The Times is tightening the rules. September 29, 2011 7:34 AM Subscribe
Earlier this year there was a discussion of links to the NYT in which the fact that links from Metafilter were exempted from the paywall was given as a reason not to treat these links specially.
Such links are no longer exempted. Can we please start treating these as we do links to any other subscription-only source?
If posters want people to read their articles, it would definitely be in their interest to avoid subscription only web sites.
posted by Stagger Lee at 7:41 AM on September 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Stagger Lee at 7:41 AM on September 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
I think this is a good idea for general site etiquette.
posted by Think_Long at 7:52 AM on September 29, 2011
posted by Think_Long at 7:52 AM on September 29, 2011
When did this change? I hadn't heard anything about this.
posted by Forktine at 7:52 AM on September 29, 2011
posted by Forktine at 7:52 AM on September 29, 2011
If it turns out that NYT links are hidden behind paywalls then yes we'll start treating them like they are behind paywalls though we'll do our damndest to try to find workarounds since people like to link to that sort of thing here. I think the hardest shift is going to be for people who have institutional subscriptions [we see this with other stuff like OED or Chronicle of Higher Ed, that people don't know that they're behind paywalls for others] to realize that they're linking to unavailable content.
That said, if somone could let us know the specifics of this change, we'd sure appreciate it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:53 AM on September 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
That said, if somone could let us know the specifics of this change, we'd sure appreciate it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:53 AM on September 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
I don't think it's hard to mark a link with (NYT) the way we do (NSFW).
posted by salvia at 8:02 AM on September 29, 2011
posted by salvia at 8:02 AM on September 29, 2011
With respect, marking links that way is not likely to happen. It would represent a shift in how we do things here. If stuff is behind a paywall for the majority of users, we'll just ask people to not link to content there similar to how we do with other paywalled content. As a supporting link in a post with other accessible content, maybe okay. That said, we need to figure out if htis is even the case first.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:08 AM on September 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:08 AM on September 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
It seems that you can escape the paywall for any NYT link simply by removing all of the crud after the ? in the URL, which I always do anyway.
posted by grouse at 8:14 AM on September 29, 2011 [9 favorites]
posted by grouse at 8:14 AM on September 29, 2011 [9 favorites]
"That said, if somone could let us know the specifics of this change, we'd sure appreciate it."
No longer on the inside, sorry.
posted by Eideteker at 8:16 AM on September 29, 2011
No longer on the inside, sorry.
posted by Eideteker at 8:16 AM on September 29, 2011
Here's the policy as it currently appears on the site:
11. Can I still access NYTimes.com articles through Facebook, Twitter, search engines or my blog?
Yes. We encourage links from Facebook, Twitter, search engines, blogs and social media. When you visit NYTimes.com through a link from one of these channels, that article (or video, slide show, etc.) will count toward your monthly limit of 20 free articles, but you will still be able to view it even if you've already read your 20 free articles.
Like other external links, links from search engine results will count toward your monthly limit. If you have reached your monthly limit, you'll have a daily limit of 5 free articles through a given search engine. This limit applies to the majority of search engines.
It doesn't seem like a change to me.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 8:18 AM on September 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
11. Can I still access NYTimes.com articles through Facebook, Twitter, search engines or my blog?
Yes. We encourage links from Facebook, Twitter, search engines, blogs and social media. When you visit NYTimes.com through a link from one of these channels, that article (or video, slide show, etc.) will count toward your monthly limit of 20 free articles, but you will still be able to view it even if you've already read your 20 free articles.
Like other external links, links from search engine results will count toward your monthly limit. If you have reached your monthly limit, you'll have a daily limit of 5 free articles through a given search engine. This limit applies to the majority of search engines.
It doesn't seem like a change to me.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 8:18 AM on September 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
As long as people still get 20 free articles every month, I don't see how it could be a pure "paywall" and why a warning wouldn't be better than eliminating those articles completely.
I also don't understand what you mean by saying that marking links isn't what is done here. SLYT is another example of a courtesy warning people often offer. Maybe part of what you're saying is that it's unlikely for people to actually do this with complete regularity?
To me that's not necessary. There is a lot of etiquette ("hat tip" "video autoplays") that gets practiced with some regularity but that isn't enforced or edited in later by mod action (?), and that's the category I would put this in.
Anyway, it's probably not worth too much discussion until we even know what we're talking about, but since I'm heading off to work I won't be able to comment at that point, so I thought I'd throw in my two cents now.
--
Ah on preview, it's no change. But due to the "will count toward your monthly limit" bit, I personally still support it as a courtesy as I did before, while recognizing that it won't always happen and that we kinda hashed this out already.
posted by salvia at 8:28 AM on September 29, 2011
I also don't understand what you mean by saying that marking links isn't what is done here. SLYT is another example of a courtesy warning people often offer. Maybe part of what you're saying is that it's unlikely for people to actually do this with complete regularity?
