Slashdot Mirror
News Sites Getting to Know You
The Online Journalism Review has a story about more and more news sites requiring registration. Has assorted facts and figures, including how much sites' traffic dropped when registration was required. Even though a fair percentage of people just make up the data they are asked to provide, I'd guess that as a statistical measure it's probably pretty accurate - many people would tell the truth without caring that they're being tracked.
As a general matter, Slashdot's policy on linking to registration-required websites goes something like this:
The New York Times is okay, because they've got a lot of high-quality stories and they were essentially grandfathered in;
Other registration-required sites are not okay, and we won't post stories linking to them.
Kind of a shame, because the LA Times has some good content too, and we've posted lot of links to them in the past, before they went registration-required. Oh well.
iF these websites arent interested in me personally, then they do not require my name and my address right ? They just want to identify usage patterns as per their statement. Well a fake name and fake address enables them to do just that. what do they care what I am named and where I stay and what my age is ? :D
Well, for things like /. , where there's a lot of "people power" in terms of mod'ing comments and the like, I can see why its useful.
But why (and I'm not complaining, I just don't understand) does NYTimes.com require it to read their stories? Marketing research? I have a hard time believing online registrations are doing them anything worthwhile (given how many times *I've* BS'ed a seemingly useless registration) in terms of research.
We just need more sites like this one...
--
http://www.aikiweb.com - AikiWeb Aikido Information
All your fake ID are belong to us.
SCO (noun.)- A Slimy Corporate Ogre. Often seeks free money.
Surely everyone uses variants of the cyberpunk login (Which sadly no longer works on WSJ online like it did for so many years -- but I'm sure one of the variants still does)? Or slashdot/slashdot? I mean, I have entire fake personalities I use for just these occasions. Link away! most /.ers know better than to give email addresses that are used for anything but spamcatchers.
Traffic dropping is a no-brainer: registration requires a bit more than click-and-drool, so that rules AOLers out, but I'd wager only a small percentage of the total drop is due to people concerned about privacy.
Which is a shame, but such is life.
Feed inaccurate data to the collectors, and have fun.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
You can simple measure the amount of money they make by collecting email addresses and the like and then selling them, versus having a few people boycot their website, saving them bandwidth.
More and more will switch to this method... "Free" for users and (somewhat) profitable for hosts.
"Oh no, 3 horny women and only 2 condoms...Thank god I read slashdot"
I take a similar policy - Don't read the LA Times anymore (and I used to be a LA times Company Town junkie), and their marketing department can go screw themselves. I'll go to my local library if I want to look up the current news, and that way, they won't even be able to track how many hits they get! Idiots.
Wait, does Slashdot qualify as a "news site"?
"The New York Times on the Web has required registration since the site launched in January 1996. The Times has topped 10 million active registered users."
....6 million came from Slashdot articles and 2 million came from people that re-registered after blasting their stored passwords in Internet Explorer.
...have the mods create a uname/pw combination included in each relevant linked story and let the general /. population use those?
News sites got to make a buck somehow. Seems to me that registration is a reasonable way to do it. Remember (unlike some other sites I know of) they have large staffs of *gasp* reporters.
-Sean
If the registration is free, I don't really see a problem. From a business standpoint, it doesn't make sense to provide a service (news) without some form of payback. Some sites ask for registration, some ask for subscriptions (cough cough). Such is life.
Don't give me none of this "nature theme" business.
No obligatory link to NY Times? People are starting to get lazy ;)
"Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
That's where I always say I live to those agencies. C'mon, just say it "Trinidad and Tobago". Is that great or what?
I wonder if sites like /. will ever go that way (charging a subscription fee). Currently my other favorite site kuro5hin offers a voluntary subscription service that offers extra (useless?) features that a free account doesn't have. I have been happy to see that /. has not gone in a similar direction but I wonder if it is inevitable.
/. has but is it really that expensive to run a site like that? I guess the NYT is much more concerned about turning a profit.
I have a site and it is extremely cheap to run ($10/month on my friends server). I know my site doesn't have the bandwidth consumption or content that a site like the New York Times or
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
It was earlier today that michael said "Another anonymous person (how hard is it to give yourself a handle? sheesh)...", and now he's complaining about having to register at another news site. Bah!
I used to visit was KGW.com every day to get info on Portland, OR. They are owned by Belo - or at least their site is - and I always thought they had one of the best local news sites around. Recently they started to require registration and - had it been similar to NYTimes - I would have done it. But it was SO intrusive (age, sex, marital status, income, preferences, etc) that there was no way in hell I was going to do it. Their privacy policy was also a little shady. I wrote them an email to this regard. They wrote back saying they really didn't care (sorry, recently deleted the email or I would post it) but that they were trying to offer 'personalized' service to the customer. I tell ya, I'm just going to go back to buying my new at the news stand, where I can get a little anonymity! Except for Slashdot, of course.
