Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Marketwatch)   Do you enjoy the convenience of reading the Washington Post online? Well, hold on to those memories   (marketwatch.com ) divider line
    More: Sad, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal  
•       •       •

2374 clicks; posted to Business » on 07 Dec 2012 at 10:58 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



42 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-12-07 09:32:51 AM  
I run firefox with adblock and noscript and it's been shutting me out off and on for over a month
 
2012-12-07 11:02:22 AM  
Now how else will I read about decades old semi-scandals in Republican candidates' past?

Meh, the WaPo has been slowly going downhill. I have a print subscription (weekend only) and I've seen all the small format changes done for "cost cutting" that has reduced the paper's stature.
 
2012-12-07 11:03:14 AM  
If it works as well as the NYT's paywall, I suspect it won't keep that many people out.
 
2012-12-07 11:06:36 AM  

Arkanaut: If it works as well as the NYT's paywall, I suspect it won't keep that many people out.


Fark links to the NY Times seem to work ok.
 
2012-12-07 11:19:59 AM  

mcreadyblue: Arkanaut: If it works as well as the NYT's paywall, I suspect it won't keep that many people out.

Fark links to the NY Times seem to work ok.


NYT's policy is to allow 10 free articles per month per unpaid reader, so if you don't read them very often then you can get through just fine. The problem with this is that they keep track of how many articles you have viewed via cookies. Now I have been informed by my lawyer friend that it would be unethical as well as possibly illegal to instruct other people on how to avoid these measures, but suffice it to say that it's really simple to avoid cookies.
 
2012-12-07 11:29:24 AM  
Crap, where will I have to go *now* to not bother clicking on Jennifer Rubin links?

Oh, right ... anywhere and everywhere else.
 
2012-12-07 11:40:46 AM  

Arkanaut: but suffice it to say that it's really simple to avoid cookies.


Or just clean up your browser on occasion. It's a good policy. It's rather amazing what some of those third-party cookies are for.
 
2012-12-07 12:05:07 PM  

whyRpeoplesostupid: I run firefox with adblock and noscript and it's been shutting me out off and on for over a month


See, this is why they're considering moving to a pay-per-use system. Adblock makes it so you don't see the only revenue stream they have. I never understood that. The Internet wants everything to be both free, AND ad-free. The world just doesn't f*cking work like that.
 
2012-12-07 12:07:02 PM  

Arkanaut: If it works as well as the NYT's paywall, I suspect it won't keep that many people out.


For real. The NYTimes paywall is the biggest idiot tax since the invention of the lottery.

HOW TO GET AROUND THE NYTIMES PAYWALL:

1. Go to NYTimes. Click on the article you want to read. Read.

2. After 10 articles, you'll see the article for about 5 seconds, then a 'please give us money' popup will take over.

3. Look at the URL. It should read something like httP;www.nytimes.com/mm/dd/yyyy/section/article.html?alongstringofjunk

4. Delete everything after the ?. Hit enter.

5. Enjoy your free article.
 
2012-12-07 12:07:21 PM  
I don't get going to a paywall. Our local paper went to one over a year ago. Guess what? They picked up just over 100 electronic only subscriptions. If you pay for the physical paper, you get free on-line access, which most subscribers don't utilize. So..... what you brilliant geniuses did was reduce the number of visitors to your site to almost nothing. Your potential advertisers aren't going to pay more for fewer visitors.

End result...... subscription rates increased, number of subscribers decreased and two of their sites have closed due to lack of revenue. Bye, bye, dipshiats.
 
2012-12-07 12:15:40 PM  
You'd think by now newspapers would have a new strategy that doesn't include losing a lot of their customer base by design.
 
2012-12-07 12:24:54 PM  

sure haven't: The Internet wants everything to be both free, AND ad-free. The world just doesn't f*cking work like that.


Your naiveté is touching. No, really...it is.

/cookie blocking...how does it work?
 
2012-12-07 01:03:00 PM  

Arkanaut: mcreadyblue: Arkanaut: If it works as well as the NYT's paywall, I suspect it won't keep that many people out.

Fark links to the NY Times seem to work ok.

NYT's policy is to allow 10 free articles per month per unpaid reader, so if you don't read them very often then you can get through just fine. The problem with this is that they keep track of how many articles you have viewed via cookies. Now I have been informed by my lawyer friend that it would be unethical as well as possibly illegal to instruct other people on how to avoid these measures, but suffice it to say that it's really simple to avoid cookies.


