Times Are Changing January 24, 2011 8:43 PM   Subscribe

Frequent (some say too frequent) MetaFilter source The New York Times is going to initiate a PayWall in the next month (according to a freely available article from the Wall Street Journal - extra points for irony). So how will this change from the Grey Lady effect the Blue?

"Online readers would get free access to a certain number of pages on the website each month before they are prompted to sign up for a subscription for additional material, an approach currently used by the Financial Times." (Has there been any problem before with publications like FT using this model? Of course, there are a lot more FPPs based on NYT content...)

"Times Co. executives have said that only about 15% of the paper's online readers are "heavy users," meaning the vast majority probably won't trigger a payment requirement." (So this may be a moot point for most MeFi members or users who don't do a lot of other NYT news surfing)

"Half or more of the site's traffic in some months comes through the "side door," or from search engines, social-networking sites and other sources. Times Co. executives say people who arrive through search engines like Google won't be blocked from viewing the first page of a search result regardless of how many visits they've made." (Notice it says "the first page")

So, is there anything we the users or MetaFilter LLC can do before this is implemented, or can we only wait to see if (yes, a BIG if) we end up with a pile of "I can't access this" comments in every NYT thread?
posted by oneswellfoop to MetaFilter-Related at 8:43 PM (97 comments total)

I think "wait and see" is the best bet. Freaking about about something that's not necessarily going to happen isn't really that helpful. Especially when the source is a competitor.

If they do go paywall, then the policy changes, but more likely, people just don't link to the for-pay articles. I don't think we've had a problem with people posting for-pay WSJ articles, right?
posted by explosion at 8:47 PM on January 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


So how will this change from the Grey Lady effect the Blue?

We'll need more green.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:51 PM on January 24, 2011 [8 favorites]


I get the feeling that a lot of people never actually read the article in NYT feature/op-ed/style posts in the first place.
posted by Rhaomi at 8:56 PM on January 24, 2011 [6 favorites]


I've stopped clicking since they've required registration. Just keep linking them the same as always, I'll pick up the context from the discussion and they can enjoy entertaining me without even getting an ad impression.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 8:58 PM on January 24, 2011 [7 favorites]


You are so pure.
posted by John Cohen at 9:01 PM on January 24, 2011 [4 favorites]


I get the feeling that a lot of people never actually read the article in NYT feature/op-ed/style most posts in the first place.
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:01 PM on January 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


Rip Foster is on this.
posted by clavdivs at 9:02 PM on January 24, 2011


NY Times doesn't always require registration, they just try to make people think they do. You can, basically always, search for the NYT URL on Google, click on the results, and they let you in. It's possible to attempt to craft NYT links that never ask for registration, but I've found it to be pretty hit-and-miss.

In general, it seems like a lot of newspaper sites allow referred search clicks in fine, sometimes allow direct traffic or other referers, and basically always ask for registration if you click around too much on their own site.
posted by skynxnex at 9:05 PM on January 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


I've stopped clicking since they've required registration. Just keep linking them the same as always, I'll pick up the context from the discussion and they can enjoy entertaining me without even getting an ad impression.

Congratulations furiousxgeorge! You win the trophy for the most pointlessly self-righteous comment so far in this thread!
posted by dersins at 9:06 PM on January 24, 2011 [4 favorites]


Hey, it's early days yet.

- Posted from my solar powered, open source recycled no-brand smartphone -
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:09 PM on January 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


It was a fancy way of saying "I don't give a fuck" but whatever. I don't bother to register on sites like that because if the whole internet went that way I could never handle it because I use strong and varied passwords. If they switched to like Facebook login or something I would be fine. Everything they publish is widely discussed everywhere on the internet so I'm not missing any content either, so who cares about the paywall?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:14 PM on January 24, 2011


I get the feeling that a lot of people never actually read the article in NYT feature/op-ed/style posts in the first place.

I've always figured that, since the cover article from the Sunday NYTmag gets posted like clockwork every weekend, everyone's already reading the dead tree edition. I get mine at the library.
posted by carsonb at 9:18 PM on January 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


NYT behind Paywall!?!? Mandatory registration?!?!?! I'm totally only going to link to New York Post stories from now on.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:21 PM on January 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


...New York Post:
Heh, I clicked that, there's a banner ad at the top; for a reality show on SyFy, about Americas next top Movie Magic Artist... cool enough, but then I saw the "tagline" for SyFy... Imagine Greater. It made me lol a little in my mouth.