For most sites, if they require registration, I will state that it is not worth it, because what most of the people would have would not be worth the effort of filling out a web form, even with false information. There are some exceptions though, one of those being the new york times, but that is because I was taking a political science class, which required ten articles from a source about a country of our choice(US not an option). Others would be ones that are from services that I would need, for example sites on linux, or software that I will run in that system, I figure that they not only get my actual effort, but my real name and contact info as well. As for others, or even some of those that I do make exceptions for, I know very well, that the main reason for web registration is to create a revenue stream for themselves, which is completely understandable, since the dot net crash, there has been a need to find a way to make web content profitable. For example Gamespot.com has tried something where they charge a rate for their premium services, for example downloading anything from them, or reading reviews for games after a month or so.. I actually liked most of their reviews, and found their downloads to be convenient, but I am not willing to pay for that service because I didn't honestly think that much of their services. There are many other sites that have approaches similar, it just depends on personal preference if it is truely worth it, and if not, then just don't use the services. But for sites that just require registration, at least in the past there have been slashdotters, who have created usernames for the New York Times so that others could view the site without the inconvinience of having to register themselves.
i've never read the NY times, although i have seen a daily publication (which isn't necessarily the norm in Canada) and it is HUGE. /. has posted a more than the average number of articles that were taken from the NYT.
/. and bothers to read the articles won't bow to the registration info, so what is the point of censuring other sites?
I have also noticed that over the last month or two
The problem that i see with the statement that they accept posts from NYT but not from other news sources that require reg is that the registration is seen as an issue for everyone but NYT.
So why should the New York Times receive any favouritism in this respect??
You said it yourself, anyone who knows what these statistics can be used for will use fake information. I would say that anyone who reads
It simply looks to me to be a bias towards NYT, and as far as i've seen over the last month or so, the number of NYT articles posted points to this reality...
IAN
It's not just on the fact of registration -- does it really matter if all they ask is your gender and age for example? It's just anonymous stats in that case, which imho really doesn't do any harm. If it starts to ask about phone numbers, etc, then yeah, I'm angry and will stop visiting the site as I will protect my privacy.
Karma whorin' since 1999
Personal information is worth so much these days.
Open up your sunday paper and look at all the great bargins you can get. Cd's for $14.99 with a $5 instant rebate and a $10 mail in rebate. Do you really think they are giving you the cd's for the price of the tax only? No. They are gonna sell the information you send them to get your rebate. And that information will be 100% correct.
Cool.
I can have one of my dozen or so phony-info Passport accounts manage my dozen or so phony news site logins!
Next Please...
Lots of robots don't even request /robots.txt, but proceed to download and index stories.
Requiring registration is more than 10 times as effective in stopping robots, as /robots.txt is.
Note that the NYTimes and other sites often allow backdoor entry with referers. For example, one of my favorite news portals is MyNewsFirst.com. When you click on a NYTimes story listed there, you don't have to register, because it sends either a "passthrough referer", or an extra query string certificate (e.g. &partner=mynewsfirst), which bypasses the registration requirement.
I'm just glad most RealCities newspapers aren't doing it yet, since they provide geographically diverse news.
I always tought news sites made people register to prevent deep linking. I never minded registering. of course I don't use my realname or e-mail.
I have absolutely no problem with registration. Especially if the site is free. It's reasonable to give demographic information, geographic information and possibly what industry you are in, nothing more.
As I wrote in my article, Web Communities and the Art of Making Money gathering basic demographic information is vital for obtaining the highest possible advertising rates. For low to medium traffic sites, having a good handle on your reader demographics makes the difference whether your ad rates are high or low. To me, there are very good reasons for demanding a demographic survey right at the very start. Sure, it pisses off a few technologically illiterate readers, but the prospect of free content should be enticement enough.
The problem is that individuals want to keep their personal information private. Many will simply lie about personal information (and really, if a newpaper site is asking for your phone number, that is way too much).
The other problem is the tedious nature of those marketing surveys that some of these registration forms require. Plan to buy a car in the next year? Do you spend over $1000 a year on computer stuff? Do you go on cruises? That sort of crap, besides being irrelevant and none of these site's business, are extremely tedious to fill out. And sometimes it's easy to overlook a radio box you were supposed to uncheck about whether you want to receive regular emails about great new offers.
The next problem is protecting your email address. Only an idiot would give a real or a regularly used email address.
The final problem is linkability. For less web-savvy people, they are unwilling to pursue a link on your weblog if it references a registration-required site. I know for example, some of my international friends would never register for the New York Times site even if the article is great.
That's a problem, but if it gives these media sites a better margin for breaking even, so be it.
