Do you skip NYT links? October 22, 2013 10:08 AM   Subscribe

I just realized that I haven't read a NYT article in months because of their increasingly annoying paywall. I know that the paywall can be circumvented but I just don't bother anymore despite seeing lots of interesting links to NYT here on Mefi. How common is this around here (skipping NYT links)? Should NYT links be avoided?
posted by Foci for Analysis to Etiquette/Policy at 10:08 AM (136 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

Sometimes I wonder if people rush here on Saturdays to post the cover article for the Sunday NYTMag only to find zarq (or someone) beat 'em to it, so they just post one of the secondary stories because MUST POST. Other times I think there must be a social media staff there who's running like 10 MeFi accounts to spread around all the NYT love on the front page.

I skip most of them, usually because it's generalist pap. So, uh, common enough that I'm doing it, FWIW. Should NYT links be avoided? Sure! Especially in favor of something meatier.
posted by carsonb at 10:16 AM on October 22, 2013 [4 favorites]


I tend to avoid NYT links unless I get a really good pitch on why I should read it, for three reasons:
  1. I want to save my free articles for the really good ones.
  2. Accidentally reading an NYT lifestyle article is worse than being Rick-rolled or 4chan trolled.
  3. This is the paper of Judith Miller and Jayson Blair. Everything I read there needs to be corroborated from other sources.
So, yeah: I skip the NYT most of the time.
posted by straw at 10:25 AM on October 22, 2013 [25 favorites]


I skip FPPs that don't interest me. Sometimes they include links to NYT articles. I do not think that things that don't interest me should be avoided, except by me.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:26 AM on October 22, 2013 [30 favorites]


There are a few sites I like which have paywalls which I refuse to pay to circumvent because I believe they're asking way too much. Like NYT -- I'd happily send them $10/year ... and they wouldn't even have to grant me full access, just a bunch more than I'm currently getting for free. But for whatever reason, they're not offering that option.

So as far as MeFi goes, I will pursue an NYT link but I'm way more likely to think about it first. Likewise The Onion and The Globe + Mail, who I also think are asking magnitudes too much for more access.

Also, what straw just said.
posted by philip-random at 10:27 AM on October 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


if i've ever had a paywall problem i don't remember it and i don't avoid (or even specifically notice) nyt links. i figure people post what interests them and it makes sense that something with the readership of the nyt would interest people. if you want better than nyt, might i suggest making those posts.
posted by nadawi at 10:27 AM on October 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


there've been multiple occasions when i've clicked a link in an fpp and then discovered that 1) it was a nyt link and 2) apparently the paywall or whatever, and in those situations i'm just like "welp i guess i don't get to read this article" with varying degrees of disappointment depending on how interested i was before i clicked. it is disappointing and kind of annoying for an fpp to have a limited audience just because of the rules of the sites being linked to but i guess i don't really have room to complain because i'm american and tons of youtube links posted by americans turn out to be useless to people from anywhere else in the world. then again, with youtube there is really no way of knowing in advance whether this video is going to be marked non-viewable in other countries (short of getting some international proxies and checking before you post) whereas with the nyt It Is Known that the paywall happens, so while it would be an undue burden to expect people to check their youtube links it's not really a burden to consider the paywall before linking a nyt article. but, on yet another hand, that doesn't mean that it should be compulsory to never link to anything you know has a paywall, either.

i guess my summary opinion is "i find the nyt links annoying because of limited access, but if other people want to keep posting them that's fine with me"
posted by titus n. owl at 10:34 AM on October 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


If you right-click and "Open link in incognito mode..." for NYT links, does that get around the paywall? Just curious if they are using a client-side cookie (that porn mode would get around) or if they actually track IP addresses (which would be pretty hard on people using NATed connections where a lot of people share one IP).
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:35 AM on October 22, 2013


Sometimes I wonder if people rush here on Saturdays to post the cover article for the Sunday NYTMag only to find zarq (or someone) beat 'em to it, so they just post one of the secondary stories because MUST POST. Other times I think there must be a social media staff there who's running like 10 MeFi accounts to spread around all the NYT love on the front p

Yes, I've wondered about this.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:38 AM on October 22, 2013


I find the NYT posts (esp NYT magazine) sort of repetitive mainly because even though they cover a wide variety of topics, the tone is often really similar. No big deal, a lot of people seem to like them. For some reason I don't hit the paywall, but I'm not sure what I'm doing. The NYT posts I actively dislike (and suspect aren't good posts for MeFi) are the weird fashion/trend posts that are often about some alleged "trend" that is happening in one neighborhood in New York City and is then written about as if it's a thing that of course everyone else should care/worry about. I like the NYT as a mainstream paper, though I remember when they were better, but I do feel like it's a pretty prime category for "people who know about it are already reading it, consider only posting stuff from the NYT if it's really exceptional" That does not always seem to be a widely shared viewpoint.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:41 AM on October 22, 2013 [3 favorites]


Sometimes I wonder if people rush here ....to post ...only to find zarq... beat 'em to it

YES, DAMN YOU ZARQ
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:46 AM on October 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


I do not skip NYTimes links, but I have a paid subscription to the Times so the details of the paywall aren't visible to me.
posted by alms at 10:48 AM on October 22, 2013


I don't mind the links to NYT in general, but it would be cool if people made an effort to note when their links are to the NYT (though I think a lot of people already do this) so that those of us trying to ration our free monthly articles would get a heads up before clicking through.
posted by likeatoaster at 10:58 AM on October 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


Mostly I've found that the NYT writes appallingly little about video games and the Hellraiser franchise.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:59 AM on October 22, 2013 [36 favorites]


Mostly I've found that the NYT writes appallingly little about video games and the Hellraiser franchise.

I feel your pain. The NYT writes a pathetically small amount on the subject of cricket.

For example, just today I've had to turn to the Washington Post to read about the Vatican forming a cricket team to play against the Church of England next autumn. Nothing at all in the so-called "New York Times".

