New York did that.

They had 35 paid registrations.

Next please
posted by micawber at 8:10 AM on September 14, 2010

Seriously, I've how many posts have you made bitching about the NYT on metafilter?

If you remember more than 3 comments total about this from me in 4 years, I'm getting a restraining order on you.
posted by DU at 8:18 AM on September 14, 2010

I'm a bit biased since I have a friend who works at the NYT, but this post should be deleted, and the latent attitude of "NYT owes me this article" is pretty repugnant.

You're right. You're a bit biased.
posted by blucevalo at 8:26 AM on September 14, 2010

You guys realize that money is a red herring here, right? The signup is free. I don't mind sites that charge a fee. What I mind is sites that are free but make you jump through a signup hoop anyway.

I don't feel like the NYT "owes me this article". I feel like this is a huge UI and privacy problem and in any case violates the spirit, and many of the letters, of MeFi policy.
posted by DU at 8:31 AM on September 14, 2010

> feel like this is a huge UI and privacy problem and in any case violates the spirit, and many of the letters, of MeFi policy.

You're just kind of making all of that up, though. Clearly it's not bothering other people, nor is it any real invasion of privacy because you can just use any old free webmail account, or even someone else's fake credentials via bugmenot.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:38 AM on September 14, 2010 [1 favorite]

You're just kind of making all of that up

UI: Forces me to log in needlessly (and the first time, and many subsequent times, forces me to fill all that out)
Privacy: For many, they don't realize they can and/or are unwilling to "lie" and/or are unaware of problems
Spirit and letters of policy: From the horse's mouth

I'm ready for your apology whenever you are.
posted by DU at 8:43 AM on September 14, 2010

The NYT sign-in is one of those things that counts as annoying without being the worst thing ever.

I have a free NYT login. In fact, I think I have several. I'm not sure what they are, though, because over the years I've changed emails, changed computers, cleared cookies, and so forth. And it is a PITA to run into one of these sign-in barriers and have to play "What did I create to log in with years ago on a different computer that one time? Was there some anonymous login I could use? Do I need BugMeNot after all? Darn it, I thought that was the email I used. I wonder what password I picked..."

Sure it's only sixty seconds of my time. Except it's really three seconds of my time. which is how long it takes to see a registration screen is loading and close the tab. I'm not storming off in a huff, demanding, "How dare you impose upon my privacy, you FIEND?!!!" I'm shrugging and thinking, "Huh, that's more work than I want to put into this. I guess I'll go read something else." The three second process is much less annoying than the sixty second process, so that's what I go with.

This way I don't have to waste my time dealing with the (mildly) annoying login process and the NYT doesn't have to deal with a non-compliant visitor. That's win-win, right?
posted by Karmakaze at 8:56 AM on September 14, 2010 [1 favorite]

Spirit and letters of policy: From the horse's mouth

There is no policy against linking to this sort of stuff, you just have to know that a lot of people are going to find it annoying and it might be a better idea to link to something that people can see without logging in. Annoyed people, you should be able to channel your annoyance into the proper venue.

I'm ready for your apology whenever you are.

Demanding apologies from people makes MeTa sort of crappy and it might be a good idea not to do that [ALSO NOT POLICY, JUST FRIENDLY SUGGESTION]. It also tends to make people annoyed and not really solve any problems.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:57 AM on September 14, 2010

I generally only demand apologies when people call me a liar.
posted by DU at 8:58 AM on September 14, 2010

I suggest a re-read of what Burhanistan said, in that case.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:59 AM on September 14, 2010

So was I "making up" the UI and privacy problems or the spirit of MeFi embodied here: Linking to something behind a "register here" wall, is annoying as hell, but generally okay though if people make a habit of it, we'd like to ask them to consider finding other things to link to.
posted by DU at 9:01 AM on September 14, 2010

My take is that the issue was more that you said this was a "huge" issue when to many people it isn't that much of a big deal. I appreciate and understand that it's a big deal to you. However, it's a big site and many people are okay with workarounds. As with many things, we need to sort of assess the impact of making a "you can't do this" policy statement. Same is true for people linking to geographically-limited videos. We'd prefer that they don't do it. Sometimes they do. We'd like people to acknowledge that sometimes this sort of thing happens, it's not totally against the rules and we'd like people to not be assholes about it when it does happen. Same with Silverlight. Same with Apple/iPhone posts. Same with VMA posts.

Using the "spirit of MeFi" to bludgeon someone else with in MeTa is, itself, against the spirit of MeFi.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:06 AM on September 14, 2010

Privacy: For many, they don't realize they can and/or are unwilling to "lie" and/or are unaware of problems

That does not apply here.

I made the account. It contains no valid information -- not even an accurate email address -- and even if it did, it would be MY information.

