Policy regarding FP links requiring registration.

January 3, 2005 2:15 AM

Policy regarding FP links requiring registration. [more inside]
posted by Deepspace to Etiquette/Policy at 2:15 AM (18 comments total)

I don't mind FP posts referencing registration-required links to major news sites like NY Times and LA times, but I find posts like this
very frustrating.

I tried using bugmenot to access the links referenced in the post, but that did not work, and I have no desire to register at some two-bit spamming site in Kansas using my real email address.

How about a MeFi policy disallowing FP posts with all links pointing to registration-required sites?
posted by Deepspace at 2:17 AM on January 3, 2005

The first link was registration required.

You could do what I do and just setup a hotmail or gmail account specifically for these sorts of things. Then you wouldn't really have to worry about it all that much.

And, honestly, while they're generally frowned upon, I doubt you'll get enough support to outright ban reg-req links.
posted by The God Complex at 2:43 AM on January 3, 2005

Sorry, the first link "wasn't" registration required.
posted by The God Complex at 2:44 AM on January 3, 2005

Actually, the first link *was* registration required, for me at least -- you may have registered previously and managed to avoid the registration screen.

I tried registering at the site using a throwaway address, but I was still unable to access the site. Maybe they do not accept registrations from certain free email services?

The point is that at the very least some effort is required to access RR sites and at worst some people are not able to access them at all.

By allowing links to these sites we are just encouraging them. If everyone were to boycott RR sites, they would soon disappear.
posted by Deepspace at 3:25 AM on January 3, 2005

Strange. Earlier I didn't have to register for the first link. Maybe you get one free access before it boots you to the registration site?
posted by The God Complex at 3:48 AM on January 3, 2005

How do you suppose this policy could be implemented? By badgering and whining here on metatalk when people do it, or by some mechanical means?
posted by crunchland at 4:41 AM on January 3, 2005

I think sometimes posters don't realize that what they are posting is a registration-required site - when, for example, they already have a cookie and have just forgotten that they ever registered. This is especially true of sites like this that have a "Keep me signed in on this computer until I sign out" option available.

Generally, though, when people knowingly choose to post an article from a site that requires registration, I think it's good form to also find another version of the story on an open site, or else include related information plus a short summary of the registration-required article on the inside.
posted by taz at 5:02 AM on January 3, 2005

...some two-bit spamming site in Kansas

Hey now, the Kansas City Star is one of the biggest papers in the midwest. Hmmph. (I know, and they have yet to understand the truth about the internet. Ah well.)
posted by RJ Reynolds at 5:45 AM on January 3, 2005

The Kansas City Star is a major newspaper and most major newspapers now require registration of some type, so it should be common knowledge by now that a login/pass was needed. What taz said in his second paragraph.

It's too bad that I was actually interested in the post because I wasted a lot of time trying to access it.
posted by Arch Stanton at 6:40 AM on January 3, 2005

it should be common knowledge by now that a login/pass was needed. What taz said in his second paragraph.

I forget which sites I've logged in for and which ones don't need passwords often. Bugmenot.com does work for this one, or it did for me. I agree with what taz said, but you should probably know that she is a girl.
posted by jessamyn at 7:18 AM on January 3, 2005

Ugh. Sorry. What taz said in her second paragraph. :)
posted by Arch Stanton at 8:15 AM on January 3, 2005

I think sometimes posters don't realize that what they are posting is a registration-required site - when, for example, they already have a cookie and have just forgotten that they ever registered. This is especially true of sites like this that have a "Keep me signed in on this computer until I sign out" option available.

I've had this problem. I've been reading the Washington Post via their 'My Washington Post' function for several years. When I started reading it, no registration was required unless you were using that kind of personalized service. Somewhere along the way, they introduced general registration for the site, but I had no idea, because I was already registered for the personal version. I posted a link to WashPost to the front page, and oops, registration required.
posted by jacquilynne at 8:36 AM on January 3, 2005

Strange. Earlier I didn't have to register for the first link. Maybe you get one free access before it boots you to the registration site?

I've found that the Kansas City Star's registration firewall is a bit scattershot -- it'll let you read a page if you link off Google, but it'll ask for registration if you click to someplace else on the site, and then demand registration when you go back to the page you were originally reading. But occassionally it won't.

It's like their cookie detector is blinking on and off.
posted by me3dia at 9:31 AM on January 3, 2005

Sniff... my first Metatalk callout. So many years, so little callouts.

I missed it because I have Firefox and the Bugmenot extension installed. I highly recommend it as I never, ever worry about stupid signups and such. It fills in the fields for you. If only everything in life were this easy.

And the article in the KC Star was exclusive to the Star (not an AP wire or such), and to my knowledge exists nowhere but on the Star homepage.
posted by geoff. at 10:01 AM on January 3, 2005

crunchland: How do you suppose this policy could be implemented?

Same as all unacceptable posts, matt would delete them.
posted by Mitheral at 10:30 AM on January 3, 2005

I've been having to skip over some of the registration required FPP's lately because of this.

At the very least, the reg. req. needs to be noted. Other than that, I don't know, its a pain but I understand that the news sites would like to get some idea of who's who and what they're reading.
posted by fenriq at 11:10 AM on January 3, 2005

I like the way Boing Boing deals with reg. req. news stories: often, they include a username and password for readers to use to get in with the post.

Maybe MeFi should require FPP's whose links are entirely reg. req. to include a username and password for readers to get in.

If it's worth posting on the front page, it's worth the few seconds it'll take you, the author, to make an account for the convenience of readers.

(NB: this tool will convert a reg. req. New York Times link to one that doesn't require it)
posted by Count Ziggurat at 3:09 PM on January 3, 2005

All links to the NYT that come from an RSS reader are reg. req-free and do not get archived (i.e. they function as permalinks that never require registration, never go behind the "pay $2 for an archived article" wall, and will continue to be available for the foreseeable future.)

Here are examples of old RSS-style links from Metafilter that are still viewable w/o paying and w/o registering:

Fo Shizzle, That Big Bad Chrysler Really Does Sizzle
By DANNY HAKIM
Published: June 26, 2004
How Would Jackson Pollock Cover This Campaign?
By DANIEL OKRENT
Published: October 10, 2004
Fear and Laptops on the Campaign Trail
By MATTHEW KLAM
Published: September 26, 2004

Examples of dead/ reg.req./ pay-me-now NYT links are rife on Metafilter.

Upshot: Get your NYT links from Bloglines or some other aggregator-- no one ever gets a reg. req. screen & the links don't die.
posted by juggernautco at 11:31 AM on January 29, 2005