To me that's not necessary. There is a lot of etiquette ("hat tip" "video autoplays") that gets practiced with some regularity but that isn't enforced or edited in later by mod action (?), and that's the category I would put this in.
Anyway, it's probably not worth too much discussion until we even know what we're talking about, but since I'm heading off to work I won't be able to comment at that point, so I thought I'd throw in my two cents now.
--
Ah on preview, it's no change. But due to the "will count toward your monthly limit" bit, I personally still support it as a courtesy as I did before, while recognizing that it won't always happen and that we kinda hashed this out already.
posted by salvia at 8:28 AM on September 29, 2011
Fuck the NYT. They tried this shit before and had to back down. If everyone would stop clicking on their links, they'd back off this crap in a hurry. In most browsers, you can mouse over a link and it will display the URL. If it's to NYT, just don't click it.
NYT links should be disabled in MetaFilter.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 8:30 AM on September 29, 2011 [6 favorites]
NYT links should be disabled in MetaFilter.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 8:30 AM on September 29, 2011 [6 favorites]
Maybe part of what you're saying is that it's unlikely for people to actually do this with complete regularity?
Yeah. There are a lot of things that people mark as a courtesy which they're welcome to do. From a Team Mod perspective the only one of these that we'd add after the fact to a post would be NSFW [or maybe a blinky warning] and we want to be clear that people marking sources is something they're welcome to do, but it's basically people's choice. We still see that some people mark spoilers and some peopel don't, some people mark trigger warnings and other people don't, some peopel mark SLYT and other people don't. I just want to set expectations that while it's fine to ask people to do this sort of thing in a general etiquette sense, it's not going to become something that's part of "this is a site guideline" culture here unless something really changes with the way the NYT works and if so we'd be more likely to just ask people to stop linking to their content (whuich, if it's behind a paywall, we'd actually enforce).
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:34 AM on September 29, 2011
Yeah. There are a lot of things that people mark as a courtesy which they're welcome to do. From a Team Mod perspective the only one of these that we'd add after the fact to a post would be NSFW [or maybe a blinky warning] and we want to be clear that people marking sources is something they're welcome to do, but it's basically people's choice. We still see that some people mark spoilers and some peopel don't, some people mark trigger warnings and other people don't, some peopel mark SLYT and other people don't. I just want to set expectations that while it's fine to ask people to do this sort of thing in a general etiquette sense, it's not going to become something that's part of "this is a site guideline" culture here unless something really changes with the way the NYT works and if so we'd be more likely to just ask people to stop linking to their content (whuich, if it's behind a paywall, we'd actually enforce).
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:34 AM on September 29, 2011
Everyone knows about the NYTClean bookmarklet, right?
posted by LarryC at 8:35 AM on September 29, 2011 [7 favorites]
posted by LarryC at 8:35 AM on September 29, 2011 [7 favorites]
Do you have a link describing the changes?
No, it's simply something I've noticed as a non-subscriber. All Metafilter links to NYT articles now result in a paywall page appearing. I think the documentation that Horace Rumpole quotes is no longer accurate.
It seems that you can escape the paywall for any NYT link simply by removing all of the crud after the ? in the URL, which I always do anyway.
This has no effect for me.
posted by enn at 8:38 AM on September 29, 2011
No, it's simply something I've noticed as a non-subscriber. All Metafilter links to NYT articles now result in a paywall page appearing. I think the documentation that Horace Rumpole quotes is no longer accurate.
It seems that you can escape the paywall for any NYT link simply by removing all of the crud after the ? in the URL, which I always do anyway.
This has no effect for me.
posted by enn at 8:38 AM on September 29, 2011
People click the links?
posted by Trurl at 8:42 AM on September 29, 2011 [4 favorites]
posted by Trurl at 8:42 AM on September 29, 2011 [4 favorites]
Just to clarify: because I have already used up my 20 articles, for me all NYT articles, even those linked from Metafilter, are behind the paywall. Previously, links from Metafilter would bypass the paywall even after I'd used up my monthly allotment.
posted by enn at 8:45 AM on September 29, 2011
posted by enn at 8:45 AM on September 29, 2011
This has no effect for me.
Can you give an example of a URL on which this doesn't work for you?
posted by grouse at 8:48 AM on September 29, 2011
Can you give an example of a URL on which this doesn't work for you?
posted by grouse at 8:48 AM on September 29, 2011
IMHO If we can't figure out who the paywall can be bypassed by, when, or why, and it's randomly blocking some people and not others... than it sounds like an issue.
posted by Stagger Lee at 8:56 AM on September 29, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by Stagger Lee at 8:56 AM on September 29, 2011 [3 favorites]
Wow, the folks at the New York Times really don't want people reading the New York Times.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:59 AM on September 29, 2011 [10 favorites]
posted by Sys Rq at 8:59 AM on September 29, 2011 [10 favorites]
As best I can tell, it still is working the same as it always has from the time they added the paywall. Links from MetaFilter to NYT work fine even after you've read your 20 free.
posted by cosmac at 9:00 AM on September 29, 2011
posted by cosmac at 9:00 AM on September 29, 2011
If we can't figure out who the paywall can be bypassed by, when, or why, and it's randomly blocking some people and not others... than it sounds like an issue.