Hasn't Gannet been limiting readers to 30 articles a month for a while? Despite running adblock my local paper keeps reminding me about it. I rarely hit 30 articles a month, but when I do it's embarrassingly easy to get around.

Newspapers are desperate for readership and we (the consumers) are in control, we just don't know it. I had to call another local paper to demand they stop throwing it in front of my garage every week. Bonus, I didn't tell them my unit number so they stopped delivering it to all of my neighbors too.

It's very rare that I get hit with a paywall that I either can't get around or can't get the same story somewhere else.
 
2012-12-07 01:06:15 PM  

whistleridge: HOW TO GET AROUND THE NYTIMES PAYWALL:

1. Go to NYTimes. Click on the article you want to read. Read.

2. After 10 articles, you'll see the article for about 5 seconds, then a 'please give us money' popup will take over.

3. Look at the URL. It should read something like httP;www.nytimes.com/mm/dd/yyyy/section/article.html?alongstringofjunk

4. Delete everything after the ?. Hit enter.

5. Enjoy your free article.


How long will it be before the WP and NYT hire the RIAA's law firm and start shaking down folks who get around their pay wall?

You got around our pay wall...that'll be $3500 please, or we will sue you for $750 Trillion.
 
2012-12-07 01:23:40 PM  
Would anyone other than Jennifer Rubin's mother actually pay to read the Wa Post? There is nothing relevant in their coverage of any subject. I can't imagine a business that could justify subsidizing this like the WSJ, FT or NYT. It is a regional paper whose niche is beltway social gossip and even that is bested by terrible sites like Politico.
 
2012-12-07 01:35:50 PM  
It won't stop the paper's hemorrhaging money. News organizations will continue to exist newspapers however are essentially buggy whips.

I don't think I've picked up a paper more than two dozen times since Calvin and Hobbes ran its last panel. Newspapers need something addicting to make them a daily habit again or they will die. We don't need them for news, sports, weather. advice, comics, crosswords or classified ads. What do they offer 21st century readers?
 
2012-12-07 01:36:16 PM  

Stone Meadow: sure haven't: The Internet wants everything to be both free, AND ad-free. The world just doesn't f*cking work like that.

Your naiveté is touching. No, really...it is.

/cookie blocking...how does it work?


You're contesting that the purpose of anything ever is to generate revenue, and you think I'm naive?
 
2012-12-07 01:51:36 PM  

sure haven't: Stone Meadow: sure haven't: The Internet wants everything to be both free, AND ad-free. The world just doesn't f*cking work like that.

Your naiveté is touching. No, really...it is.

/cookie blocking...how does it work?

You're contesting that the purpose of anything ever is to generate revenue, and you think I'm naive?


No, I contesting the idea that we don't want it to be free and ad-free.

THAT would be naïve. :)

/I may hav
 
2012-12-07 01:52:23 PM  
...e misinterpreted your initial comment.

(WFT happened to my post?)
 
2012-12-07 02:24:25 PM  

Stone Meadow: ...e misinterpreted your initial comment.

(WFT happened to my post?)


Well everyone everywhere always sings the prises of adblock, then they scoff when websites try the pay-to-use system. I'm not sure what people are expecting.
 
2012-12-07 02:25:53 PM  

sure haven't: whyRpeoplesostupid: I run firefox with adblock and noscript and it's been shutting me out off and on for over a month

See, this is why they're considering moving to a pay-per-use system. Adblock makes it so you don't see the only revenue stream they have. I never understood that. The Internet wants everything to be both free, AND ad-free. The world just doesn't f*cking work like that.


Like a lot of people, I would pay $5 to $20 per month for access to many many media sites if that included the NYTimes, the Wapo, etc.

What I can't pay for is $20 per month to every website.

So they are farking themselves over by refusing to allow aggregators to give them a new revenue stream.

And they can fark themselves. Their product is often inaccurate, often terribly lazy and shallow, and they insulate themselves from their consumers.

To hell with them, they can die in a fire.

Now when they learn to respect their readers, a lot will change for them.
 
2012-12-07 02:28:31 PM  

Stone Meadow: whistleridge: HOW TO GET AROUND THE NYTIMES PAYWALL:

1. Go to NYTimes. Click on the article you want to read. Read.

2. After 10 articles, you'll see the article for about 5 seconds, then a 'please give us money' popup will take over.

3. Look at the URL. It should read something like httP;www.nytimes.com/mm/dd/yyyy/section/article.html?alongstringofjunk

4. Delete everything after the ?. Hit enter.

5. Enjoy your free article.

How long will it be before the WP and NYT hire the RIAA's law firm and start shaking down folks who get around their pay wall?