NY Times doesn't always require registration...
First Click Free:
If you offer subscription-based access to your website content, or if users must register to access your content, then search engines cannot access some of your site's most relevant, valuable content.
....
The New York Times last month said it was working with Google, which sends huge amounts of traffic to newspaper websites, to prevent abuse of the first-click-free model.

“We will take great pains to make sure that the first-click-free policy isn’t abused in any way,” Martin Nisenholtz, the Times‘ digital chief, told a media conference in comments reported by Yahoo’s Cutline blog. “Google has been quite cooperative in terms of setting a limit for the number of free articles that can go in for any one day, so that you can’t just sit and engineer your way into a free use of the website. It’s first click free, not 50th click free.”


-Posted from inside the internet, without reading the linked article, and now I have read it, but it didn't mention Google FCF program by name.
posted by infinite intimation at 9:45 PM on January 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Fewer posts about "yoga for dogs".
posted by bonehead at 9:46 PM on January 24, 2011 [5 favorites]


Post title should be 'Times is Changing' ... :~)
posted by woodblock100 at 10:12 PM on January 24, 2011 [4 favorites]


Some of my favorite posts on mefi have been from Times content. How are the mods planning on handling the change? Will they now be banned, the way other content behind a paywall is?
posted by zarq at 10:17 PM on January 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


I get mine at the library.
paper wins!
posted by clavdivs at 10:20 PM on January 24, 2011


The paywall will last about 6 months, imo.
posted by empath at 10:28 PM on January 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


If this only affects the heaviest nytimes users then it isn't really a wall, more like a pay-hedge.
posted by Rhomboid at 10:41 PM on January 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Since Wikileaks, haven't newspapers become sort of superannuated?
posted by a non e mouse at 10:45 PM on January 24, 2011


We'll just have to pick up the slack with more Daily Mail posts, of course.
posted by Burhanistan at 10:46 PM on January 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Or maybe WaPo.





















bwahahaahahahahaha, lolno.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 10:52 PM on January 24, 2011 [4 favorites]


I know of at least one semi-paywall that can be easily circumvented with a reformatting bookmarklet (like Arc90's Readability). I'm waiting to see if the NYT's also that clueless.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 11:16 PM on January 24, 2011


The sun will rise, the world will turn and we'll just post links to the Grauniad instead.
posted by arcticseal at 11:30 PM on January 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Man, why don't they just charge five bucks for a membership that let's you comment on the articles? They'd get a lot more free advertising for the confounding nature of it and I'd have less to cringe at when I read there.

Also, CIA must be broke to demand money from their wholly-owned vassals in such a fashion. God and Mammon.
posted by artof.mulata at 11:34 PM on January 24, 2011


Hey did anybody hear what Howard Stern said yesterday?

No, no one did. Because Stern went from being on free radio to being on subscription satellite radio. And instantly he went from a huge figure in the popular culture to completely forgotten. That is what pay walls do.

Also, they tried this once before, and abandoned it.
posted by LarryC at 11:45 PM on January 24, 2011 [15 favorites]


God knows it worked so well the first time.
posted by munchingzombie at 12:19 AM on January 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


So how will this change from the Grey Lady effect the Blue?

'affect'
posted by hal_c_on at 12:29 AM on January 25, 2011 [10 favorites]


The jury is still out on the pay wall for The Times implemented a few months ago.
posted by arcticseal at 12:38 AM on January 25, 2011


Pay them off.
posted by clavdivs at 1:15 AM on January 25, 2011


I'm wondering how that will affect my NYT iPod app? I guess I'll find out soon enough.
posted by Splunge at 2:29 AM on January 25, 2011


What bonehead said. It will mean fewer annoying trend pieces (paleo diet?) posted to the blue.
posted by fixedgear at 3:32 AM on January 25, 2011


Also, the FT's "paywall" is ridiculous. Articles behind it are easily accessible via Google News about 2 minutes after they are posted. And there's also this, for (*cough*) IE users.
posted by chavenet at 4:06 AM on January 25, 2011


Wait. This isn't happening for a month, and you're already worrying about it?
posted by crunchland at 4:31 AM on January 25, 2011


The paywall will last about 6 months, imo.

The New York Times will last about 9 months, imo.
posted by spitbull at 4:34 AM on January 25, 2011


Well, it just means I won't read their stuff. Same as with The Times.