So far only one person has reported a problem and we are currently discussing exactly what the problem is.
posted by grouse at 9:01 AM on September 29, 2011
So far only one person has reported a problem and we are currently discussing exactly what the problem is.
posted by grouse at 9:01 AM on September 29, 2011
"You can edit the URL" or "just run this bookmarketlet on it" is even less a solution than "just get a Facebook account" and we don't allow FB links. At least with the latter you'd only have to do it once.
posted by DU at 9:04 AM on September 29, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by DU at 9:04 AM on September 29, 2011 [2 favorites]
Well, there's still an issue; it's just that the issue is pretty complicated. If people who don't have a subscription can access NYT links, then they're likely going to include them in posts thinking that everyone can. Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't; apparently it's not true for everybody.
posted by koeselitz at 9:04 AM on September 29, 2011
posted by koeselitz at 9:04 AM on September 29, 2011
Can you give an example of a URL on which this doesn't work for you?
This page is currently linked to from the front page: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/september-collapse-of-red-sox-could-be-worst-ever/. As you can see, there is no question mark in the URL (though when I follow it I am redirected to a URL with a question mark). The paywall box appears on this page when I follow the link.
posted by enn at 9:04 AM on September 29, 2011
This page is currently linked to from the front page: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/september-collapse-of-red-sox-could-be-worst-ever/. As you can see, there is no question mark in the URL (though when I follow it I am redirected to a URL with a question mark). The paywall box appears on this page when I follow the link.
posted by enn at 9:04 AM on September 29, 2011
Links from MetaFilter to NYT work fine even after you've read your 20 free.
Maybe for you, not for me.
posted by enn at 9:05 AM on September 29, 2011
Maybe for you, not for me.
posted by enn at 9:05 AM on September 29, 2011
enn, try this one:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/september-collapse-of-red-sox-could-be-worst-ever/?ref=fb
posted by Ahab at 9:10 AM on September 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/september-collapse-of-red-sox-could-be-worst-ever/?ref=fb
posted by Ahab at 9:10 AM on September 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
Ahab: the paywall box appears when I follow that link.
posted by enn at 9:12 AM on September 29, 2011
posted by enn at 9:12 AM on September 29, 2011
You can also use Adblock to circumvent the paywall. I can nail down the specific rule required if someone can paste me the question-marked url that gives them a paywall.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 9:13 AM on September 29, 2011
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 9:13 AM on September 29, 2011
I already use the bookmarklet to circumvent the paywall sometimes--that's not really the point. These aren't links on the free web that are available to everyone. Sometimes I'm using a browser that doesn't have Adblock or doesn't have bookmarklets, and sometimes I just don't want to clutter up my browser with all this crap just to be able to read Metafilter.
posted by enn at 9:21 AM on September 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by enn at 9:21 AM on September 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
Crabby Appleton: "Fuck the NYT."
Eponysterical.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:26 AM on September 29, 2011 [6 favorites]
Eponysterical.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:26 AM on September 29, 2011 [6 favorites]
I do not get the paywall when I click on enn's link and I am over 20 page views this month.
One thing I do get which annoys the heck out of me is their site loads megabytes and megabytes and megabytes of useless data irrelevant to the text of the article that I want to read and any page from there takes at least 20 seconds to load unless it is between around 11:00 p. m. and 8:00 a. m.
That is the reason I am not eager to look at a bunch of New York Times links.
posted by bukvich at 9:37 AM on September 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
One thing I do get which annoys the heck out of me is their site loads megabytes and megabytes and megabytes of useless data irrelevant to the text of the article that I want to read and any page from there takes at least 20 seconds to load unless it is between around 11:00 p. m. and 8:00 a. m.
That is the reason I am not eager to look at a bunch of New York Times links.
posted by bukvich at 9:37 AM on September 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
enn: "Ahab: the paywall box appears when I follow that link."
Clarify? Is it actually blocking you from viewing the article? I get a popup box notifying me about my quota, but the article is still available.
posted by mkultra at 9:45 AM on September 29, 2011
Clarify? Is it actually blocking you from viewing the article? I get a popup box notifying me about my quota, but the article is still available.
posted by mkultra at 9:45 AM on September 29, 2011
Yes, it is blocking me from viewing the article. It is not the little box at the bottom mentioning the quota; it is the large, undismissable box labeled 'Don't Miss Out' obscuring the text of the article. Scrolling is also disabled.
posted by enn at 9:49 AM on September 29, 2011
posted by enn at 9:49 AM on September 29, 2011
We haven't really heard from users in general about problems accessing NYT stuff linked from the site. I believe you that you're having this problem, enn, but it seems like that's as far as this goes so far so it's not really something that's going to drive a change in policy.