Robert Nagle, Austin, Texas
Robert Nagle, Idiotprogrammer, Houston
I think to encourage using sites that dont require registration, slashdot should begin rejecting any submissions that link to sites that do. Normally there is a mirror to a site that does not require registration anyway, and it would make reading slashdot stories alot easier. I personally do not visit any nytimes stories posted on slashdot, I ignore them as if they are not there.
GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
My home town newspaper's web site now only allows access to print subscribers. They charge $45 a year for non-subscribers. They don't even allow access to current stories. And "archive" stories (those older than about 2 days) are limited even for paid subscribers.
[please register to read this comment]
complex
p.s. exactly how you go about registering is an exercise left up to the reader.
Isn't that an even better reason to do it?
please
// Ahmad
why?
KISSES
Or is this just another "I'll boycott the RIAA/MPAA/etc., at least until it's inconvenient for me to do so" scenario?
BELO started this reg thing on their local NBC station's web site. Fine, I just surf on over to CBS and ABC.
You people worry about the strangest things.
In the US for example (it may be the same in other countries) theyv'e been tracking you since the day you were born.
Ask your mothers how much mail from babyfood and diaper companies she recieved soon after your birth.
Then you went to school and got a "permanent record" started.
Then you went to work and guess what they used to track you??? Social Security Card.
YOU CANNOT WIN
give in. sign up. they will find you anyway you paranoid bastards.
Who run Barter Town?
Try a search in Yahoo News. Half the links will be from NYT, and the ones that are old enough to be "archived" (arbitrary designation for some number of days of ripeness) will cost you a squeezy $2.50 to read.
$2.50 to read a sorry newspaper article?
No.
I had no problem registering with the NY Times web site. It was easy, and required no verification.
I read it every day. Until I clicked an article a coupla weeks ago, and was directed to an ad which I was supposed to watch before being re-directed to the story (ala Salon). That did it. I'm never going there again. Washington Post is my mainstream news site now... no enforced ad views and no registration.
I don't know why, but anonymous registration does not bother me, but forcing me to read a fucking ad does it to me.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
The New York Times is okay, because they've got a lot of high-quality stories.
The Los Angeles Times is NOT okay, kind of a shame because it has some good content too.
?!??!?!!!???
I don't like site registration, probably for an amalgam of reasons similar to the majority of /. readers - I don't like giving out personal info, I don't like getting spam, and it's a hassle to maintain registrations and logins. The latter can be solved by technology in five billion ways, but it's still a nuisance, and unless it's really special content, I'm not going to bother. I have a NY Times login out there somewhere, but damned if I can remember what it is, or what email address I used. And, yes, all the info I entered was bogus.
I do have a handful of registrations on sites that I consider worth it, and that I trust. I'm very careful about who gets my email address (only a few sites that send mailouts - use.perl, slashdot, freshmeat, o'reilly) and I get maybe five spams a week, usually from people who obviously got it from whois. Not much I can do about that.
However, I also don't have a problem with sites that require registration. I understand their reasons for it. At the moment, I tell clients (I'm a web developer and consultant) that they're better off not collecting personal info, and much better off not sending random spam to people who sign up. What really sucks is that may have to change someday soon.
The reasons are very straight forward - first, sites need to make money. Whether by being able to tell advertisers where their impressions are going or outright selling email addresses to SpamCo., if it's viable, I have a responsibility to tell them about it. (Although things haven't gotten to the point yet where I haven't been able to look a client in the eye and tell them spamming will kill them, thank $diety). Second, users don't care. They don't value their privacy, they don't understand why personal data is personal, and some of them honestly think it's a fair trade.
What I'm hoping is that enough people get online fast enough, and enough of them understand why privacy is important, and enough of them care, that they won't register with just any site that asks for your address and what car they own. Sounds sort of like the Drake equation. (I'm optimistic on both counts).
This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.
Um, every newspaper in the country requires your phone number. Why is it an invasion of privacy if the newspaper site (those folks in the office down the hall from the newsroom) does the same?
Little known information about registration: Actually, Slashdot has only 10 readers. They each have 55,000 accounts.
Very effective way to prevent deep linking, framing, and stolen feeds.
Ack
"As a general matter, Slashdot's policy on linking to
[BIG
HUGE
AD]
registration-required websites goes something like this:"
I'm so glad you guys aren't linking to sites which require registration. Such freedom-fighters against the commercialization of the internet, you guys are.
Regarding your sig: Robert Nagle, Idiotprogrammer, Austin
Is it difficult to program idiots? They don't have much memory or CPU power.
what the hell's wrong with ojr.org? It looks like crap in Galeon, Mozilla, and Konqueror. The fonts are tiny and all squished together.
---
SCO is weenies
Gator is Spyware
Microsoft is thugs
Just so you know, we already employ OCR software to read those graphic glyphs, which are supposed to be readable only by humans.