These people need to be encouraged to understand the internet.
posted by Decani at 4:38 AM on January 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


"Half or more of the site's traffic in some months comes through the "side door," or from search engines, social-networking sites and other sources. Times Co. executives say people who arrive through search engines like Google won't be blocked from viewing the first page of a search result regardless of how many visits they've made." (Notice it says "the first page")

That "first page" thing wouldn't seem to be a problem as long as you can still link to a single-page version.
posted by John Cohen at 4:51 AM on January 25, 2011


[removed some comments that apparently our friend at the NYTimes was a little too hasty with, sorry folks.]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:21 AM on January 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


You know what, guys? I am so sorry. I really should have checked with higher ups before posting those comments. Please hold off on the twitter inquiries until I get clearance, OK? I forget that we have to be *really* careful around social media.

I've asked the mods to remove my two comments above; I'll repost them later if I get permission. [So if you're currently wondering what happened to the conversation, that was my bad.] Sorry, but I'm not much help to anyone if I lose my job. I was trying to be helpful, but it was a good impulse, bad execution.

Thanks for understanding.
posted by N@ at 6:22 AM on January 25, 2011


The Times be censorin'.
posted by Burhanistan at 6:34 AM on January 25, 2011


How are the mods planning on handling the change? Will they now be banned, the way other content behind a paywall is?

We'll really have to see how it plays out, is the only answer we can give at this point. At some level something that kept the sheer volume of "Hey here's a new NYT article about something they think is a trend but is really only a trend in Brooklyn and parts of Manhattan" posts down would be okay with me, but they're a big source for FPPs generally so we'll have to find a way to make this work. But yeah basically if you're linking to something that people have to log in to [paywall or no] we'd prefer if people tried to link to stuff that was freely available nstead. I know there's a lot of back and forth about just how noxious login-required stuff is but the fewer hurdles to whatever you're trying to link to, the better.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:06 AM on January 25, 2011 [4 favorites]


I bet there's gonna be an uptick in Gawker/Gothamist articles that second-hand report on NYTimes articles. This'll be really fucking crazy when it's science articles, like a game of flamewar telephone!

Peer-reviewed paper: a study of overweight vegans
NYTimes: Does veganism make you fat? Sources say maybe, or maybe not.
Gawker: Here is a photo of a passed-out fat vegan on the street, they are a hipster
Metafilter: We're doin' the drunk hipster vegan body-image argument again
posted by Greg Nog at 7:19 AM on January 25, 2011 [21 favorites]


43 comments and not one suggests actually paying for the content. Not criticizing, just noting with a heavy heart that things don't look good for the future of the NYT.
posted by CunningLinguist at 8:05 AM on January 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


> 43 comments and not one suggests actually paying for the content.

To be fair, this is more in the context of linking from Metafilter and having threads about paywalled content. There are probably enough suckers to buy NYT accounts in the short term. Probably.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:07 AM on January 25, 2011


And yes, I know this is a site-specific issue and we can't post stuff that only some people can read, but I meant the general tone was "pay? hah."
posted by CunningLinguist at 8:08 AM on January 25, 2011


Yeah, it seems we're moving in the direction of having network/cable news' sycophantic coverage on the one side, and snarky blogs on the other with very little actual journalism between the two. But, hey, paying for content is anti-freedom or something, apparently.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:13 AM on January 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


43 comments and not one suggests actually paying for the content. Not criticizing, just noting with a heavy heart that things don't look good for the future of the NYT.

I posted a comment in this thread, and I'll be paying for the content. I didn't think this thread was supposed to be a poll of "Are you going to pay for the NYT"?
posted by John Cohen at 8:14 AM on January 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


but I meant the general tone was "pay? hah."

Breaking news: General tone in MetaTalk thread is derisive.
posted by John Cohen at 8:15 AM on January 25, 2011 [4 favorites]


I wouldn't pay for what the New York Times is selling. I give money to NPR every year, though.
posted by empath at 8:16 AM on January 25, 2011


I am paying for the New York Times, and I have never given money to NPR.
posted by John Cohen at 8:17 AM on January 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


I give to Pacifica an Z Media because I am liberaler than thou.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:20 AM on January 25, 2011


CunningLinguist: "43 comments and not one suggests actually paying for the content. Not criticizing, just noting with a heavy heart that things don't look good for the future of the NYT."

I paid for Times Select when it was available. My office has a print subscription. Like John Cohen, I'll also pay for a NYT premium account when it happens.