We're pretty much where we have been on this, which is that if in practice NYT's content becomes widely unreadable for the mefites, that'll be a much more serious issue and one we'd have to consider making a change for as far as links on the front page go.
I get the folks who would rather just not see NYT links on the site at all as a matter of principle, but realistically it's about the highest-profile US newspaper on the web and seems to be largely accessible in practice even with their convoluted posturing about what is or isn't or might not be freely available depending on the circumstances.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:50 AM on September 29, 2011 [5 favorites]
We're pretty much where we have been on this, which is that if in practice NYT's content becomes widely unreadable for the mefites, that'll be a much more serious issue and one we'd have to consider making a change for as far as links on the front page go.
I get the folks who would rather just not see NYT links on the site at all as a matter of principle, but realistically it's about the highest-profile US newspaper on the web and seems to be largely accessible in practice even with their convoluted posturing about what is or isn't or might not be freely available depending on the circumstances.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:50 AM on September 29, 2011 [5 favorites]
is even less a solution than "just get a Facebook account" and we don't allow FB links.
Who said anything about Facebook links?
posted by John Cohen at 9:52 AM on September 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
Who said anything about Facebook links?
posted by John Cohen at 9:52 AM on September 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
Wow, the folks at the New York Times really don't want people reading the New York Times.
Since erecting the paywall, the NYT occasionally sends me an email begging me to 'come back' and to subscribe. Seems they've noticed that they've made themselves all but totally irrelevant to me.
posted by hoyland at 9:59 AM on September 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
Since erecting the paywall, the NYT occasionally sends me an email begging me to 'come back' and to subscribe. Seems they've noticed that they've made themselves all but totally irrelevant to me.
posted by hoyland at 9:59 AM on September 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
Hmm. I hit my paywall limit a couple days ago, but the NYT has still been letting me get there. And if I have on Safari's "private browsing" it doesn't even show me the quota box.
I do kind of wish that there was a code in the paper that would let me get access, as for some reason I'm a lot more likely to buy a physical copy with some change than to dick around with their subscription nonsense.
posted by klangklangston at 10:11 AM on September 29, 2011
I do kind of wish that there was a code in the paper that would let me get access, as for some reason I'm a lot more likely to buy a physical copy with some change than to dick around with their subscription nonsense.
posted by klangklangston at 10:11 AM on September 29, 2011
This may or may not be relevant to the current discussion. The Times is under some sort of hacking attack at the moment. A group calling itself Occupy the NY Times (Facebook link) is taking credit.
posted by plastic_animals at 10:19 AM on September 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by plastic_animals at 10:19 AM on September 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
I actually hit the 20 article maximum a few days ago for the first time this the NYT started this. What was odd was I wasn't logged in. I am logged in on my iPhone all the time and never hit the wall either. Anyway I logged in on my Mac and I was able to read the article. I don't know if logged out me gets 20 articles and logged in me gets 20 more. That I was logged out was odd and I think it has something to do with when I had to restore my Mac that that cookie didn't make it (but others did? weird).
Anyway I love the NYT. Fuck the NYT. Whatever. Since most NYT articles posted on Metatfilter tend to also be elsewhere often when I come here, the like is already marked read for me. Banning NYT links here seems to be overkill but some people have hated the registration wall for years. Haters gonna hate.
This page is currently linked to from the front page: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/september-collapse-of-red-sox-could-be-worst-ever/
I get Http/1.1 Service Unavailable on that link. Methinks the NYT is getting a DDOS at the moment. I hope clicking on that link that doesn't work won't go against my quota.
posted by birdherder at 10:25 AM on September 29, 2011
Anyway I love the NYT. Fuck the NYT. Whatever. Since most NYT articles posted on Metatfilter tend to also be elsewhere often when I come here, the like is already marked read for me. Banning NYT links here seems to be overkill but some people have hated the registration wall for years. Haters gonna hate.
This page is currently linked to from the front page: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/september-collapse-of-red-sox-could-be-worst-ever/
I get Http/1.1 Service Unavailable on that link. Methinks the NYT is getting a DDOS at the moment. I hope clicking on that link that doesn't work won't go against my quota.
posted by birdherder at 10:25 AM on September 29, 2011
I don't think this is related to the DOS—I've been seeing this behavior for a couple weeks.