{Seinfeld dismissive voice:} "And you call yourself a newspaper..."
posted by Wordshore at 11:08 AM on October 22, 2013 [6 favorites]


I posted an NYT link a few days ago and did take a good couple of hours weighing the pros and cons, checking from multiple networks to check for a paywall and finally decided to post it based on several factors, one of them including "the NYT should be better than this".
posted by Annika Cicada at 11:10 AM on October 22, 2013


It's not that I have anything against NYT or their writing but I've been hitting the paywall every single time for a long time now. Just wondering how often this happens to others. Or are people just really good at managing their free articles or do they have a subscription?
posted by Foci for Analysis at 11:20 AM on October 22, 2013


If you don't want to click on NYT stories, don't do it. There's no need to try and tell others what to post based on your own personal preferences. Its a form of threadshitting, really.

The NYT links should be noted in FPPs, though, so people don't burn their quota.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:50 AM on October 22, 2013 [3 favorites]


Some people check things with limited articles in a private browser window which does not keep track of how many articles they have read.
posted by jeather at 11:50 AM on October 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


I read links off the front page that interest me. While those are sometimes to the NYT, I have never hit the monthly limit of free reads.
posted by DarlingBri at 11:54 AM on October 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


I skip them as a general rule. There is the occasionally decent article, but so many times it is just a thinly veiled shill by an author for their new book or some popular culture crisis du jour. If the best thing about the FPP is a single link to the NYTimes, then the topic is generally something that I heard and/or read about way before it was posted here. Yawners.

I used to flag them, now I don't even bother doing that. And lots of people seem to be into SLNYT, so who am I to complain? Different strokes and all that.

Oh and the paywall thing? Easily enough defeated, but I don't think 90% of the NYT is really worth the time taken to do the workaround. But that is a bit of a different issue.
posted by lampshade at 11:55 AM on October 22, 2013


I haven't tried this with NYT specifically, but I've found with certain other sites with annoying paywalls I can send an article to Readability in its entirety, so problem solved. Please use this knowledge for good.
posted by trunk muffins at 12:29 PM on October 22, 2013


ThePinkSuperhero: " YES, DAMN YOU ZARQ"

WHOA THERE PINKALICIOUS
posted by zarq at 12:30 PM on October 22, 2013 [3 favorites]


carsonb: "only to find zarq (or someone) beat 'em to it,"

Perfectly possible. 113 of my 659 FPP's have included a link to the times' domain. Might be more if you include deleted posts.

Bookmarklet: NYClean

...and yes, incognito mode still works.
posted by zarq at 12:35 PM on October 22, 2013


Actually, that's 113 posts which include a link to www.nytimes.com and 139 which include a link to nytimes.com.
posted by zarq at 12:37 PM on October 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


Yeah, I usually skip them, unless it seems like a really interesting article.
posted by nangar at 12:41 PM on October 22, 2013


The larger problem is all the damn posts about NYC.
posted by planetesimal at 12:43 PM on October 22, 2013 [10 favorites]


Bookmarklet: NYClean

This stopped working for me a few months ago. Is it still functional for you?
posted by lalex at 1:05 PM on October 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


Errrr... I have a subscription to the Times so I haven't been using it. But the last time it stopped working I just had to reinstall it and it started up again.
posted by zarq at 1:11 PM on October 22, 2013


I don't mind paywalls for top shelf newspapers, since they really do offer top line content. (Not that I pay, mind you. I use workarounds. But still. The hassle is the price I pay and if it helps their revenues, so be it.) But the local rag in my podunk hometown has one and it seriously cheeses me off. Really? You think I'm going to pay for yearly access to read an occasional blurb on my niece's scholar's bowl team? Really?
posted by DirtyOldTown at 1:13 PM on October 22, 2013 [1 favorite]



I find the NYT posts (esp NYT magazine) sort of repetitive mainly because even though they cover a wide variety of topics, the tone is often really similar.


This is how I feel about USA original TV series. Seriously, you could swap characters in White Collar or Covert Affairs or Royal Pains and no one would notice.
posted by sweetkid at 1:19 PM on October 22, 2013 [7 favorites]


Errrr... I have a subscription to the Times so I haven't been using it. But the last time it stopped working I just had to reinstall it and it started up again.

Yeah, unfortunately I think it's dead.
posted by lalex at 1:20 PM on October 22, 2013


I open in incognito mode and never hit the paywall. But, I rarely read the articles all the way. Some are interesting but mostly I look for other shiny things and go there.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 1:33 PM on October 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


Maybe I have not clicked on a NYT link, but afaik, NYT Clean still works for me. I get breaking news type headlines from NYT as email. There are frequent suggestions that I buy a subscription, but I have not. Freeloaders like me might be one reason for newspapers' problems.
posted by Cranberry at 1:33 PM on October 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


I really don't hit the paywall all that much. Not sure why.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 1:36 PM on October 22, 2013


Between using 2 different computers, and having multiple browsers, the paywall isn't a big problem most of the time.
posted by theora55 at 1:37 PM on October 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


My principled position is that I deprecate single links to the NYT or other mainstream media because, well, I know where those people are if I want them.

But I'm full of shit on this because I click them all the time.

Never had paywall problems.
posted by Segundus at 1:58 PM on October 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


It seems like a lot of the NYT links I notice are "lifestyle" articles and to be honest, the comments here are what really interest me; I only click through if I start feeling compelled to join the conversation. I can't recall the last time I hit their paywall, and I don't switch browsers or go private/incognito very often.
posted by Room 641-A at 2:02 PM on October 22, 2013


Like NYT -- I'd happily send them $10/year ...But for whatever reason, they're not offering that option.

Would you pay them $8.75 a week, or $35 a month? Because you can have that access, you just have to pay for it. I find the Sunday-only subscription to really be worth it - you get the real Sunday paper, which is just about enough to read over a week of breakfasts, and free unlimited access after that. Full rate is $32 a month. I've never regretted it.

I think they're generous enough to give 10 free articles. If you have to ration, you have to ration. If you find yourself wanting to read more than 10 articles a month from a paid-subscription media outlet, maybe that is something you could consider prioritizing financially. People seem to understand this when it comes to open-source software, video games and indie records, but not newspapers.
posted by Miko at 2:07 PM on October 22, 2013 [9 favorites]


I will sometimes avoid clicking if it's a NYT article, but rarely hit the paywall limit. I did during the election, checking Nate Silver's 528 blog, though.

I do appreciate it if someone puts a warning in about it. That is just courteous. Thanks to everyone who remembers!
posted by annsunny at 2:20 PM on October 22, 2013


No, I do not avoid clicking NYT links.
posted by Artw at 2:28 PM on October 22, 2013


If you find yourself wanting to read more than 10 articles a month from a paid-subscription media outlet, maybe that is something you could consider prioritizing financially.