People who value the content enough will pay for it if they can. Or they'll find another source.
posted by zarq at 8:21 AM on January 25, 2011


I also make more typos on mobile devices than thou.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:21 AM on January 25, 2011


Since we have a NYT staffer snooping on us, I'll pay for the NYT, but only if I get the crossword as part of the deal. If I have to pay for it separately like last time, I'll pass. Feel free to take that to your paymasters.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:28 AM on January 25, 2011


LarryC: "Hey did anybody hear what Howard Stern said yesterday?

No, no one did. Because Stern went from being on free radio to being on subscription satellite radio. And instantly he went from a huge figure in the popular culture to completely forgotten. That is what pay walls do...
"

I actually hate Howard Stern, but to say that he is completely forgotten simply ignores the new contract he got from Sirius. (Ironic NY Times link to the $400 million contract HS just got.) There are thousands and thousands who pay to hear Howard. Just not me and apparently you. I pay Sirius to get the Grateful Dead channel. Sure beats having to pick which of my 211 tapes to play. The tapes are getting pretty thin now too.

As for the NY Times, meh.
posted by AugustWest at 8:29 AM on January 25, 2011


jessamyn: " We'll really have to see how it plays out, is the only answer we can give at this point. At some level something that kept the sheer volume of "Hey here's a new NYT article about something they think is a trend but is really only a trend in Brooklyn and parts of Manhattan" posts down would be okay with me, but they're a big source for FPPs generally so we'll have to find a way to make this work.

The discussions in those threads can be fun, though. :D

But yeah basically if you're linking to something that people have to log in to [paywall or no] we'd prefer if people tried to link to stuff that was freely available nstead. I know there's a lot of back and forth about just how noxious login-required stuff is but the fewer hurdles to whatever you're trying to link to, the better."

OK. That makes sense.

I made a post a few days ago that had a lot of links, (go figure) but the best, most thoroughly researched and interesting article was from the NY Times. That isn't uncommon in a non-Hollywood-figure obit post. I know that if I can read it but most other mefites can't, linking becomes an issue. But the FPP would have been poorer without it.

So it's really helpful to know where we stand wrt to stuff like this. Thank you.
posted by zarq at 8:30 AM on January 25, 2011


> Since we have a NYT staffer snooping on us ... Feel free to take that to your paymasters.

You know what? That's a really shitty thing to say to and about a fellow MeFite. Knock it off.
posted by languagehat at 8:38 AM on January 25, 2011 [10 favorites]


if the whole internet went that way I could never handle it because I use strong and varied passwords

KeePassX. That is all.
posted by flabdablet at 8:40 AM on January 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


It's also a bit silly to say that someone who's reading a MetaTalk thread is "snooping on us." When you post text on a popular, public website like Metafilter, people who read it are not snooping on you.
posted by John Cohen at 8:41 AM on January 25, 2011 [4 favorites]


If there were some kind of near-frictionless micropayment system in place where I could throw a nickel at them without having to go through the usual You Must Answer The Questions with an Asterisk user demographic form (which either resembles the night sky seen from a clear mountaintop or an ASCII representation of all of the assholes in Congress, pick your metaphor) with questions like
You have selected "Male."  How do you dress?
__  To the Left
__  To the Right
__  American Bullish
__  Droopy Dog
__  However Mistress Fastens the Chastity Cage
__  Tuck My Business
__  None of Yours
I might consider clicking through. Such a system does not yet exist, however.

My guess is that someone who wants to post about that will just find other, perhaps more primary, sources to link.
posted by adipocere at 8:46 AM on January 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Everyone is snooping on you when you have a victim complex.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:46 AM on January 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


Everyone is snooping on you when you have a victim complex.

Oh God, fuck off, you troll. It was a joke.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:49 AM on January 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Nice one.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:49 AM on January 25, 2011


This thread's better than caffeine!

Burhanistan is not a troll. That accusation is just dumb.
posted by rtha at 8:53 AM on January 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Seriously? Again with you two?
posted by explosion at 8:56 AM on January 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


adipocere: " My guess is that someone who wants to post about that will just find other, perhaps more primary, sources to link."

Sometimes, the Times is the most primary source.

A story broke this morning which I considered making an fpp out of, but decided not to. This is the primary obituary, on the Times website. This is a second obit. And this is a third, which mentions that the man who died was the first child adopted by a same-sex couple in Washington State. Here's some background info on how he and his horse touched his local community.