Here is a screencast of what I see, since people seem skeptical.
posted by enn at 10:29 AM on September 29, 2011
Here is a screencast of what I see, since people seem skeptical.
posted by enn at 10:29 AM on September 29, 2011
As luck would have it, I just hit the paywall at NYT when clicking on the link form Metafilter. Since I use the stock Adblock, the only think I get is the box that says "we hope you enjoyed your 20 articles..." part and the elements of the popup for checking options an that image are missing. I have to close the window or navigate to another site.
Interestingly, I searched reddit and clicked on the link from there and it let me read it. When I switch back to the Metafilter and click on that link I can read the article again. I guess I've not hit the paywall all these months because I've been getting linked from sites that don't count against the quota, and the few times I do go to NYT from a non-worthy-social-media-site like Metafilter or its homepage, I'm not reading a lot.
I know Matt talked about getting on the NYT's special list but I guess that didn't happen. I'm sure Metafilter's traffic numbers and demographics would qualify if they let the unwashed masses from Reddit or Fark in for free.
posted by birdherder at 11:02 AM on September 29, 2011
Interestingly, I searched reddit and clicked on the link from there and it let me read it. When I switch back to the Metafilter and click on that link I can read the article again. I guess I've not hit the paywall all these months because I've been getting linked from sites that don't count against the quota, and the few times I do go to NYT from a non-worthy-social-media-site like Metafilter or its homepage, I'm not reading a lot.
I know Matt talked about getting on the NYT's special list but I guess that didn't happen. I'm sure Metafilter's traffic numbers and demographics would qualify if they let the unwashed masses from Reddit or Fark in for free.
posted by birdherder at 11:02 AM on September 29, 2011
Just to confirm enn isn't going loopy, I get the same thing and have been doing for the last two days. I can read the front page of fivethirtyeight.com, but clicking on any of the articles directly, or clicking through from the MeFi link or any of the links in this thread brings up the "DON'T MISS OUT" box. I have no option to dismiss it at that point to read the article.
posted by IanMorr at 11:02 AM on September 29, 2011
posted by IanMorr at 11:02 AM on September 29, 2011
I can see that article without a paywall. I rarely visit NYT on this computer and don't have a subscription.
If you rarely visit the NYT, wouldn't that explain why you can view the article? You haven't used up your 20 articles of the month yet.
posted by John Cohen at 11:03 AM on September 29, 2011
If you rarely visit the NYT, wouldn't that explain why you can view the article? You haven't used up your 20 articles of the month yet.
posted by John Cohen at 11:03 AM on September 29, 2011
I was OK with the NYT auditor standing in a corner of the office bathroom, clipboard in hand, squinting at me and occasionally shouting "two dollars!" while I read a co-worker's copy of the paper, but this is too much!
posted by Brocktoon at 11:04 AM on September 29, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by Brocktoon at 11:04 AM on September 29, 2011 [2 favorites]
Here is a screencast of what I see, since people seem skeptical.
I wouldn't agree that people seem skeptical. I'd say that people are saying that this seems to be behavior specific to your connection, for some as yet unidentified reason. YOU seem kind of skeptical that that could be the case. Your whole presentation here seems vaguely fighty. Not horribly so, but vaguely.
Even if the behavior at NYT has changed, I don't think it's accurate to describe the content as behind a pay wall, full stop. People can access the NYT with no problems 20 times per month. Maybe someone wants to save those 20 times for Mefi links. I'm not convinced that site norms need to change.
posted by OmieWise at 11:06 AM on September 29, 2011
I wouldn't agree that people seem skeptical. I'd say that people are saying that this seems to be behavior specific to your connection, for some as yet unidentified reason. YOU seem kind of skeptical that that could be the case. Your whole presentation here seems vaguely fighty. Not horribly so, but vaguely.
Even if the behavior at NYT has changed, I don't think it's accurate to describe the content as behind a pay wall, full stop. People can access the NYT with no problems 20 times per month. Maybe someone wants to save those 20 times for Mefi links. I'm not convinced that site norms need to change.
posted by OmieWise at 11:06 AM on September 29, 2011
It seems that you can escape the paywall for any NYT link simply by removing all of the crud after the ? in the URL, which I always do anyway.
Yeah, this is what I do, or if I'm feeling particularly impatient I stop the page from completely loading once the text is up, which prevents the paywall window from showing up. Possibly more difficult if you have a blindingly fast connection.
posted by oneirodynia at 11:07 AM on September 29, 2011
Yeah, this is what I do, or if I'm feeling particularly impatient I stop the page from completely loading once the text is up, which prevents the paywall window from showing up. Possibly more difficult if you have a blindingly fast connection.
posted by oneirodynia at 11:07 AM on September 29, 2011
Just to clarify: because I have already used up my 20 articles, for me all NYT articles, even those linked from Metafilter, are behind the paywall.