The Times already knows who I am. I have a subscription to the dead tree edition. I'm double registered with the Times site: at work and through my personal email. I've been a member of their site since the mid to late 90's. I was even a paying member of Times Select.

You're objecting on principle to something that does not apply in this case.
posted by zarq at 9:11 AM on September 14, 2010 [1 favorite]

Annoyed people, you should be able to channel your annoyance into the proper venue

The GRAR March on Washington, who's with me?!

We can do it in Second Life, then post it as a Project
posted by nomadicink at 9:31 AM on September 14, 2010 [1 favorite]

blucevalo: I'm a bit biased since I have a friend who works at the NYT, but this post should be deleted, and the latent attitude of "NYT owes me this article" is pretty repugnant.

You're right. You're a bit biased.

Doesn't make me wrong.

I have a free NYT login. In fact, I think I have several. I'm not sure what they are, though, because over the years I've changed emails, changed computers, cleared cookies, and so forth. And it is a PITA to run into one of these sign-in barriers and have to play "What did I create to log in with years ago on a different computer that one time? Was there some anonymous login I could use? Do I need BugMeNot after all? Darn it, I thought that was the email I used. I wonder what password I picked..."

What a strange comment. Do you have this problem with all your logins, or just the NYT?
posted by mkultra at 9:32 AM on September 14, 2010

I don't find it that strange a comment. It pretty much perfectly sums up my own experience with newspaper registration walls too.

In fact, I am surprised at how often I'm actually able to read the NYT—apparently I've done a cookie thing correctly, since I'm already logged in when I visit now.

I'm really not convinced that karmakaze's remark is strange at all, in fact. Careful with that bias, there.
posted by pineapple at 9:38 AM on September 14, 2010

mkultra writes "Do you have this problem with all your logins, or just the NYT?"

I have this problem with several of these low wall password registration sites. I don't go to the NYT often enough to remember any of my many credentials yet I end up there often enough for it to be annoying. Like Karmakaze I rarely find the teaser leading to the hidden content compelling enough to be worth spending the time to dig out the credentials for the site electing instead to close the tab and move on to the next shiny thing. Sometimes I'll split the difference and attempt a google news search for the story.
posted by Mitheral at 9:42 AM on September 14, 2010 [1 favorite]

What a strange comment. Do you have this problem with all your logins, or just the NYT?

Only with logins for sites that I visit so rarely that the cookie from my last login is unlikely to still be active. I access the web from several different devices and clear my cookies and cache fairly often. I have no trouble remembering my login to places like MetaFilter, because I'm likely to visit within a day of clearing cookies (or switching to a new device, or whatever). I have no trouble remembering my logins to my bank or health insurance sites because I'm less likely to do so from any old device, and because those are important enough that I have mnemonics set up. My first free NYT registration, on the other hand, is something I made as a throwaway ten years ago. As it is neither frequently used nor important, I don't keep it at the top of my memory.
posted by Karmakaze at 9:58 AM on September 14, 2010

Zarq, I'm sorry for bringing your name into this shit. I thought what you did was a simple elegant solution to a rapidly developing derail.

And it really did work. That thread went back to being about a weird creepy loveable torturer who burned himself and his neighbors out of house and home, rather than about paywalls and fucking the customer and other such nonsense.

As such I figured it merited full credit to you when I brought it over here, but it seems to have made you the target for a whole lot of ill feeling that's clearly based on older gripes than I knew existed.

As for the basic question of whether NYT links should be posted with login details attached, I'm thinking I'll follow the practice if I ever have the need. Thanks for the idea.
posted by Ahab at 12:46 PM on September 14, 2010 [1 favorite]

Personally, as a writer, I object to people who refuse to do anything that might want to keep the skill of writing and journalism alive. That aside, this post irked me from a "Hey, I'm trying to be head boy!" kind of way.

Why couldn't we use the link generator, or something similar?

http://nytimes.blogspace.com/genlink
posted by micawber at 7:11 PM on September 14, 2010

Zarq, I'm sorry for bringing your name into this shit. I thought what you did was a simple elegant solution to a rapidly developing derail.

Thank you. It's okay. We both had good intentions.

I admit it's been a little weird watching that particular comment develop into some weird callout here. After all, I had a post deleted yesterday that seemed like a much more likely target of outrage.

And it really did work. That thread went back to being about a weird creepy loveable torturer who burned himself and his neighbors out of house and home, rather than about paywalls and fucking the customer and other such nonsense.

Yes! It's been nice to see. Was hoping the derail would die a quick death and it pretty much did.

As such I figured it merited full credit to you when I brought it over here, but it seems to have made you the target for a whole lot of ill feeling that's clearly based on older gripes than I knew existed.

FWIW, I definitely wouldn't have predicted this reaction either.