Yeah like annsunny the only time I ever went over the limit was when they bought Nate Silver's election blog and treated every blog post as an article. $32/month for one election blog during an election does not really seem like a great value to me. I don't think I would pay $32/month for any website out there right now, even MetaFilter.
posted by burnmp3s at 2:29 PM on October 22, 2013 [4 favorites]


I'm not American, and my NYT clicks would be 95% mefi sourced. I never hit the limit; and they sometimes do good journalism.

I freaking despise the lifestyle pieces - which strangely typify both American (new yorkian) ethnocentrism at its absolute worst with no broader relevance to anyone else anywhere in the world, and yet also the worst aspects of newspaper lifestyle magazines everywhere.

I sometimes wonder if those NYT style magazine pieces that people put up are a subtle form of trolling. Surely no one could think an invented trend that only effects seven-figure households on a tiny island would be of interest to anyone?
posted by smoke at 2:47 PM on October 22, 2013 [3 favorites]


I don't avoid clicking. If I hit the paywall, I right click and open the link in an Incognito window. Not much of a hassle.
posted by zsazsa at 3:08 PM on October 22, 2013


it's generalist pap.

I like specific pap myself so I hear ya
posted by edgeways at 3:08 PM on October 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


I skip em.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 3:10 PM on October 22, 2013


The larger problem is all the damn posts about NYC.

Agreed. There's a serious dearth of posts about Westchester.
posted by griphus at 3:19 PM on October 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


I can't believe I'm so lazy that I didn't try Incognito mode. Well that solves it then. Follow me next week when I try to locate the any key.

- Grandpa Foci
posted by Foci for Analysis at 3:26 PM on October 22, 2013 [9 favorites]


People seem to understand this when it comes to open-source software, video games and indie records, but not newspapers.

I subscribe to my local weekly newspaper (print and web) and it's $35 a year and runs in the black. I appreciate that the Times has to do what it does financially, but I feel like $35/month for eleven ad-filled articles (as an edge case) isn't a compelling case for me and I think that's the case for a lot of people.

I think what makes open-source software and music more of a genuine option for people is having pricing levels that seem to have hit some sort of sweet spot and I'm not sure you can make the same argument for news just yet. I feel like we're still working towards that. Like I think the $.99 song on iTunes did this as did the $8/month Netflix subscriptions.

I get what you're saying and I understand your argument, but if I pay for, say, word processing software I don't have to buy other ones. My word processing problem is solved. If I pay the NYTimes I still also have to pay the Economist and the IHT and whatever else has paywalls and compelling content. It's still not an entirely solved problem, from my vantage point.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:36 PM on October 22, 2013 [14 favorites]


I haven't noticed this issue.

Should NYT links be avoided?

No.
posted by juiceCake at 3:41 PM on October 22, 2013


I blame the second cup of coffee.
posted by y2karl at 3:45 PM on October 22, 2013


No, I don't avoid them, and I think I've hit the paywall once. No biggie.
posted by goo at 3:46 PM on October 22, 2013


It's those Sunday NYT articles which get picked up by Weekend Edition NPR posts that annoy me.
posted by y2karl at 3:49 PM on October 22, 2013


I SOMEHOW BOTH HIT THE PAYWALL AND AVOID NYT LINKS MORE AND MORE, BUT DEFINITELY APPRECIATE A HEADS-UP IN AN FPP THAT CONTAINS ONE.
YES IT IS STILL CAPSLOCK DAY
posted by obloquy at 4:07 PM on October 22, 2013


Here is a bookmarklet that does the NYT headline Google search for you, allowing you to avoid the paywall.
posted by lalex at 4:11 PM on October 22, 2013 [4 favorites]


I remember the days long past when links to the NYT were frowned upon simply because it was assumed that everybody had already read them.
posted by briank at 4:26 PM on October 22, 2013 [3 favorites]


When I see an NYT link, I think, fuck it, I'm out. If it's news that interests me there are other sources. If it's the sort of important writing that I can't miss, it usually isn't in the New York Times.

Sometimes there's an op-ed written by someone important. I try not to miss those, but with a little effort they're available. For regular content, I won't pay, nor will I go far out of my way to acquire it without paying.

Truth is, between the supplemental links and generally useful commentary Metafilter provides, reading NYT links is unnecessary.
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 4:39 PM on October 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


Can't you just copy the link into googly search and then click on it from the results page, thus bypassing the paywall completely?

is that a thing or did i make it up
posted by elizardbits at 5:17 PM on October 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


> This is the paper of Judith Miller and Jayson Blair. Everything I read there needs to be corroborated from other sources.

That's just childish—you might as well say "I don't read MetaFilter, because it's the site of [insert names of your favorite banned posters here]." The Times is not the truth handed down from heaven, but it's a damn good paper. And everything you read anywhere needs to be corroborated from other sources.
posted by languagehat at 5:18 PM on October 22, 2013 [19 favorites]


Can't you just copy the link into googly search and then click on it from the results page, thus bypassing the paywall completely?

I know that works for the Wall Street Journal.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 5:33 PM on October 22, 2013


I will not buy a subscription to any newspaper that is not now and never has been available for delivery to my doorstep.

Go ahead and paywall your circulation area; the rest of us will continue to ignore your publication.

Of course, make it free, and we'll see it, and you might be able to charge advertisers way more. But I guess maybe making more money fucks up the dying medium sob story narrative that justifies the paywall...
posted by Sys Rq at 6:13 PM on October 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


This is the paper of Judith Miller and Jayson Blair.

Also the paper of Anthony Lewis, Russell Baker, David Halberstam, Neil Sheehan, J. Anthony Lukas, Linda Greenhouse, Seymour Hersh, Bob Herbert, Dexter Filkins and C. J. Chivers to name just a few off the top of my head.
posted by mlis at 6:16 PM on October 22, 2013 [7 favorites]


Of course, make it free, and we'll see it, and you might be able to charge advertisers way more

They tried that for years. Turns out it doesn't work. What you make from web ads is a tiny fraction of what you make from print ads, and you can't make it up in volume. The ads aren't targeted enough and you have much less retrievable demographic data than you do with subscriptions, so you can't charge a premium.
posted by Miko at 6:32 PM on October 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


I think what makes open-source software and music more of a genuine option for people is having pricing levels that seem to have hit some sort of sweet spot and I'm not sure you can make the same argument for news just yet

The hard part is that news is one of those public goods that costs a lot more to create than any individual is willing to pay for their share of it. Yet the cost of not having it all is pretty scary. The local paper isn't trying to do what the NYT does - providing independent coverage of international stories, sourcing "idea" pieces from thinkers and public figures, following serious smaller stories for years.