But that doesn't mean it's only a subscription site. It means they cut you off. I think there's a difference.
posted by inturnaround at 11:13 AM on September 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
But that doesn't mean it's only a subscription site. It means they cut you off. I think there's a difference.
posted by inturnaround at 11:13 AM on September 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
20 Article limit? Odd ... I have never ever encountered such a limit. I wonder if that is because I tell firefox to delete all cookies from the NYT ? Hmmmmm.....
posted by Poet_Lariat at 11:56 AM on September 29, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by Poet_Lariat at 11:56 AM on September 29, 2011 [2 favorites]
What Poet_Lariat said.
It's a cookie-based system.
Browsers that don't allow cookies like Firefox Private Browsing or Chrome Incognito Window do the same job.
posted by bru at 12:19 PM on September 29, 2011
It's a cookie-based system.
Browsers that don't allow cookies like Firefox Private Browsing or Chrome Incognito Window do the same job.
posted by bru at 12:19 PM on September 29, 2011
Eponysterical.
Now that's original!
Eponysterical.
posted by the bricabrac man at 12:56 PM on September 29, 2011
Now that's original!
Eponysterical.
posted by the bricabrac man at 12:56 PM on September 29, 2011
the bricabrac man: "Eponysterical.
Now that's original!
Eponysterical."
Recursivesterical?
posted by Chrysostom at 1:00 PM on September 29, 2011
Now that's original!
Eponysterical."
Recursivesterical?
posted by Chrysostom at 1:00 PM on September 29, 2011
Eponysterical jokes are pretty played out in general, but much more so in the cases of empath and Crabby Appleton. The whole thing makes me want to don a tux and burgle.
posted by SpiffyRob at 2:09 PM on September 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by SpiffyRob at 2:09 PM on September 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
*breaks off romance with Harold and Maude lead*
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:21 PM on September 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:21 PM on September 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
If you rarely visit the NYT, wouldn't that explain why you can view the article? You haven't used up your 20 articles of the month yet.
I'm not really willing to extensively research their current scheme, so I provided the above as a data-point, not as a conclusion.
I'm saying it isn't even a data point. The data points would be people who read the NYT on a daily basis and keep trying to go to NYT articles. We all know that if you almost never read the NYT, you'll be able to see the articles on its website.
posted by John Cohen at 2:32 PM on September 29, 2011
I'm not really willing to extensively research their current scheme, so I provided the above as a data-point, not as a conclusion.
I'm saying it isn't even a data point. The data points would be people who read the NYT on a daily basis and keep trying to go to NYT articles. We all know that if you almost never read the NYT, you'll be able to see the articles on its website.
posted by John Cohen at 2:32 PM on September 29, 2011
One thing I do get which annoys the heck out of me is their site loads megabytes and megabytes and megabytes of useless data irrelevant to the text of the article that I want to read and any page from there takes at least 20 seconds to load unless it is between around 11:00 p. m. and 8:00 a. m.
This is screaming out for you to install noscript. The amount of scripting on some sites today would make your head explode. You'll miss out on some site features, but the main body text will load as plain HTML with nothing else (except styles and images.)
Also, keep in mind that typing or pasting a URL into the location bar is different than clicking on a link in that it sends no referer. If you click on a URL and then edit it to remove the query parameters (stuff after ?) the browser treats that as having typed the URL into the location bar, so it will load that page with no referer. It's entirely possible that removing the query parameters has no effect whatsoever, but viewing the page with no referer does, assuming the NYT treats such hits differently.
posted by Rhomboid at 3:17 PM on September 29, 2011
This is screaming out for you to install noscript. The amount of scripting on some sites today would make your head explode. You'll miss out on some site features, but the main body text will load as plain HTML with nothing else (except styles and images.)
Also, keep in mind that typing or pasting a URL into the location bar is different than clicking on a link in that it sends no referer. If you click on a URL and then edit it to remove the query parameters (stuff after ?) the browser treats that as having typed the URL into the location bar, so it will load that page with no referer. It's entirely possible that removing the query parameters has no effect whatsoever, but viewing the page with no referer does, assuming the NYT treats such hits differently.
posted by Rhomboid at 3:17 PM on September 29, 2011
> I'm not really willing to extensively research their current scheme
I was, so I "read" 20 articles until I started getting the "Don't Miss Out" message, but I do NOT get it for the "worst ever/Red Sox" article in either enn's or Ahab's version.
I had a hunch that articles referred from "friends of NYT" get separate cookies & an experiment shows they probably do. I'm at my limit, so any article I click from the NYT home page gives "Don't Miss Out," but if I reach an article via google, after that I reach it from nytimes.com I'm allowed to see it.
Cleared my nytimes.com cookies, ran up the 20 count again & now I am blocked from worst/Red. Found it from Google and was allowed, found it from nytimes.com (All Blogs in leftmost column, 538, scroll down to Sept. 27) and I'm allowed. Tricky rules!