Certain software monopolies don't do anything of the sort so any idiot on the planet with your email address can register you to receive their pointless marketing crap. Feel free to register your worse enemies here: Yes!! Send me Spam
There isn't an unreg option unless you "register" for a passport.
Ack
The reason they are starting to require registration is simple. They need to make money and they haven't figured out how to do it yet. Ad revenues have collasped in this economy. Their product is their news reporting and they were giving it away for free. Now, would you rather pay for the news (as you used to for a newspaper) or just give them a little demographic information instead? If you are really paranoid you can give them bogus information except for a valid email. What does this cost you but a little time to fill out a form?
One other thing I should point out. If you do decide to register for the LA Times or the Chicago Tribune you can use this user id at both sites. Once the rest of the Tribune Company sites (7 or more papers) require registration you will be able to use it at those sites as well.
One last note, and I am somewhat biased here, but so are you. Saying that you will continue to post NYT stories, but not LA Times stories is hypocritical! Post the news that is interesting. If you are going to post any registration required stories I would post ones from the LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Newsday, Sun Sentinel, Orlando Sentinel, Daily Press, and other Tribune Company newspapers. This way slashdot readers will only have to register once for many sources of information.
One final thing. Someone asked how hard it could be to create/maintain one of these sites. Let me say this, it is hard. The functionality and traffic of some of these sites dwarfs that of slashdot. Just think of some of the features they provide. Of the top of my head, stories, ads, polls, quizzes, contests, streaming media, customization, registration, newsletters, and much more. Not to mention continuous updates throughout the day of breaking stories along with relevant photos, stories, and other information. This is a lot of work and requires many highly technical people along with many researchers, writers, and producers.
Ok, enough rambling. Nobody will read this anyway because it's anonymous. Oh well, I feel better at leats.
My view is that if you want to view their content, you should play by their rules. <br
What's in it for me? I'll look for that article whenever I want to, whereever I want to, and with providing whatever misinformation I want to and if anyone has a problem with that... well that's their problem... unless of course there's something in it for me.
What's it matter to you, anyways?
I have absolutely no problem with registration. Especially if the site is free. It's reasonable to give demographic information, geographic information and possibly what industry you are in, nothing more.
I don't mind giving them whatever information they want, except for my name, address, and phone number. I'm willing to tell them which city I live in and give a rough approximation of my postal code. If they want an e-mail address, I use one of my spam-bait accounts. I once made the mistake of giving my real e-mail to a site with an opt-out policy. At least I gave a fake name, so that helps with the spam filter.
For newspaper registration, I'll even fill out those boring forms on whether I intend to buy a car in the next year and such. The way I see it, we are very lucky that newspapers are willing to offer their content for free, especially to out-of-state readers. If they want to show me targeted advertising, I'm perfectly willing to help out... as long as I don't get extra spam, junk mail, or telephone solicitations.
-a
How to rationalize theft.
Sheesh
Need I say more, Michael?
While you may trust the <NEWSPAPER_NAME>'s editorial integrity, you should not assume that it applies the same standards to data the corporation releases about its own performance. The people releasing that information often have nothing to do with the editorial staff, though they would like to use your "trust" to sell you ad space/subscriptions/registration data/etc.
Even if the news sites could be certain that their registration info was accurate, I still wouldn't believe a word they say about their user numbers/demographics.
For instance, this quote from Dallasnews's Eric Christensen is blatantly untrue:
He's claiming that 70% of the site's traffic remained after registration right away, and that eventually it all came back. Not a single person stopped using the site because of the registration system. If you'll believe that one I'm sure he's got a Web site to sell you, too...I live in Asia but I read the nytimes nearly daily. I don't see any problem with registration - it seems like an eminently reasonable trade to give some demographic information in exchange for free access to a great paper. Is it reasonable to expect something for nothing?
Just in case you need it. :-)
"I live in Asia but I read the nytimes nearly daily."
We know. You've accumulated a total subversive index of 173.
But don't worry; we only send the men in trenchcoats after you if your rolling average goes over 60; the highest *your* rolling monthly average has ever gotten is 23, on May 17, 2002.
Since your demographic information indicates that you are not employed as a teacher, there's no need to worry about a high quarterly rolling average landing you in a reeducation camp, but for your own sake, I'd really recommend reading fewer articles on labor unions, until after Monday.
-- Terry
Do they allow the indexing of the content by web spiders?
Are we going to get search engines polluted with "hits" for which registration is required in order to view the pages?
If so, how long before we have browsers that pretend they are spiders?
How long before search engines are mostly useless without a Microsoft Passport so you can follow the links search engines return, without explicit sign-on?