It concerns me when people dismiss news organizations like this one. They are struggling not because what they do isn't important and valued, but because the revenue chain doesn't work any more. The idea of a world with fewer and fewer and eventually no NYT-level news organizations frightens me. Broadcast news offers neither the scope nor the depth nor the consistent engagement with any given story thread. Longform news is episodic and spotty in its coverage, driven more by high reader interest potential more than the slogging due diligence of public service. An organization like the Times originates content which then gets built upon, expanded, and multiply referenced across the web - we all experience its value indirectly, so we don't feel a need to pay for it directly.

I subscribed for a long time but had dropped it sometime in the early oughts. After watching this documentary recently, we became subscribers again. It's a drop in their bucket, but it's as important to me to do what I can to support the work of the organization. Also, I do feel I get the value. I enjoy the sheer variety of topics, the good-quality, workmanlike writing. Every single week I head back to work with a small sheaf of notices, articles, listings or whatever that I'm going to integrate right into work discussions - and people do trade, share, and discuss the articles a lot (which is why people run over their 10 link allotment). For me, the Times does offer an important part of the solution to my staying-up-to-date-on-broad-public-discussions-and-trends and other information problems.
posted by Miko at 6:41 PM on October 22, 2013 [15 favorites]


Sys Rq: "I will not buy a subscription to any newspaper that is not now and never has been available for delivery to my doorstep."

So you'd buy a subscription to the New York Times, then? They deliver nationally in the US. And the IHT (now known as the INYT) is delivered internationally.
posted by zarq at 7:34 PM on October 22, 2013


I might've known that, too, if that page you linked to didn't present me with a paywall.
posted by Sys Rq at 7:42 PM on October 22, 2013


There's no paywall on the subscriptions page. The link is to the International Herald Tribune, the international version of the paper (that has a really nice display design, incidentally).
posted by Miko at 7:47 PM on October 22, 2013


There's no paywall on the subscriptions page.

There is for me.

It's okay. I'm really not looking to subscribe.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:00 PM on October 22, 2013


I didn't even know this was still a thing. I click on NYT links with impunity and I've never seen any kind of error or access denied message. From my history it seems I view about 20 articles a month.
posted by Rhomboid at 8:37 PM on October 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


Yep. I skip them. I would probably skip Boston Globe as well. Are the writers compensated for web articles or has that changed since all of that hullabaloo? The subscription cost is not scary to me. I stopped writing for newspapers that want to claim all rights for writers. I think it was decided that it's not fair to writers to not pay them for web content if it's published in print and then web. So then the papers' response was to insist on buying all rights to an article instead of paying second rights. So basically, fuck them. I don't care to subscribe and if it hurts people, well, then they can pay their writers more. If I'm wrong, sorry. I don't think it would hurt society if the writers were paid a decent salary, whether it's print or web. Maybe it's changed since then. But I still get annoyed by the NYT and the Globe, yes.
posted by Marie Mon Dieu at 9:40 PM on October 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


The only newspaper in the world worth reading is The Guardian. Thank you.
posted by turbid dahlia at 9:45 PM on October 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


I don't know about thinking carefully about clicking NYT links on metafilter (I sometimes do, sometimes don't, and don't really keep track), but my father is a much more dedicated news junkie and has an elaborate system for when it's OK to visit the NYT website, and an even more baroque priority list of which news sites to visit when he's decided the NYT is out.
posted by Sara C. at 9:45 PM on October 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


Incognito window, durr
posted by Joseph Gurl at 9:47 PM on October 22, 2013


Turns out I had installed NY Times Paywall Remover at some point in the past, so that would explain it. (And if not that, then I use RefControl to forge referrers so that sites always think I come from their front page.)
posted by Rhomboid at 10:02 PM on October 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


Oh, for pete's sake. If a link looks interesting, I'll check it out unless it's from a truly reprehensible site. (Yeah, yeah, yeah, Judith Miller, etc., 500 miiilllion lines of code, yadda, but I think I still have enough of a functioning brain to read the paper critically).

I've used up my free articles for this month already. Right clicking any NY Times link and opening a private window in Firefox or incognito window in Chrome will show me that story just fine. Same thing for the Globe & Mail.

Test with this: How safe is cycling? It's hard to say.
posted by maudlin at 10:06 PM on October 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


OK, that last article should work for anyone. Here's a paywalled article to test.
posted by maudlin at 10:09 PM on October 22, 2013


Test with this: How safe is cycling? It's hard to say.

Oh christ.

When will people learn that if you don't go 35 MPH on your bike, you probably won't die/need major surgery if you fall off it?
posted by Sara C. at 10:14 PM on October 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


35 mph, down a steep hill, making a turn.

But he's a doctor, so he must have known what he was doing until he didn't.
posted by maudlin at 10:16 PM on October 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


New NYT trends that I definitely did not just make up:

"Mantsuits" (like a women's pantsuit, but for men!)
Giving your dog and your child the same name
Maids from hip new countries like South Sudan and East Timor
Knife yoga
Street bowling
GI tract tattoos
Horseradish candy
Pop-up self-flagellation studios
Bringing your own salt to restaurants
Skin hats
posted by threeants at 10:20 PM on October 22, 2013 [17 favorites]


"It's not that I have anything against NYT or their writing but I've been hitting the paywall every single time for a long time now. Just wondering how often this happens to others. Or are people just really good at managing their free articles or do they have a subscription?"