You got around our pay wall...that'll be $3500 please, or we will sue you for $750 Trillion.


Last I checked, there's absolutely nothing illegal about typing an address in my address bar. That's literally all I'm doing. It's not MY fault that they're hypocritical and greedy and came up with a stupid and easily circumvented system to milk money out of the gullible. If I had to hack the site in some way, I might feel bad. This, though...they're just getting what they deserve,
 
2012-12-07 02:31:45 PM  
Don't put anything online, at all. Force people to buy paper subscriptions. It's literally the exact same business model, just structured slightly differently.

Or, move towards product placement in the text itself, so people literally can't avoid it if they want your content.
 
2012-12-07 02:33:18 PM  

whistleridge: Last I checked, there's absolutely nothing illegal about typing an address in my address bar. That's literally all I'm doing. It's not MY fault that they're hypocritical and greedy and came up with a stupid and easily circumvented system to milk money out of the gullible. If I had to hack the site in some way, I might feel bad. This, though...they're just getting what they deserve,


They could argue that you are deliberately "hacking" into their site. Just because the lock they put on the door isn't very good doesn't mean you have the legal right to break it open.
 
2012-12-07 02:52:37 PM  
I do sometimes enjoy kicking around right-wing trolls on the WaPo comment forums, but they're an increasingly rare breed these days.
 
rpm
2012-12-07 03:12:08 PM  

whistleridge: Last I checked, there's absolutely nothing illegal about typing an address in my address bar.

 
rpm
2012-12-07 03:13:43 PM  

whistleridge: Last I checked, there's absolutely nothing illegal about typing an address in my address bar.


ack. my comment got eaten.

I wouldn't count on that. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/11/att-hacker-found-guilty/

(no linky, I either screwed up the HTML or the tag was eaten)
 
2012-12-07 03:42:04 PM  

majestic: I don't get going to a paywall. Our local paper went to one over a year ago. Guess what? They picked up just over 100 electronic only subscriptions. If you pay for the physical paper, you get free on-line access, which most subscribers don't utilize. So..... what you brilliant geniuses did was reduce the number of visitors to your site to almost nothing. Your potential advertisers aren't going to pay more for fewer visitors.

End result...... subscription rates increased, number of subscribers decreased and two of their sites have closed due to lack of revenue. Bye, bye, dipshiats.


Same here with my local rag. I just stopped reading it.
 
2012-12-07 04:18:49 PM  

whistleridge: Arkanaut: If it works as well as the NYT's paywall, I suspect it won't keep that many people out.

For real. The NYTimes paywall is the biggest idiot tax since the invention of the lottery.

HOW TO GET AROUND THE NYTIMES PAYWALL:

1. Go to NYTimes. Click on the article you want to read. Read.

2. After 10 articles, you'll see the article for about 5 seconds, then a 'please give us money' popup will take over.

3. Look at the URL. It should read something like httP;www.nytimes.com/mm/dd/yyyy/section/article.html?alongstringofjunk

4. Delete everything after the ?. Hit enter.

5. Enjoy your free article.


1. use google chrome
2. read the nytimes in "incognito mode"
3. there is no step 3
 
2012-12-07 04:40:12 PM  
Sometimes there will be a WaPo article on multiple pages and they'll make you login to see the last page. If you click the print view at the beginning you can get around that. Also, with the NYT you can click the print view and copy the article before the login popup comes up.
 
2012-12-07 05:28:12 PM  

whistleridge: Last I checked, there's absolutely nothing illegal about typing an address in my address bar. That's literally all I'm doing. It's not MY fault that they're hypocritical and greedy and came up with a stupid and easily circumvented system to milk money out of the gullible. If I had to hack the site in some way, I might feel bad. This, though...they're just getting what they deserve,


While I sympathize with your position, I also recognize that their lawyers may argue that you "altered" the URL, and thereby "hacked" it. That said, I'm just playing devil's advocate and doubt they'll ever go that far, since they're making money as it is and don't want to risk backlash by actually suing persons reading their website (that might be awkward). It's just fun to compare them to RIAA... ;)
 
2012-12-07 05:42:18 PM  

whistleridge: Arkanaut: If it works as well as the NYT's paywall, I suspect it won't keep that many people out.