-- Terry
Did anybody catch the reference to gated/non-gated sections of the Trib (on page 3 of the ojr artice)? It struck me because I have an abiding animosity towards "gated communities," and this sounds like the online equivalent. The newspapers are going after the high-income earners in a big way, altough anybody is free to register. How long before certain zipcodes get redlined? After reading this (and the "Digital Edge" survey linked to) I can more easily imagine an internet where instead of communicating accross arbitrary social divisions, people are increasingly herded into infotainment niches which only the most tech-savvy or will be able to escape. Authentic communication will become impossible online, as the only people who are capable of bridging social divides are temperamentally sociopathic or, more charitably, maladjusted, but nevertheless lacking in social skills--Oh my gosh. I just realized I could be describing /.
One of my favorite websites, gamasutra.com, recently started requiring registration. Ever since they started doing this I haven't bothered to visit the site very often. It's a real shame.
I'm surprised to learn of Slashdot's policy regarding sites which require registration. It's an admirable policy. Bravo!
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Their marketing guys may get all excited about this kind of stuff, but for a typical "read only" news site, like NYT, I just do not use their site. Slashdot, yahoo, and half-empty.org are the only sites I have a login for, as they support posting/interaction.
The marketing/sales people need to figure out what's more valuable to them - being able to display ads to me as an anonymous user, or to do neato graphs about my (non-existent) activity profile since I won't be logging in.
My personal favorite is to fill in the email address as the domain your regestering on for example "webmaster@nytimes.com" or "support@nytimes.com". I figured early on that they would block these with filters, so then i started feeding each company an address from another company.
What really gets me is the verification systems. Obviously most of these programmers just left school and insist on varifying _every_ field. Who cares if my zip code is the wrong number of digits? since the only code i know is "90210" thats what im going to put if you ask me again!
I cant wait for the new Parabellum and SSSCA technologies to come out, then i can have my details burnt onto my motherboard and automatically sent to every site i vist. Also, it will be good news for the sites since i will have to have the correct information in by law, as it will be taken from my passport, and documents (required for purchasing a new machine in 2005) lol
If the sites really want my data so that it can help them tailor the site, then they should ask specific, impersonal questions and make it damn quick.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
I personally don't like having to fill in my details with websites, although I have with those that are any good and allow me to unsubscribe from mailing lists of adverts. But this is not the only way to retrieve marketing information about visitors to a site:
;) They can even get down to the order you do stuff and what times you do it. If you know what someone does you have a good chance that you can work out the demographic "bucket" they fit into and can use that for e-marketing.
Companies such as Autonomy and Escape Velocity Technology have technology that does automatic collection of your online habits and can form a picture of you so that each time you visit a website powered by their products it can be adapted to your behaviour. There are no forms to fill in, it just works off exactly what you've done; so if you read articles on company profits (or losses as the case currently seems to be out there!) then you'll get similar articles presented to you more often and adverts might be for online stock brokers (or debt collectors
The Internet is almost anonymous: you can be who you like, when you like it. Filling in forms with misinformation is just like creating a "new you", but can you break the habits of your real persona?
For the L.A. Times, and other second-rate newspapers, listen up, you're NOT the New York Times. Don't kid yourself, your "product" is not that valuable. Maybe if you spent more money on reporters and less on nose candy for the marketing department, you would have a first-rate newspaper.
I do like the idea of polluting their demographics. Maybe I will register and show them how important the 97-year old Eskimo demographic is.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Google's cache only carries the first page of the original article, I'm afraid, so you'll find the complete article here :
m l
http://www.well.com/user/jd/OJR-registration.ht
My AR$E!
That being said, if they ASK nicely for information about me in order to better service my needs, (Or some such), and give me an opportunity to voluntarily fill out an information form, then perhaps I'll do this. After all, I want my local news source to know what region and issues most affect me when they deliver their information.
But to make it a forced, no-option requirement? Well, guess what? I'll not be buying that company's product, because I consider that just plain rude.
Frankly, in this day and age of totalitarian authorities looming large, it's just plain stupid to broadcast your likes, dislikes, political views, etc., through what you consume, when you consume and how you consume. For instance. .
Drink Jolt Cola? Live night-owl hours? Buy computer parts and Kraft Dinner? Don't buy diapers or tampons for dependants?
Well, guess what? You just profiled yourself. A check on credit, recent travel, phone records, web pages most often visited. . . Well, buddy, that sort of track record may well have you being percieved as a 'low grade threat' in an increasingly paranoid society, and you can count on being bookmarked.
Psych profiling is a refined art. Heaven forbid, should you rate better than a 50% chance of ever actually thinking of doing anything which might threaten the Homeland. . . Well, I wouldn't want to be in your shoes in five year's time when the white vans start making their collections. .