Those other links aren't as well written as the Times article. If it were behind a paywall and it weren't possible to include it, the FPP wouldn't be as good. (assuming it was worth posting in the first place, of course.)

Obviously, this really isn't that big a deal. But it's something we'll all have to pay attention to in the future.
posted by zarq at 8:57 AM on January 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


The discussions in those threads can be fun, though. :D

For some values of fun where fun does not include "fun for the mods", sure.

But it's something we'll all have to pay attention to in the future.

There's also the cultural aspect where people in the Northeast give the Times a lot more weight than anything else, and stories about New York or New Yorkers more weight than stories about other regions of the world. I'm not saying they're not a great newspaper and don't post a lot of stuff that is interesting, but the same way I'd like people to stop and consider "Do we need another post about Ebert" I'd like them to think "Do we need another post to a trends/fashion article in the New York Times?"

Oh God, fuck off, you troll. It was a joke.

You need to dial it back or take a walk at this point. The fuckoffery levels in MeTa have been too high lately.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:07 AM on January 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


"Online readers would get free access to a certain number of pages on the website each month before they are prompted to sign up for a subscription for additional material, an approach currently used by the Financial Times."

Options:

1. Clear cookies. (with the soon-to-be-announced NYT-Cookie-Eating-Addon)
2. Bugmenot
3. Multiple NYT accounts
4. Ignore NYT
posted by blue_beetle at 9:10 AM on January 25, 2011


5. Eat cookies
posted by cashman at 9:14 AM on January 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Hey, I thought you got mad at someone yesterday for suggesting you eat cookies. What gives?
posted by Night_owl at 9:30 AM on January 25, 2011


Hey, I thought you got mad at someone yesterday for suggesting you eat cookies. What gives?

I wasn't mad at the suggestion, I want(ed) the cookies!
posted by cashman at 9:35 AM on January 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Oh, guess I'll have to go back to stealing the NYT from my neighbors.
posted by fuq at 10:00 AM on January 25, 2011


I hope everyone will refer to their employers as "paymasters" from here on out.
posted by proj at 10:00 AM on January 25, 2011


Serious question: what are the legal limitations on "quoting" NYTimes articles, say, in comments on sites such as this where the article in question is linked, i.e. what would be illegal about someone who is a paying member commenting in the thread and "quoting" like...most of the article (despite the obvious obnox of putting a whole freakin' article in a thread comment)?
posted by Lutoslawski at 10:05 AM on January 25, 2011


I'm sure this has been discussed before, but where and when I don't know.
posted by Lutoslawski at 10:05 AM on January 25, 2011


I'm guessing that will largely depend on the terms of service and how leaky the site is for Google.
posted by proj at 10:14 AM on January 25, 2011


for the record, i said to pay them off.
posted by clavdivs at 10:21 AM on January 25, 2011


(according to a freely available article from the Wall Street Journal - extra points for irony)

It's like rain, on your wedding day.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:23 AM on January 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


what are the legal limitations on "quoting" NYTimes articles, say, in comments on sites such as this where the article in question is linked

Quoting an entire article exceeds what you would normally consider Fair Use [in my non-legal opinion] and the copyright holders could come after you for infringement. This is unlikely to happen, but it does happen elsewhere on the web.

What's more likely is that your comment would be flagged to hell and back by users for the obnoxiousness of including an entire article and/or copyright police types.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:25 AM on January 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


I figured as much. Thanks Jessamyn.
posted by Lutoslawski at 10:36 AM on January 25, 2011


Next month? I'm having issues linking to it now. In the Beatles un-movies post I made a mere 3 days ago, I couldn't access this review when I linked to it directly, so I included a Google search which had the link as the first result (at least, when I posted it). Definitely the cleanest way to handle linking, but it worked (for me). I'm not sure how many people read through the links, or used the work-around, but it was there. Also, it wasn't the main piece of the story, but one of the auxiliary links.
posted by filthy light thief at 11:19 AM on January 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


jessamyn: " For some values of fun where fun does not include "fun for the mods", sure.

Oh. :(

Do they all tend to be like that, though? Because I've posted a couple and my impression (which is obviously lacks your wider, modly perspective,) has been that they've not had comments deleted, etc.

