Are links to paysite articles okay?

August 6, 2002 2:21 PM

Are links like this akin to saying "Harper's, page 27"? I did some metatalk searching and all I could find was a post discussing copy-and-pasting of whole pay site articles, it seems like this would have been discussed before, but I guess not.
posted by geoff. to Feature Requests at 2:21 PM (13 comments total)

Mozilla crashed while I was editing the post, so this is a stripped down "arggghh" version. I notice a chatty comment was deleted in the thread, so possibly links like that are ok with Matt?

I would reckon to say that a vast majority of users don't pay for Salon and such a premium link would be nothing more then a convenient way to start a discussion.
posted by geoff. at 2:24 PM on August 6, 2002

i didn't see this information published elsewhere, and i think it is of interest, and the teaser portion of the story that is available pretty much explains what the story is. MUCH more disturbing to me is the nowadays almost knee-jerk appearance of metacriticism of people's posts. it's as though there is an entire contingent of mefites who sit with thier fingers on the MeTa post button, awaiting the next unknowing victim to come along and make a post in good faith, so that they can pile on. i'm not accusing YOU of this geoff., i'm just saying...
posted by quonsar at 2:40 PM on August 6, 2002

I've contacted someone at Salon, asking them if we can work out some sort of deal to let Salon Premium stories be readable from MetaFilter links.

I was waiting to hear back on that before deleting the post.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:51 PM on August 6, 2002

micropayments! I'd pay 10¢ to look. Maybe even 50¢ if I were interested in the topic. How cool would that be!? Why, oh why, gods do you forsake us so? And lock us into forcing our (astute and tireless) into begging Salon.com for access to their articles that many of us would gladly pay for?
posted by zpousman at 3:11 PM on August 6, 2002

I dunno, I think that the post is legit. Some of us ARE paying members, and either way, there's enough of the article available to stimulate legitimate conversation on the topic. Just my $0.02.
posted by delfuego at 4:45 PM on August 6, 2002

I don't have a problem in principle with pay-sites, but I don't think they should be the subject -- at least the sole subject -- of a post. This harks back to the discussions about poorly-researched posts (e.g. not noting follow-up articles or other substantive and helpful material). In this case, it's a provocative teaser, but I can't tell whether it's serious or satire, so I'm unsure how to respond. Is this corroborated? Is it evidence of -- what, exactly, other than terminal Development Hell for Operation TIPS? The poster of such an article -- if it really is an earthshaking exclusive of this level of importance -- should be willing to provide context for those of us unable (or unwilling) to crest this particular shoal. Is there a buried lede, or at least a money graf, that can be quoted under fair use? Another article touching on the same topics without all the same information? Just sayin'.
posted by dhartung at 5:08 PM on August 6, 2002

it's as though there is an entire contingent of mefites who sit with thier fingers on the MeTa post button, awaiting the next unknowing victim to come along and make a post in good faith, so that they can pile on.

Sometimes I think there is a poster on MeFi who sits on his fingers waiting for another political thread concerning the US Attorney General to come along, only to once again use the rather blatantly unfunny term, "asscroft". I'm not accusing you, quonsar...just saying.
posted by BlueTrain at 5:14 PM on August 6, 2002

This thread and this other one contain interesting opinions on this question.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:16 PM on August 6, 2002

did someone say asscroft?!?!?!
posted by quonsar at 7:44 PM on August 6, 2002

say, is bush dead yet?
posted by quonsar at 7:47 PM on August 6, 2002

For what it's worth, my two cents: I don't mind seeing posts with links to pay sites. I think of it this way: when reading a book, I don't mind if an author cites from another book I don't own.
posted by josephtate at 12:44 AM on August 7, 2002

What's the point of posting a link that can only be read by 0.002% of MeFi readers? Unless, of course, the idea of MeFi is to promote discussion between these 0.002% of readers.
posted by nixon at 11:41 AM on August 7, 2002

I think this particular case is special in that the original poster does not have Salon Premium access either. This means that the point of the link was the part that was visible to all. It would have been good to make that more clear, though--at first, I didn't even bother following the link, 'cause I didn't think I'd see anything.

Ordinarily, I'd agree that linking to premium content is a bad idea. The main point of a post is the link. This is useless if it's a link most people can't follow. And for that matter, the secondary purpose is discussion about the link, which can't happen if people can't read it.
posted by moss at 1:44 PM on August 7, 2002