-Fantastic Lad --18 months and counting 'till total ecconomic collapse of the U.S. Have you got your canned food and hunting rifle?.
This is a scheme only necessary if you don't
know how to data-mine the logfiles of your
Web Server.
Toon Moene (GNU Fortran maintainer).
What do you bet that this info generates more dinner hour phone calls asking you to subscribe ? So if you type in your Comgressman or -woman's name and email address, or better yet the name of one of their aides, just maybe we could have fewer 7pm marketing phone calls . Typing in real yet deceptive info is more useful than typing obviously fake info..
is mis-information better than no information ?
I have 15 safeway discount cards in various names with various phone numbers, all false. I register daily with the NY Times and several other publications via a random login generator that fills in all the fields in their DB with BS. If you can't avoid a login, fill up the companies DB with BS.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
The reason I so detest 'registration required' sites is that I am not part of their target demographic. I do not like in New York. I do not live in LA. I have no wish to read the publication whatsoever. If I was walking down a street in NY or LA, then I might notice the headlines. This is the same role which Slashdot and other news sites perform. Someone notices the headlines and yells that "This is News".
/. If they don't then I don't get the news until 6 hours later when all the non-registration sites mirror it, but in reality the chances of me caring for that long are practically nil.
/. because my life depends on it. I'm reading /. (or whichever site I'm reading at the time) because a.) I'm bored and b.) I like to antogonise opinionated Americans ;) Neither of these two reasons make it worth my while filling out registration details.
It's at this stage that I want to scan my eyes across an article and see if it interests me. I don't even want to read the thing at this stage. Just take a closer look.
Registration Required sites prevent me from looking. There is no way I'm registering with my real details. If I register with fake details then there's no way I'll remember which details relate to which site in the future. Hence, I'll have to register each and every time I wish to check out a headline.
As such, I simply do not bother. Sooner or later someone usually pastes the body of the news article into
Let's face it. I'm not reading
I'm probably pretty unique among people, but I refuse to own store loyalty cards. They claim that you can collect points and get free stuff, in exchange for them knowing everything about your shopping habbits. How many toilet rolls do you get through in a week? You buy medication for your piles too! What type of tampons do you buy? Heavy flow? Hrm.. and you buy 24 condoms a week too. And you smoke strong cigarettes too.
They collect all this very private and personal information and then they _do_ use it. They use it to try and market themselves more effectively to you. I wouldn't be surprised if this information is available to 'The Powers That Be' too... Sounds a bit tinfoil hat I know, but if I was the "Powers that be" I know I'd leverage my governmental weight on the supermarkets if I was investigating you.
Let's put it simply. I don't want any organisation having a file on me which tells them this kind of personal information about me. I pay for my shopping in cash. I shop at several different supermarkets. I do not register for registration required sites on the net. I'd rather go without.
People say "You don't have to register. You can simply not use them" and that's just what I do. If I don't like their terms of business then they get blocked on my firewall... so I don't forget later.
P.S. I really don't wear a tinfoil hat.
why bother with the NY Times or LA Times having to register? just another stupid username and password to remember, when there are lots of other sources for news that do not require logging in with user name & Password, besides the NY Times are a bunch of liberal leftist commies...
FOX News RULES!!!
My problem of late with reg sites is that more and more are getting away with privacy-invasive crap, not because of me, but because they can afford to lose my business since everyone else is an idiot.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
Hmm, the Belo stats say that 22% of their registered users make $100,000 or more per year. The higest percentage, 23%, makes $75,000-$99,999. Why do I highly doubt that? I know when I'm making up registration information, I usually choose the $100,000+ category. A little wishful thinking since I'm in fantasy mode anyway.
t ml
If their advertisers think that mandatory but non-verified information makes a good advertising target, they've got a few things to learn about computers and the Internet. I bet at least hal of their registration data is crap.
And this was priceless, it's a copy of the NYTimes registration form, click the Randomize button:
http://www.robertgraham.com/tools/random-user.h
From the article:
Better to add some incentive to sweeten the deal. How about rewarding people for their registration effort: a free newsletter, or a chance to interact with the newspaper's editors or reporters online?
They're crazy if they think a newsletter will buy me, I avoid registration BECAUSE I want to avoid getting more free newsletters (AKA more spam)
Gamespot has really ticked me off with their policy of having to pay for downloads. In my book, that basically boils down to that I have to pay for viewing commercials for games. That is the case because most of Gamespot's content is provided by game companies and is not made by Gamespot employees. Unreasonable and illogical, say I.
It doesn't matter what they do, to get their registration. I feel that companies are not to be trusted. They may say they won't sell their data, but hey. Remember that Geocities said that, then they was caught selling their kids web master's data? Or Remember Real?
Or remember how many companies quietly change their privacy notices and start selling? MS anyone?