Not trying to be argumentative, of course. I'm just curious -- this sort of meta-glimpse behind the scenes always fascinates me.
posted by zarq at 11:37 AM on January 25, 2011


This sort of happened before a few years ago. The New York Times went from all free to some free and some paid. Paid included Friedman, Krugman and Dowd. The day they went behind the wall I stopped reading them. As I recall Friedman in particular was angry that his readership plummeted. (I did not notice anything else that I regularly read going behind the wall.)

The next six months will be a critical period in establishing a stable internet strategy for the New York Times.
posted by bukvich at 11:59 AM on January 25, 2011


I included a Google search which had the link as the first result (at least, when I posted it). Definitely the cleanest way to handle linking

You mean definitely not the cleanest way...?
posted by John Cohen at 12:00 PM on January 25, 2011


[removed some comments that apparently our friend at the NYTimes was a little too hasty with, sorry folks.]

And because my comment was the next one thereafter, and referenced it, it got axed too! Hooray! I am so proud to join the elite group of people with axed MeTa comments that don't get them banned! SOMEBODY TELL ME TO FUCK OFF!
posted by SpiffyRob at 12:48 PM on January 25, 2011


John Cohen: You mean definitely not the cleanest way...?

Rather, yes. And by clean, I mean straight-forward or orderly. Posting two links, one of them search results, is wonky at best.
posted by filthy light thief at 1:15 PM on January 25, 2011


Posting two links, one of them search results, is wonky at best.

That's why I mentioned the "Google side door" in the original post. I wonder if there is a way NYT or other maybe-paywall sites could be linked indirectly (maybe automatically like Youtube and Amazon links get processed, pb?) without raising anyone's ire. Because I am all about NOT raising anybody's ire.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:41 PM on January 25, 2011


Well they've had a regwall for long enough that I've very much given up reading any NYT articles on the NYT site. Even the "one pageview per day" or whatever doesn't seem to work for me, and every NYT link is a reglink when I click it. Big whoop, their loss.
posted by rhizome at 3:29 PM on January 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


I saw the chairman of the NYT discuss this at a conference last year, along with his whole screwy philosophy of content ownership, and I don't think this isn't going to be an issue for Metafilter at all.

It's not just Google that will have the "side door." The NYT will cookie users, and two or three hops in per visit, you'll hit a wall if you aren't registered. They are specifically designing it so that people who click there on a one-off basis will not get blocked. The idea is that you'll be so intrigued with this amazing publication that you'll want to click further in.
posted by bingo at 3:30 PM on January 25, 2011


SpiffyRob: "[removed some comments that apparently our friend at the NYTimes was a little too hasty with, sorry folks.]

And because my comment was the next one thereafter, and referenced it, it got axed too! Hooray! I am so proud to join the elite group of people with axed MeTa comments that don't get them banned! SOMEBODY TELL ME TO FUCK OFF
"

Sorry. I'd really like to. Really. But I save them for special occasions. Would a sod off be enough?
posted by Splunge at 4:21 PM on January 25, 2011


It would have been, but the moment has passed. :(
posted by SpiffyRob at 7:33 PM on January 25, 2011


I pay my wife to tell me the news, this does tend to mean it's heavy on what amusing things the cat got up to today. This has the benefit of making me happy but ill-informed.
posted by arcticseal at 7:38 PM on January 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Is the blogs section of the NYT going behind the paywall as well? Because I'm going to miss fivethirtyeight is that's the case.
posted by Ritchie at 1:10 AM on January 26, 2011


I made what I thought was an obvious tongue-in-cheek comment here and I'd like to apologize to the following people who took legitimate offense:

• languagehat
• We had a deal, Kyle
• The corpse in the library
• bakerina
• RJ Reynolds
• cavalier
• ChuqD
• fixedgear
• zarq
• CunningLinguist

I tried to make a joke about the NYT crossword being made an expensive part of their site and I really missed the mark. Even if you folks choose not to accept my apology, I hope that you understand that I am sincere about it.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:02 AM on January 26, 2011


Blazecock Pileon: " I tried to make a joke about the NYT crossword being made an expensive part of their site and I really missed the mark. Even if you folks choose not to accept my apology, I hope that you understand that I am sincere about it."

Perfectly fine with me. Was quite nice of you to apologize publicly this way. Thanks.
posted by zarq at 10:44 AM on January 26, 2011


> Was quite nice of you to apologize publicly this way. Thanks.

Same from me. I'm normally pretty good at parsing jokes, but that one went completely over my head. Classy apology.
posted by languagehat at 12:15 PM on January 26, 2011


« Older When should I ask my question?   |   Questions From Another World Newer »

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