For real. The NYTimes paywall is the biggest idiot tax since the invention of the lottery.

HOW TO GET AROUND THE NYTIMES PAYWALL:


How I got around their paywall:

1. Install adblock.
2. FInd one of the little NYTimes logos on the Fark front page.
3. Right click, block image (make sure to block just that specific image).

Done. Fark them. If they want to be dicks I'll just never visit them again. It's a policy that's been working pretty well for me. Any site that's a dick about my no script/adblock/no cookies browser config gets its link image blocked from fark.

Now when I see a fark link with no article link I know why and move on with my damn life. No, you can't unilaterally run code on my computer. No, you can't track me or store cookies on my system. Want to be a jerk about it? I'll take my ball and go home. One less human worth of site traffic.

/I vote with my clicks.
 
2012-12-07 06:39:54 PM  

Delawheredad: I don't think I've picked up a paper more than two dozen times since Calvin and Hobbes ran its last panel. Newspapers need something addicting to make them a daily habit again or they will die. We don't need them for news, sports, weather. advice, comics, crosswords or classified ads. What do they offer 21st century readers?


The problem with newspapers is what might be termed an Income Entitlement Problem. They once had a lot of money, so they assume that they deserve that amount of money, and that what's happening now is an abberation and somehow the genie is going to go back into the bottle.

Paywalls are just part of that thinking. The papers are looking at their model and seeing that putting their papers on the internet didn't make them money, so closing them up again, doing what they did before (only electronically) is going to solve the problem.

What they don't grasp is the economics of news distribution and the effects. At one time, to publish to the population of the UK cost millions of pounds of investment. Today, you can start with a £300 laptop and a £20/month internet connection. So, I can quite easily take news stories off Microsoft, Google etc and reprint them if I want.

The only way that the newspapers can make money is by adding real, human value. That means that your film reviewers have to be farking great. Not good - I can get good reviewers all over the blogs for free. It means firing every person involved in reprinting PR spin, because there's thousands of people doing that. Go back to the basics of hiring people who are going out and getting stories, whether funny, serious, tragic or bizarre.
 
2012-12-07 06:42:41 PM  

RoyBatty: sure haven't: whyRpeoplesostupid: I run firefox with adblock and noscript and it's been shutting me out off and on for over a month

See, this is why they're considering moving to a pay-per-use system. Adblock makes it so you don't see the only revenue stream they have. I never understood that. The Internet wants everything to be both free, AND ad-free. The world just doesn't f*cking work like that.

Like a lot of people, I would pay $5 to $20 per month for access to many many media sites if that included the NYTimes, the Wapo, etc.

What I can't pay for is $20 per month to every website.

So they are farking themselves over by refusing to allow aggregators to give them a new revenue stream.

And they can fark themselves. Their product is often inaccurate, often terribly lazy and shallow, and they insulate themselves from their consumers.

To hell with them, they can die in a fire.

Now when they learn to respect their readers, a lot will change for them.


So because you don't like it, they shouldn't charge for it?

Also, what new revenue stream? Where does the revenue come from? The aggregator?
Where does the aggregator's revenue come from? Can't be advertising cause all the cool kids are using adblock. How far do you think $5/month goes?
 
2012-12-07 07:28:11 PM  

sure haven't: RoyBatty: sure haven't: whyRpeoplesostupid: I run firefox with adblock and noscript and it's been shutting me out off and on for over a month

See, this is why they're considering moving to a pay-per-use system. Adblock makes it so you don't see the only revenue stream they have. I never understood that. The Internet wants everything to be both free, AND ad-free. The world just doesn't f*cking work like that.

Like a lot of people, I would pay $5 to $20 per month for access to many many media sites if that included the NYTimes, the Wapo, etc.

What I can't pay for is $20 per month to every website.

So they are farking themselves over by refusing to allow aggregators to give them a new revenue stream.

And they can fark themselves. Their product is often inaccurate, often terribly lazy and shallow, and they insulate themselves from their consumers.

To hell with them, they can die in a fire.

Now when they learn to respect their readers, a lot will change for them.

So because you don't like it, they shouldn't charge for it?


So I never said that, did I. In fact, I told them specifically how to charge for it, and gave several specific reasons as to why their current product is not worth paying for.

Also, what new revenue stream? Where does the revenue come from? The aggregator?
Where does the aggregator's revenue come from? Can't be advertising cause all the cool kids are using adblock. How far do you think $5/month goes?