No, the best idea, is keep your ID secret. I started on the internet 10+ years ago, and never gave out personal data. At the time, there wasn't this desperate ploy by the companies to sell data, so their overpaid execs can play more golf.
No, the NYT gets only that I'm a female, I make 100k+ a year, and live in Argentenia (or Belaruse, or the UK, or...:)
And a cookie keeps me coming in. From a locked cookie file, so they can't keep dumping more cookies on it.
Shadowwalker (Batting her eyes at the NYT) Delaforge
(probably redundant by now but..)
Everytime slashodot link to a "registration required" site. They first register an account with uname: slashdot pw: slashdot. If the pw has rules bout minimal lenght the string "slashdot" is repeated like: slashdotslashdot.... If there are rules about numbers being nessesery a one is added as first char: 1slashdot. Maby a link with the name , pw fields already filled out could be provided.
FRA: STFU GTFO
Yeah, really. I'll just walk down to the library and pull out the paper / microfilm copy to read older articles. And print out / photocopy the story for $0.10/page if I need a hard copy.
But, for our $2.50 do we get something more substantial than just the ability to read the article? How 'bout reprint rights?
In mathematics, one does not understand things, one merely gets used to them.
--VonNeumann
If everyone did this, they might soon realize that such annoying requirements were counterproductive.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Kind of a shame, because the LA Times has some good content too, and we've posted lot of links to them in the past, before they went registration-required
Just like you posted a lot of links to NY Times before they went registration-required? Oh wait...you still post a lot of links to them.
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
I don't mind registering with a well-behaved site. I like the convenience of login cookies for personalized sites I use all the time. But witness the difference in style:
I've been registered with the NYTimes site for over 5 years now. Why? Because all they wanted for registration was a basic email address and to set a cookie. I have NOT ONCE received a "special offer" from a partner, nor been inconvenienced by the NYT site in any way. (Well, it did once lose my cookie, but when I wrote to complain, a HUMAN answered and told me how to fix it. Seems the server had lost my password, so I needed to reset that.)
OTOH, I recently went to the LATimes site, intending to register so I could use more of it... and was confronted by a form that wanted lots of personal information, AND by an agreement telling me that my personal data would be "shared" with their "partners" (which I took to mean mostly upscale spammers). Consequently I decided NOT to register with the LATimes site, and wrote them explaining why. No response.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I would mod you up if you weren't at +5 already.
Slashdot, including it's editors, gives "anonymous cowards" all that grief for not registering while *at the same time* complaining about NY times requiring a identical login. Why aren't they just called "anonymous users"?
When you cheat the papers out of the *only* thing they ask from you, a tiny bit of statistical data, you just make it harder for them to make a buck and justify their existance. These papers are going to go away and it will be that much harder to get well written free content on the web.
The newspapers incure expense, publishing this free content and delivering it to you. That's something I think slashdot should understand. They don't have "thinkgeek" or "sourceforge" to sell to they users either.
Making sites like http://www.majcher.com/nytview.html only gives big company justification for DMCA like laws. You are retarding their ability to make a buck, whilst using their content. That,IMHO, is stealing.
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
There should be a checkbox to exclude NY Times from our homepage, just like the popular JonKatz box.
I read the Times anyway and don't need to read it again.
Let us filter our sources like we filter topics or authors!
It is highly irresponsible for Slashdot to use inconsequencial political choices to dictate who you will link to. The Los Angeles Times is universally recognized as the West Coast's only newspaper of record. The New York Times is the world's newspaper of record. The only acceptable reason to reject The Wall Street Journal is that they require payment for online reading, for most articles. But the register-only sites are the best news sources in the world and you only drag Slashdot further and further into a netherworld of popular standards rather than respected standards of professional journalism.
In recent weeks I have written six articles for madison.indymedia.org, the local chapter of the Independent Media Center. IMC is "a collective of media activists involved in radio, television, publishing, and much more." As someone on here pointed out, they have a strong left/radical "bias," which is the direct opposite of what's on CNN/Faux News. (And rapidly the rest of the mainstream media. [insert rant here])
The biggest difference is not the "spin" of many of its reports, but the fact that it is run and written by people who want to become the media, be the media. It's a really freaking cool thing, if you ask me. It's got old school punk music's DIY attitude, and unlike so much mainstream media, it will actually tell you what's going on. (Compare the coverage of the recent U.S. Conference of Mayors here in Madison if you need proof.)
Yes, some people within it have the "obligatory" anti-corporate attitude, but really, this is real news made by real people. It's good. Check it out!
-- haaz.
'Nuff sed
So, you are saying that because the "paper" newspaper invaded your privacy with unneeded questions, then it is also Ok for the "internet" newspaper to invade your privacy. NO! NO! You should have said no to the newspaper in the first place. There is no, I REPEAT NO!, reason on earth that they need your telephone number to get the paper to you.