I used to hit the paywall all the time, but I told myself that meant that I obviously liked the content — their election stuff and the shutdown coverage has been pretty solid. So I ponied up. I finally have a job where I can afford it; I get online only and that's fine.
posted by klangklangston at 10:42 PM on October 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


Would I rather live in a world without the work that comes from a stable of well-paid journalists exploring both frivolous and vitally serious issues of our time? Or would I rather pay a small fee to support that work and, in exchange, also gain access to its results? There have been times in my life when I was so poor I had to choose between medicine, food and rent, and things like Internet access or putting money toward institutions that are critical to the functioning of our democracy had to go by the wayside. Happily, this is not one of those moments, and I am glad to be a paying subscriber to the New York Times. If I felt differently, I suppose I might choose to ignore those links.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 10:54 PM on October 22, 2013 [5 favorites]


Oh, and when I work on unfamiliar computers, which sometimes happens, it takes me about 1-3 days to hit the paywall, and then I have to dig up my login info to continue to support my habit.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 10:55 PM on October 22, 2013


What you make from web ads is a tiny fraction of what you make from print ads, and you can't make it up in volume.

Web ads also continue to be worth less and less. For some papers it's barely worth having a web presence at all, let alone a good one.
posted by NoraReed at 1:49 AM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


threeants: "Knife yoga"

Ah, yes, silat!
posted by barnacles at 4:44 AM on October 23, 2013


I don't mind the NYT but I've had to install Kitten Block (Chrome / Firefox) to stop myself accidentally opening Daily Mail FPPs.
posted by fight or flight at 5:26 AM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


If the NYT is supporting US democracy in such a manner as to allow people to be choosing between food, rent and medicine, then I suppose that's one more reason to avoid it.
posted by pompomtom at 5:31 AM on October 23, 2013


I tend to think the NYT is one of only a few organizations of its scale and quality that is on the side of information access, not on propping up the corporate economy, pompomtom. Even NPR relies desperately on large corporate donations, and the networks, forget it.
posted by Miko at 6:20 AM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


I pay for an online subscription to my local paper because I want to keep the city a two newspaper town and the other paper is an evil right-wing rag.

I don't pay for the NY Times because I'm still pissed about the whole Iraq cheer-leading thing and their general plutocratic attitude. They also keep writing articles about how difficult it is to be merely upper middle-class and not a billionaire.
posted by octothorpe at 7:26 AM on October 23, 2013 [2 favorites]


I've heard you can just turn javascript off to view the articles.
posted by dawkins_7 at 7:53 AM on October 23, 2013


I don't understand why people get worked up about their trend pieces. It's still a New York paper and some of those trends are relevant to certain New York people. Those pieces are generally relegated to the Style section, anyway. It's clear what you're getting, why can't it be ignored if you feel it's so irrelevant?
posted by girlmightlive at 7:57 AM on October 23, 2013 [6 favorites]


girlmightlive: "I don't understand why people get worked up about their trend pieces. It's still a New York paper and some of those trends are relevant to certain New York people. Those pieces are generally relegated to the Style section, anyway. It's clear what you're getting, why can't it be ignored if you feel it's so irrelevant?"

Because the NYT has an annoying habit of taking something that a few people are doing in a small part of New York City and presenting it as though it's a widespread trend instead of as "here's something that's relevant to certain New Yorkers".
posted by Lexica at 9:00 AM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


Also, the trends themselves are insufferable, even to fellow New Yorkers with a relatively high tolerance for insufferable New Yorkitude.

Usually they are either nonexistent or five years out of date, too.
posted by Sara C. at 9:05 AM on October 23, 2013 [4 favorites]


Even if they are annoying to some people, the way others use them as justification for dismissing the entire newspaper is a bit silly, I think.
posted by girlmightlive at 9:18 AM on October 23, 2013 [5 favorites]


The trend stories are a pretty small part of the paper. Unfortunately I think they've discovered that they get passed around in lazy outrage with great alacrity, so they do generate lots of clicks. Focusing on those is encouragement to keep them doing more.
posted by Miko at 9:18 AM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


I ran out of my free article allotment the other day and headed to their Twitter feed, since links from their Twitter page don't count. So essentially the NY Times has made their linear Twitter feed a homepage portal instead of their own optimized homepage.
posted by yeti at 9:19 AM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


One of the most surreal change with newspapers going online is that you can see exactly how many people read each story. And when you see that silly stories are popular, it turns into classic chicken-or-the-egg.

I mean, people get mad that there are tabloids and paparazzi, but there is a huge market for it. And if people didn't at least love (or love to hate) those trend pieces, they wouldn't be as popular as they apparently are.
posted by girlmightlive at 9:23 AM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


Yeah, quite sadly, the fact that they have so few subscribers is actually a driver for the proliferation of trend pieces. The web ad revenue from the trend pieces is subsidizing the actual news content. More subscribers would ease that pressure for clicks and shares.
posted by Miko at 9:30 AM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


I mean, people get mad that there are tabloids and paparazzi, but there is a huge market for it. And if people didn't at least love (or love to hate) those trend pieces, they wouldn't be as popular as they apparently are.

The problem is that if they are going after the lowest common denominator fluff link-bait market, their competition are sites like BuzzFeed and Yahoo that do not charge subscription fees.
posted by burnmp3s at 9:36 AM on October 23, 2013


"Because the NYT has an annoying habit of taking something that a few people are doing in a small part of New York City and presenting it as though it's a widespread trend instead of as "here's something that's relevant to certain New Yorkers"."

The old joke is that the NYT Style section counts like, "One, two, trend."

(See anything written by Jennifer 8 Lee, especially the one on "man dates.")
posted by klangklangston at 9:44 AM on October 23, 2013 [2 favorites]


I wonder if the "love to hate" factor is a known quantity at the Times?

Like, do they sit around thinking "what are some things people were doing three years ago we can say are trends?" or "what is the most outrageous bullshit social phenomenon that will whip people into a frenzy?" as opposed to earnestly reporting on the trends their style correspondents actually notice?

Because seriously they are almost never currently timely actually widespread trends that truly reflect the current zeitgeist. They are always ridiculous, obscure, or years out of date.
posted by Sara C. at 9:52 AM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


I've never known anyone who reads the NYT regularly to treat NYT Style as anything but a deadpan version of Stefon's nightlife reviews on Weekend Update.
posted by griphus at 9:57 AM on October 23, 2013 [12 favorites]


BROOKLYN'S NEWEST FAD IS SPREADING MANGO JAM ON EVERYTHING. BACON. BURGERS. PUGS. EVERYTHING.
posted by griphus at 9:58 AM on October 23, 2013 [5 favorites]


Like many fads from Brooklyn that others consider jokes, I am actually quite interested in mango jam on pugs.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 10:10 AM on October 23, 2013 [4 favorites]


Considering last night's accidental experiment "Italian Dressing on a Puggle," I suspect it would be hilarious and disgusting both. Like basically anything a dog does.
posted by griphus at 10:14 AM on October 23, 2013 [4 favorites]


Sara C.: "Like, do they sit around thinking "what are some things people were doing three years ago we can say are trends?" or "what is the most outrageous bullshit social phenomenon that will whip people into a frenzy?" as opposed to earnestly reporting on the trends their style correspondents actually notice?"