As for the basic question of whether NYT links should be posted with login details attached, I'm thinking I'll follow the practice if I ever have the need. Thanks for the idea

Good! You're quite welcome. And thanks. :)
posted by zarq at 7:32 PM on September 14, 2010

micawber, check your link. The link generator functionality has been disabled by the Times.
posted by zarq at 7:34 PM on September 14, 2010

Is there nothing Zarq can't do?

si, give me a hug from across the atlantic

:(

but in everything else he's like grilled cheese in a sandwich
posted by The Lady is a designer at 3:25 AM on September 15, 2010 [2 favorites]

Heh, someone did this way back when I was still a wee lurker. Got much use of it back then, and hey it still works! Name/password = mefi1/mefi1

One interesting result of this thread is that this L/P no longer works.
posted by inigo2 at 7:14 AM on September 15, 2010

And the new one Zarq created won't work for me, either. Interesting.
posted by inigo2 at 7:16 AM on September 15, 2010

For me, it is a different principal at stake. They refuse to accept the indubitably valid myusername+nyt@myhost.com email format. I don't do business - even free business - with entities that go out of their way to break the Internet.
posted by thesmophoron at 8:22 AM on September 15, 2010

Principle, even. For crying out loud.
posted by thesmophoron at 8:51 AM on September 15, 2010

For that I would assume laziness rather than malice. Which is still quite bad for a corporation as big as the NYT. But lazy coders are everywhere.
posted by kmz at 9:23 AM on September 15, 2010

kmz: we're talking some pretty lazy laziness here. it's one keypress in their characterspace. maximum effort, if they're totally incompetent, is to look up how to match actual plus signs in their regex - maybe 5 minutes.
posted by thesmophoron at 11:06 AM on September 15, 2010

thesmophoron: As someone who does the plus sign in my email everywhere I can, I have to agree that it's a combination of laziness/dumbness when first setting it up, plus inability to modify the already deployed system. Most of the time when a site won't let me use the plus sign, I email them; I've found it's pretty much only the small companies that make the change. Not an excuse, but I imagine that modifications to sites like NYTimes have to go through a lot of steps; for a small change like this that doesn't affect a ton of their users? Not gonna bother.
posted by inigo2 at 11:29 AM on September 15, 2010

inigo: that goes back to incompetence. if their database transactions don't sanitize their inputs and their validation routine is duplicated across the system, they suck as coders and ought to be fired (and the job given to me)
posted by thesmophoron at 11:43 AM on September 15, 2010

I guess I should have said laziness and/or ignorance and/or incompetence. The first time I wrote an email address regex, I forgot to allow '+'. As soon as somebody complained, I was able to fix that, but it's not something you necessarily think about if you don't have experience with it. I don't know if anybody really fully follows the email address RFC for validation. I'm not even sure how many email programs completely follow the rules.
posted by kmz at 12:13 PM on September 15, 2010

As jessamyn pointed out, it's a big internet out there. Can we just assume that everyone is already widely reading and disseminating the lifestyle articles in one of the world's most prominent dailies?

No.

I don't live in the States, so the NYT isn't my go-to paper. When I do read an online daily newspaper - which isn't often if I'm busy at work - I don't read all of them. Things will inevitably get missed.
posted by mippy at 6:41 AM on September 16, 2010

one of the world's most prominent dailies?

mippy brings up an interesting point here - what makes the daily prominent? or "the world's" ?

Is it readership numbers? if so, any major Chinese language or Indian metro paper might be able to beat that. Is it referenceability? Not behind the paywall and not if its only taking the english language internet into account... So its an interesting perception and one which begs the question, from whose perspective is it prominent?

As a side note on this issue of the increasingly global internet is that of late I've been noticing my regular "go to" sites have been publishing their first pieces earlier and earlier in the day in my time zone. Let me explain, I used on live in San Francisco and when I woke up, my RSS reader would be full of stuff but when I moved across the world to Asia three years ago I would have to wait most of the "day" in my time zone to get my "news" from my usual online haunts due to the time difference. Since I moved to Europe last year I've noticed that its not only the time zone difference that creates the perception of getting my news feeds earlier but the US based sites themselves also publishing earlier and earlier.

It makes me wonder whether the bloggers and indie publishers I tend to frequent are responding in a user centric manner to the traffic patterns to their site and thus responding the changing geography of their readership?

/beans, with buttered toast please ;p
posted by The Lady is a designer at 7:27 AM on September 16, 2010

« Older blue_beetle's insightful comme... | Pony Express: in which updates... Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments

NYT registration wall, zarq's solution. September 13, 2010 11:18 AM Subscribe

NYT registration wall, zarq's solution.
September 13, 2010 11:18 AM Subscribe