As Rhapsody, Spotify, Netflix, Hulu+, Vudu, Amazon Prime show, people are happy to pay for information, entertainment, news, but you have to focus on the consumers' needs first, not just worry about protecting a revenue stream that never existed online.

As far as advertising, should the sites start respecting my needs not to be assaulted by animation, sounds, pop ups, pop unders, so I can read/watch the content I came online to view, I'll probably ignore the advertising.

There are many sites I leave the ads on for -- those are sites that don't assault me with their ads.
 
2012-12-07 07:49:25 PM  
The bottom line is newspapers thought they had the whole internet thing figured out. Free, free, free. Build your audience and the dollars will follow.

Most of them have the dominant local website in their markets, so they've been successful at building audience. Have the ad dollars followed the audience. Nope. Peanuts. Internet not only has a culture of free but also a culture of no-want for ads.

Aggregators have stolen the thunder of many, many newspapers while returning a relatively worthless audience. If the Scranton auto dealer wants to sell cars how good are his odds with a viewer from Sacramento, directed there by an aggregator.

Now newspapers are seeing their mistake. They can gain some revenue from online subscriptions but the real payoff will come in the exclusive, local nature of the audience, both for their print and online.

If it doesn't work, their professional reporting staffs will son be a fraction of what they are now, and they're already down considerably.

Give them the answer and they will thank you and maybe give you a free online subscription for life.
 
2012-12-07 09:01:15 PM  
One online news source goes down and there will be 5 others ready to take it's place in minutes.
 
2012-12-07 09:11:51 PM  

farkeruk: What they don't grasp is the economics of news distribution and the effects. At one time, to publish to the population of the UK cost millions of pounds of investment. Today, you can start with a £300 laptop and a £20/month internet connection. So, I can quite easily take news stories off Microsoft, Google etc and reprint them if I want.


Quite true - I used to think anyone who didn't subscribe to a local paper (my hometown used to have 2) was intentionally uninformed. It was merely a choice of the Post or the Chronicle (or both or none). Now that basically everyone has an internet connection, it's a choice of a zillion different news sources.

The local papers may still be the best at local news, but most people want more than just local news.

Their business model should be to provide the best news they can so people will seek them out and pay for it with ads that people won't go out of their way to block. I understand that they need revenue. Put up some innocuous clickable graphic images that don't interfere with reading the farking article and don't have audio and I'm fine with that. That's really no different from the ads we used to get in print. Obnoxious audio, ads that cover up the article or pages that refresh every 5 seconds and I'm going to use adblock on your site and if that doesn't work I'll get my news somewhere else.
 
2012-12-07 10:31:49 PM  

Happy Hours: The local papers may still be the best at local news, but most people want more than just local news.


Local news is the ONLY reason why I subscribe to my newspaper.

/ honestly, they could dump most of the AP articles, I've already read them online...
 
2012-12-07 10:35:25 PM  
I'm holding on to the memories of the Washington Post being a newspaper worth paying to read. Not so much anymore.
 
2012-12-07 11:40:58 PM  

Lost Thought 00: whistleridge: Last I checked, there's absolutely nothing illegal about typing an address in my address bar. That's literally all I'm doing. It's not MY fault that they're hypocritical and greedy and came up with a stupid and easily circumvented system to milk money out of the gullible. If I had to hack the site in some way, I might feel bad. This, though...they're just getting what they deserve,

They could argue that you are deliberately "hacking" into their site. Just because the lock they put on the door isn't very good doesn't mean you have the legal right to break it open.


I'm not even sure if it counts as putting a lock on the door. It sounds more like they are simply closing an open door. You can't get mad at someone for opening an unlocked door.
 
2012-12-08 01:00:17 AM  

whistleridge: Arkanaut: If it works as well as the NYT's paywall, I suspect it won't keep that many people out.

For real. The NYTimes paywall is the biggest idiot tax since the invention of the lottery.

HOW TO GET AROUND THE NYTIMES PAYWALL:

1. Go to NYTimes. Click on the article you want to read. Read.

2. After 10 articles, you'll see the article for about 5 seconds, then a 'please give us money' popup will take over.

3. Look at the URL. It should read something like httP;www.nytimes.com/mm/dd/yyyy/section/article.html?alongstringofjunk

4. Delete everything after the ?. Hit enter.
hit the stop loading button on your browser

5. Enjoy your free article..

 
Displayed 42 of 42 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report