Generally. trend pieces cover what reporters have heard or noticed themselves recently, either amongst their circle of friends and colleagues, in other media or in things have seen online. Etc. So if a trend piece is out of date, that might speak to how clued in to current trends the reporters are, and the circles they travel in. Also, it's perfectly possible for a publicist to recirculate an old release or old trend, in an effort to create buzz. So we might be seeing the end result of something like that.

The byline might also be worth noting. The style section includes quite a few freelancers instead of in-house reporters. Including the aforementioned Jennifer 8 Lee, who accepted a buyout from the Times back in 2009. She's had a handful of bylined articles since then across several sections, but only as a freelancer.
posted by zarq at 10:23 AM on October 23, 2013 [2 favorites]


The problem is that if they are going after the lowest common denominator fluff link-bait market, their competition are sites like BuzzFeed and Yahoo that do not charge subscription fees.

These are the stories that do best for them, the Times. They're not comparing themselves to BuzzFeed or trying to win BuzzFeed's market. They're trying to find a formula that keeps revenue steady within the company.

Looking at the New York Times' relationship with BuzzFeed is interesting. Hate, hate, collaborate, hate, rip off/repost.
posted by Miko at 10:35 AM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


Reading this thread, I was thinking about how I would be interested in a trend piece about how trend pieces have changed now that they are tied to web traffic and then I realized I am probably part of the problem.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 10:37 AM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


These are the stories that do best for them, the Times. They're not comparing themselves to BuzzFeed or trying to win BuzzFeed's market. They're trying to find a formula that keeps revenue steady within the company.

But they are trying to win BuzzFeed's market, in that they want their content linked on Facebook and found in search results and BuzzFeed is trying to do the same thing. A small local store could say they aren't comparing themselves to Walmart or trying to win Walmart's market, but if they sell a product and Walmart sells the same product then they are competing for market share and customers whether they like it or not. If a lot of your customers come to you to buy product X and somebody else is giving away product X for free, that's generally not good for your business model.
posted by burnmp3s at 10:54 AM on October 23, 2013


If you right-click and "Open link in incognito mode..." for NYT links, does that get around the paywall?

Links from certain other places don't count - twitter is one. The other is google. Copy and paste the title into google, search for it, then click on your search result.

Which is to say, no, the paywall doesn't stop me from reading.
posted by corb at 11:32 AM on October 23, 2013


But they are trying to win BuzzFeed's market

Yeah, I think that's only true in the most abstract sense in which everything competes with everything else. It's a big ecosystem. The New York Times has 4,036,144 followers on Facebook. Buzzfeed has 715,421. The New York Times has just shy of 10 million folllowers on Twitter (that's for the main feed alone, not even including subfeed with unique followers like @nytimesarts, @nytimesscience, @nytimesKrugman, @nytimesbooks, @nytimeslearning). Buzzfeed has 553,187.

The Times has no reason to scoop content from as low and wide an angle as Buzzfeed does. And the target growth demographics are different.
posted by Miko at 11:32 AM on October 23, 2013


Would you pay them $8.75 a week, or $35 a month?

Minor point, but I think Miko actually overstated the cost. From her link, you can get browser & phone-app access for $15 every four weeks, which is probably all most people need. You can also get three articles per day in the iPhone/Android app. At the point where I was routinely reading more than three articles per day, I felt like $15/mo. was pretty reasonable.
posted by jhc at 11:55 AM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


"A rising trend has been spotted in the newest popular independently-owned coffee shop in Brooklyn (you know the one), courtesy the shop's free wireless internet and avant-garde explorers of the World Wide Web. One need merely to glance about the shop, filled with the thick and rich aromas of Amazon safe brew, and notice across the tablets and the occasional laptop screen, a quite unprofessional blue screen. It is called Metafilter, a "community weblog" a website that allows anyone to submit items of interest or questions inviting comments from people. This is not the first time the web denizens of Metafilter found their way into the Styles Section, and most likely will not be their last.

But back to the "Blue" as it is called, and the intriguing opposition to "posts" that are links to the New York Times website. Within even a few hours, dozens of Metafilter users have been spotted voicing objections and complaints about the Times' Style and Fashion section, and in the process raising a fresh voice of Internet sophistication and commentary. One reader of the site that we spotted, Tim, dressed in earth green khakis, a soft blackguard flannel shirt with white Hensley sleeves emerging out from under the rolled back sleeves, and a stylish felt fedora, stated, "First it was top knots and then beards, but I think this has momentum. I called my friend earlier today and he yelled at me for interrupting his argument on the Blue regarding a link to the New York Times."

His companion, Silf, sporting a cute pixie haircut that framed her face with finely styled raven-hued black curls, a comfortable patterned skirt, thinly braided leather sandals, and white button up shirt with a short cropped denim jacket thrown on overtop, said that she thought that people may have started complaining about the links to the site as early as last week. Silf went on to state that, "I was walking my dog through the park, and this young couple had their iPads out and were totally rolling past the links to the Times." Both Silf and Tim think that at the very least, one should make sure to have a blue background on their phones or tablets, just in case someone is peeking over the owner's shoulder. After all, one never knows when must favorite and carry on!"
posted by Atreides at 11:59 AM on October 23, 2013 [8 favorites]


If you have a library card, you can access articles for free through proquest.
posted by brujita at 12:20 PM on October 23, 2013 [3 favorites]


I would cheerfully tolerate ads, and I'd like to get some of their print ads online. If you read the print version, you know about big airline offers and other stuff that never makes it online. I imagine the print ads, even for the NYTimes, are withering away. We're in the shakeout period where subscriptions for an awful lot of print media are drying up, and there's not a viable online alternative. yet.
posted by theora55 at 4:07 PM on October 23, 2013


Data point: we have a student subscription so I don't see the limit and click on NYT articles as they interest me. Don't know what I'll be doing when my husband gets out of grad school, though, because the student price is okay, but I'm less sure the going rate for non-students is worth it.