I can't easily check that the cookies are doing what I suspect by simple inspection because Safari 5.1 keeps 'em in an undocumented binary format.
posted by morganw at 4:59 PM on September 29, 2011 [2 favorites]
I was, so I "read" 20 articles until I started getting the "Don't Miss Out" message, but I do NOT get it for the "worst ever/Red Sox" article in either enn's or Ahab's version.
I had a hunch that articles referred from "friends of NYT" get separate cookies & an experiment shows they probably do. I'm at my limit, so any article I click from the NYT home page gives "Don't Miss Out," but if I reach an article via google, after that I reach it from nytimes.com I'm allowed to see it.
Cleared my nytimes.com cookies, ran up the 20 count again & now I am blocked from worst/Red. Found it from Google and was allowed, found it from nytimes.com (All Blogs in leftmost column, 538, scroll down to Sept. 27) and I'm allowed. Tricky rules!
I can't easily check that the cookies are doing what I suspect by simple inspection because Safari 5.1 keeps 'em in an undocumented binary format.
posted by morganw at 4:59 PM on September 29, 2011 [2 favorites]
Now that's original!
posted by Crabby
Metaponysterical.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:40 PM on September 29, 2011
posted by Crabby
Metaponysterical.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:40 PM on September 29, 2011
I almost never hit the twenty article limit, I'm in Australia, and was a bit puzzled that enn said the ?ref=fb thing didn't work last night, because it had in the past. I'd seen it work as a way for sites and blogs to change a NYT link so their viewers could click straight through.
So I decided to do some testing.
Running with adblock, noscript, request policy, better privacy and ghostery on Firefox 6, I clicked through from over 100 links (from a variety of sources) without seeing any of the paywall artefacts. Not the box, nor the greyed out half screen.
I then turned off all the blocking gear, and almost immediately came up against the greyed out half screen on links clicked through from the front page of the NYT. That was escapable by refreshing a page, and hitting the stop button "X" before the page was fully loaded. Or by taking the link once fully loaded, manually stripping out everything after the base link, and replacing it with ?ref=fb
I then tried to post two front page NYT links to facebook and clicking on those (something to do with Bruckner and baseball, and something to do with a hijacking priest caught in Portugal). Same blocking effect (so no free links from inside facebook). Instead, bottom half of screen grayed out with message to subscribe. Again, escapable by either doing a partial reload, or by manually adding in ?ref=fb
And then it got weird. I closed firefox, which for me has the effect of clearing history, cache, cookies, lsos etc. And when I reopened it and resumed testing, all of the links worked with no paywall shite at all. Apart from one or two that completely refused to load, or came up with the Http/1.1 Service Unavailable error message.
Just from that anecdata, I think there might be several layers of stuff going on. Firstly there's some kind of IP address identification occurring (which could easily be partially disrupted by intercontinental routing and firewalls along the way). Secondly there's some kind of cookie (or other persistent object) deal happening. That could be messed with by the blockers, and the firefox settings to clear it all when a window is closed. Third, there was some kind of server side hinkiness going on last night. DDOS or just mundane server shit, things were not working as they should.
And finally, it is definitely still possible to scoot around the paywall using a couple of easy manual methods. Either stop a page load just before it completes. Or wait till it completes, remove everything after the base link, and replace it with ?ref=fb, then hit enter. The page reloads clean.
I haven't tried the bookmarklet or Adblock solutions yet.
But my takeaway is going to be that I'll be more judicious about linking to the NYT here, but I'm not going to stop entirely. Sometimes they have content that is really worth sharing, and if it's important enough that I want to share it, I hope people will take the time to circumnavigate the paywall and read it.
posted by Ahab at 5:44 PM on September 29, 2011 [5 favorites]
So I decided to do some testing.
Running with adblock, noscript, request policy, better privacy and ghostery on Firefox 6, I clicked through from over 100 links (from a variety of sources) without seeing any of the paywall artefacts. Not the box, nor the greyed out half screen.
I then turned off all the blocking gear, and almost immediately came up against the greyed out half screen on links clicked through from the front page of the NYT. That was escapable by refreshing a page, and hitting the stop button "X" before the page was fully loaded. Or by taking the link once fully loaded, manually stripping out everything after the base link, and replacing it with ?ref=fb
I then tried to post two front page NYT links to facebook and clicking on those (something to do with Bruckner and baseball, and something to do with a hijacking priest caught in Portugal). Same blocking effect (so no free links from inside facebook). Instead, bottom half of screen grayed out with message to subscribe. Again, escapable by either doing a partial reload, or by manually adding in ?ref=fb
And then it got weird. I closed firefox, which for me has the effect of clearing history, cache, cookies, lsos etc. And when I reopened it and resumed testing, all of the links worked with no paywall shite at all. Apart from one or two that completely refused to load, or came up with the Http/1.1 Service Unavailable error message.