(I would love for the Statesman--my local paper--to be worth it. It's not.)
posted by immlass at 6:03 PM on October 23, 2013


I willingly pay for five or six newspapers, including Foreign Policy (I'm going to be getting myself Foreign Affairs for Christmas, I think.) I could subscribe to twelve of them for the price of the NYTimes. Once I realized this, I decided I probably wasn't interested in the various NYTimes deals.

However, I don't really pay attention to where the articles are hosted, to the extent that I ever read an FFP (I think that I've read less than 200 of them total in my life - as compared to the 2000-some Asks that I've actually answered.) If I run into the paywall, I'm basically like "whatever," and leave - that's true regardless of where I followed the link from.

Incidentally, if they charged me $.75 per article, or whatever they would have been getting from advertisers for the print version (again, pro-rated by article) then I would happily pay for it. There might even be a month here or there where that would actually add up to $15.

I'm operating under the assumption that they don't charge per article because they have a specific model for paying reporters and photographers and other staff, and it'd get all screwed up by people like me who don't read anything about fashion, sports, etc., and conversely by people who only read fashion, sports, etc. It'd be ridiculously complicated to re-calibrate the whole system all at once, but the pressure to do so would be overwhelming - and it might very well destroy the brand almost overnight. Then again, I also blame single-song downloads for the existence of three-fourths of the people who are up for mainstream Grammy and MTV Music Awards these days, so.
posted by SMPA at 6:19 PM on October 23, 2013


I'm operating under the assumption that they don't charge per article because they have a specific model for paying reporters and photographers and other staff, and it'd get all screwed up by people like me who don't read anything about fashion, sports, etc., and conversely by people who only read fashion, sports, etc.

I think the problem is that if you charge per article, the reader is constantly worrying about the cost. With a subscription, you only have to overcome the reader's concerns about cost once.
posted by John Cohen at 6:51 PM on October 23, 2013 [3 favorites]


For me to even think about subscribing, the NYT is going to have to fire Michael Gordon, who was Miller's partner in crime and is a deep and ongoing disgrace to the profession of journalism itself.

As it stands, whenever I find myself thinking I really should support the NYT, I just send a little bit more to Democracy Now.
posted by jamjam at 6:58 PM on October 23, 2013 [2 favorites]


Incidentally, if they charged me $.75 per article, or whatever they would have been getting from advertisers for the print version

One important thing is that they have pretty much extensively studied all the online-payment models. And what they've concluded is that, in this current climate, this is the best. I understand it may not feel like the best for any individual's user habits, but it's not a policy crafted in ignorance or the absence of data. They tried offering access free for some time, they tried account-based access, they've done pay-per-article in the archives for years now, and they also tested many other models. This one works, for now. The print edition is still a lot more profitable than the web edition (web ads still comprise only 25% of total ad revenue according to the most recently quarterly earnings report).
Executives studied a variety of online business models including those used by Weight Watchers, which charges $17.95 a month plus a $29.95 initiation fee for weight loss guidance, and Apple’s iTunes service, which popularized the micropayment with the 99-cent song download. They even looked at a donation model and at creating a digital newsstand where people could buy The Times as part of a bundle with subscriptions to local papers and national papers like The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post.

Mr. Sulzberger wanted a flexible system, one that would allow the company to adjust the limit on the number of free articles as needed — in the case of a big breaking news event, for example.

“Let’s imagine there’s a horrifying story like 9/11 again,” he said in an interview. “We can — with one hit of a button — turn that meter to zero to allow everyone to read everything they want,” he said. “We’re going to learn. We built a system that is flexible.”
posted by Miko at 7:51 PM on October 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


I don't really have too much of an opinion about the NYT - I don't have a sub, but might read it I found it in the train - but I think that on principle, stuff that gets posted here should be openly accessible.
posted by carter at 8:11 PM on October 23, 2013


I love the Style section, the trends, oh, the trends, there is too much ridiculous to choose from. My favorite has to be the piece they published a couple of years ago on how male hipsters have soft round bellies.

But, the Style articles aren't a good fit for metafilter because the people who like them already know where to find them.
posted by betweenthebars at 8:11 PM on October 23, 2013


Bloomberg: New York Times Paywall is Working Better Than Anyone Had Guessed

The NYT's $150 Million a Year Paywall. Interesting note about the Guardian in there - not doing well at all, apparently.

New York Times Paywall Bumped Up Home Delivery Subscriptions, with notes like "“At the rate we’re going, as the line between church and state is deliberately blurred by desperate media companies, we may end up with a handful of actual independent online magazines and newspapers and a vast industry of corporate propaganda designed to look like the real thing,” Andrew Sullivan writes" and "Bob Garfield takes a dim look at news orgs’ prospects: “I would say that the business model is unsustainable, but losing money is not a business model. It is a going-out-of-business model.” People who care about journalism “should pray for paywalls and other subscription models to take hold,” he says."
posted by Miko at 8:12 PM on October 23, 2013 [5 favorites]


> My favorite has to be the piece they published a couple of years ago on how male hipsters have soft round bellies.

This is because a true biological hipster indeed does have additional length of intestines, much like a gorilla, to better ferment fruits and berries and cellulose.
posted by planetesimal at 8:28 PM on October 23, 2013 [3 favorites]


Do you skip NYT links?

No. They're usually better than other newspaper links. I wish some nice rich person would buy the NY Times and keep it running online for free (plus ad sales). How much would that cost?

They tried offering access free for some time, they tried account-based access, they've done pay-per-article in the archives for years now, and they also tested many other models.

I think I remember being able to download a free daily 8-page PDF news summary from them at one point back in the olden days, before the whole newspaper went online for free.
posted by pracowity at 3:59 AM on October 24, 2013


I believe in paying for real journalism.

It's why I send money to Amy Goodman.
posted by spitbull at 4:10 AM on October 24, 2013 [4 favorites]


betweenthebars: "...because the people who like them already know where to find them."

Maybe. But I gotta say, I never operate under this assumption when creating FPP's -- and I hope that other people don't either. It's not as if we're in any danger of becoming a hub for every Buzzfeed or Cracked article.