Just from that anecdata, I think there might be several layers of stuff going on. Firstly there's some kind of IP address identification occurring (which could easily be partially disrupted by intercontinental routing and firewalls along the way). Secondly there's some kind of cookie (or other persistent object) deal happening. That could be messed with by the blockers, and the firefox settings to clear it all when a window is closed. Third, there was some kind of server side hinkiness going on last night. DDOS or just mundane server shit, things were not working as they should.
And finally, it is definitely still possible to scoot around the paywall using a couple of easy manual methods. Either stop a page load just before it completes. Or wait till it completes, remove everything after the base link, and replace it with ?ref=fb, then hit enter. The page reloads clean.
I haven't tried the bookmarklet or Adblock solutions yet.
But my takeaway is going to be that I'll be more judicious about linking to the NYT here, but I'm not going to stop entirely. Sometimes they have content that is really worth sharing, and if it's important enough that I want to share it, I hope people will take the time to circumnavigate the paywall and read it.
posted by Ahab at 5:44 PM on September 29, 2011 [5 favorites]
Maybe you folks should ease up on Crabby now.
Metaponysterical.
posted by Blazecock Pileon
Metametaponysterical.
posted by grouse at 5:56 PM on September 29, 2011
Metaponysterical.
posted by Blazecock Pileon
Metametaponysterical.
posted by grouse at 5:56 PM on September 29, 2011
I've hit my 20 article limit, and clicking a link to the NYT from anywhere else (rather than typing in nytimes.com and searching or clicking) never fails to let me in, no problems. Don't know what I might be doing differently, but there you have it.
Sometimes I go to the article, get the "sorry, 20 articles, please subscribe), and then copy the link and paste it into a chat window or something, and click from there. Voila.
posted by tzikeh at 6:54 PM on September 29, 2011
Sometimes I go to the article, get the "sorry, 20 articles, please subscribe), and then copy the link and paste it into a chat window or something, and click from there. Voila.
posted by tzikeh at 6:54 PM on September 29, 2011
Just because no one seems to have mentioned it yet: this is what I use.
posted by Rhomboid at 7:29 PM on September 29, 2011
posted by Rhomboid at 7:29 PM on September 29, 2011
Chrome Incognito Window works like a charm.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 8:16 PM on September 29, 2011
posted by Joseph Gurl at 8:16 PM on September 29, 2011
grouse: "Maybe you folks should ease up on Crabby now."
Oh sure, you would say that.
posted by deborah at 11:54 PM on September 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
Oh sure, you would say that.
posted by deborah at 11:54 PM on September 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
I'm spinning around with my furry fur and great big teeth and going wild here ... wild.
posted by taz at 4:57 AM on September 30, 2011
posted by taz at 4:57 AM on September 30, 2011
we don't allow FB links.
Is this true? I could understand it for FB links you had to be logged in to see, but that is not the case for all FB links—in fact, I just tested this out and was able to read a "public" note while logged out of FB. (I agree that FB links would very rarely be best of the web, but "very rarely" is not "never.")
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 6:41 AM on September 30, 2011 [1 favorite]
Is this true? I could understand it for FB links you had to be logged in to see, but that is not the case for all FB links—in fact, I just tested this out and was able to read a "public" note while logged out of FB. (I agree that FB links would very rarely be best of the web, but "very rarely" is not "never.")
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 6:41 AM on September 30, 2011 [1 favorite]
It's really only stuff-that-requires-a-login that's a problem, yeah. I mean, it's entirely possible to make a post that's just not very good from no-login-needed FB content, yeah, but in that case it's not being deleted specifically because of FB.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:57 AM on September 30, 2011
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:57 AM on September 30, 2011
enn and IanMorr: If you clear out all cookies with 'nytimes.com' in the name, does that stop the restriction?
It does for me. Whenever I hit the "you have x articles left" warning (which is rare, since we subscribe at work), I just go in and clear out any cookie with 'nytimes.com' and I can read more. Maybe I'm just not hitting the real limit for the month after that, but clearing out the cookies definitely gets rid of the warning.
It's an easy thing to do once during the few months that I actually hit the NYT 20 article limit. I'm curious to see if it works for you, enn and IanMorr.
posted by mediareport at 5:29 PM on September 30, 2011
It does for me. Whenever I hit the "you have x articles left" warning (which is rare, since we subscribe at work), I just go in and clear out any cookie with 'nytimes.com' and I can read more. Maybe I'm just not hitting the real limit for the month after that, but clearing out the cookies definitely gets rid of the warning.
It's an easy thing to do once during the few months that I actually hit the NYT 20 article limit. I'm curious to see if it works for you, enn and IanMorr.
posted by mediareport at 5:29 PM on September 30, 2011
« Older We're all still products being sold. But now we're... | DINK GADINK ABINK GADOONK GADOONKA Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by skynxnex at 7:40 AM on September 29, 2011