We really have no idea what people here have looked for or come across in their internet travels. What sites they normally read or might see in their social media feeds. The "popular" sites aren't necessary popular to all people. And "common knowledge" isn't always common. Look at AskMe. Or the TIL subreddit.

One of the things I really love about MeFi is that it introduces me to stuff I could have otherwise missed or never have known about. Even if it showed up on sites I might actually frequent.
posted by zarq at 7:42 AM on October 24, 2013 [3 favorites]


I think that on principle, stuff that gets posted here should be openly accessible.

I'm really sympathetic to this point, and I guess the thing is that in the NYT's case it's not black and white. Articles are openly accessible, unless you've already read 10 of them. And even if you have, you can use one of the many workarounds offered. I think there's a big difference between this and the kind of "not openly accessible" situation you have with JSTOR, for example, which I'm sure would appear here more often were it not for the fact that it's ironclad. I think the NYT essentially is openly accessible for any single link.
posted by Miko at 11:07 AM on October 24, 2013


I quit reading the NYT after Carl Bernstein revealed in 1977 that the place was riddled with spies.

Just kidding, I was eleven years old then.
posted by craniac at 6:33 AM on October 25, 2013 [1 favorite]


I freaking despise the lifestyle pieces - which strangely typify both American (new yorkian) ethnocentrism at its absolute worst with no broader relevance to anyone else anywhere in the world, and yet also the worst aspects of newspaper lifestyle magazines everywhere.

This is what I like about them! The kind of thing that would annoy the tits off me if it were published about upper-class Brits in a British newspaper seems exotic and hilarious when it's about a different city. I have never been to New York, and I have developed a kind of mythos in my head about what's there based on articles like this. Mostly, it consists of Oscar the Grouch, spraypainted subway cars, pretzels, children called Ocean Bay, cross people selling things on mats on the sidewalk, bacon cocktails, really cheap OPI, and nannies.
posted by mippy at 9:41 AM on October 25, 2013 [3 favorites]


That's hilarious because years of watching Richard Curtis movies and BBC/ITV/Granada television have enabled me to build a parallel London that consists of quaint bookshops, curry, light-filled Scandinavian-furnished apartments strewn with quirky art prints, tweed, people named Gemma and Alfie, double decker buses, pubs, and something called Marks & Spencer which might be a supermarket or a place to buy underwear, I'm not sure.
posted by Sara C. at 9:51 AM on October 25, 2013 [5 favorites]


mippy: "Mostly, it consists of Oscar the Grouch, spraypainted subway cars, pretzels, children called Ocean Bay, cross people selling things on mats on the sidewalk, bacon cocktails, really cheap OPI, and nannies."

Add in Falafel carts, Cronuts, pretzel and hot dog vendors, overpriced food/drink/housing/taxis/etc, homeless folks, lots and lots of other people dressed in black, mad cyclists, insane drivers, and a ton of annoying pedestrian foot traffic in midtown....
posted by zarq at 10:00 AM on October 25, 2013


WE DIDN'T START THE FIRE
posted by griphus at 10:05 AM on October 25, 2013 [8 favorites]


Most major newspapers in US are signed up for Google's First Click (or whatever it's called) program - the first click on a paywalled story is free if you search for it on Google News. WSJ is an exception - never free via FirstClick on the day of publication, but maybe later.

Plus, not all NYT links are paywalled - there are selected exceptions, which may shift over time.
posted by Bwithh at 11:06 AM on October 25, 2013


This may win some record for the most annoying Times Style section article in a long time:
The Buckhead house served as the setting for the couple’s Oct. 25 wedding. It was a small affair that mixed elegance and whimsy. Ms. Koch’s dog, Sir William Sugarplum, helped walk her down the aisle. Ms. Koch’s sister, who is a milliner in Beijing, had prepared hats and headpieces for many of the women in attendance. But the prize piece was two interlocked starlings that adorned the bride’s head.

The starling had been the favorite bird of the groom’s father, the late Christopher R. Sibson, who was a banker in England and Luxembourg. His photograph was set near the couple as Dorothy Toth Beasley, a former senior judge on Georgia’s Court of Appeals, led the couple in their vows, which included lyrics from a song by the Smiths.

The word “starling” holds multiple meanings for the couple, who believe they are creatures from the stars. It is engraved inside their rings. The groom gave the bride a gold band ringed with black diamonds. One is missing. It can be found inside his platinum ring, a way to keep a part of her with him when work separates them.

Wishing to be as close to nature as they could, the couple spent their wedding night in a tent lined with Indian saris in a bamboo grove on the Koch property. The morning after the wedding, the couple took their respective clans to that Southern icon, the Waffle House.

“It was not my kind of food,” confessed the groom’s mother, Ruth Harrison Sibson-Windsor, who was making her first trip to the United States from Canterbury, England. “But the service was friendly.”
posted by octothorpe at 11:15 AM on November 3, 2013


Well that's not entirely fair. It's from the wedding section, which is obviously going to be full of vomitous whimsy.

My main complaint is twofold:

- What do you even CALL a dog named "Sir William Sugarplum"? Surely nobody actually says all that when they speak to or about their dog in casual conversation. I mean, sure, I sometimes jokingly refer to my dog as Reverend Aloysius Cottington, but that's not, like, my dog's actual name at like the vet and instagram and stuff.

- Those are ugly-ass hats, for being designed by a real professional milliner.

Other thoughts:

- I wish my middle name was Toth.

- I hope the Smiths lyrics they picked were from "Girlfriend In A Coma".

- I'm sorry, what, is the grooms mother, like, an ACTUAL fucking Windsor? At Waffle House? Oh my.
posted by Sara C. at 11:31 AM on November 3, 2013 [3 favorites]


“It was not my kind of food,” confessed the groom’s mother

Your loss, sister! It's for things like their pecan waffle that we had our damn Revolution.
posted by Miko at 11:54 AM on November 3, 2013 [2 favorites]


The word “starling” holds multiple meanings for the couple, who believe they are creatures from the stars.

Who have come to earth to eat our garbage?
posted by Sys Rq at 2:37 PM on November 3, 2013 [3 favorites]


« Older Looking for a comment about persimmons   |   NaNoWriMo 2013 Newer »

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