:) ]
Stop this invasion of privacy right now!
[Oh, I just realised my sig is quite relevant to this post
Here's a few other sites...
I see The Economist occasionally linked from Slashdot -- the Economist is partially owned by FT, and provides deep articles about a broad array of news items. Lots of it is economics/foreign policy, but they've got a lengthy tech survey every few months, and cover tech news occasionally. No reg required, but to view all of the articles you need to subscribe/pay money (free with print subscription -- excellent value). The Economist and the New York Times are the best news sources that I know.
Thankfully, Slashdot posts few time/newsweek/usnwr drivel -- this falls into the same catagory as ABC, CBS, NBC -- for people that don't really like to read hard news/want to be entertained more than informed.
The SF Chronicle used to have some good local/silicon valley stories from time to time. The web version is more infotainment than the print one, though. I haven't seen a slashdot link to there in a while either -- maybe it has gone downhill (haven't read it since I moved away).
The Christian Science Monitor used to be OK as well -- haven't looked at it in years...
there is no thing
what else could you want?
Your "decision" should be not to charge people based on geography. Nothing would prevent someone from making up a fake Ohio address. Either charge everyone or charge no one.
"Do I dare disturb the universe?"
You are retarded if you think I have any responsibility for their half-ass business plan.
That,IMHO, is stealing.
If that is your O, then you damned well should be H about it.
Actually a small (but not too small) penis is better. I hardly get any anal sex (with women only, after all I'm no Linux user) because mine is large.
/., NYT and LAT are VERY different. With /., you don't need to register to READ. NYT and LAT you do. LAT is worse tha NYT because they require a valid email which is a BIG no no for those who hate spam and want to retain a shread of privacy.
The bottom line is that SPAM and loss of privacy are too much to ask for. The cost is just too high.
If they lose readership, the value to advertisers goes down which means less money. Is this what they really want?
Instead of forcing everyone who wants to read an article to register, simply nag them into registering. For example, if the user attempts to access an article without registering, provide them with the page, but also embed JavaScript code in the page to pop-up a registration form. A user who comes to read a single article (e.g. by following a link) will probably ignore the registration form, but their registration would have little value anyway since they are unlikely to return to the site often. Users who read many of the articles on the site (the ones that you actually care about) will eventually give in and register to avoid being harassed by registration pop-ups all of the time. An added benefit of this approach is that search engines can access the articles, thus providing the site with extra (free) traffic. A drawback for this approach is that people using pop-up-blocking software may not see the pop-up registration forms.
A slashdot story in the past week or two linked to the LA Times where registration was required.
By enabling and encouraging the New York Times, you are building their base, and encouraging others to follow.
It was not too long ago that AOL Time Warner tried the same registration crap, and social security numbers/mother's maiden names made up part of the registration/suggested questions to get your password back, etc.
Keep enabling the NYT Slashdot. Don't give a damn about your readers' privacy and possible identity theft problems. Your revenue is too important.
btw, other sites link to NYT stories in non-registration required areas of either NYT site, or some mirror. Not sure how it works, but full stories are available without registration requirements. Alta Vista and/or Yahoo is somehow tied into this. Requires extra effort, something too hard for slashdot.
Also, especially for broadband users with static IP, but all users to some extent, filling the registration info with crap does nothing to protect you. There are ways around this, and the ongoing database building of your travels compensates for this.
... is something alluded to, but not fully explained, in the OJR article:
"If your audience from 8 to 10 a.m. is made up of
high-income at-work users consuming a high
amount of local news and sports, and nighttime
has a younger demographic spending more time
with entertainment content, that may suggest you
program your site differently."
I'm not as wary of advertisers targeting by reg or demographic info as I am by news editors doing so (although advertisers would probably be the impetus behind such a move).
IOW, say a certain demographic were linked to way-below-average voting patterns in political elections. Is it that paranoid to think that a newspaper, acting as gatekeeper (perhaps for the purpose of its advertisers), might serve entirely different content (ie, no political news) to those users who fall within that demo?
Yahoo Mail and Yahoo Groups already serve different ads based on a user's reg info (users registered as women get the diet ds, e.g.). My hunch (and fear) is that eventually newspapers will do the same by serving specific *content* based on user info.
no, i don't read news from sites that require login. Slashdot is my only exception, and if login were required rather than optional you can bet your ass i'd quit that too.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
No. You get to read it.
Not the whole archive.
The one article.
For 90 days.
--Blair
While I don't agree Slashdot is displaying journalism at its worst, I do agree that blocking LA Times, Chicago Tribune and an increasing number of other registration-required newspaper sites from your site is self-defeating and will only marginalize the relevance of / in the years ahead.
I agree with most folks that registration shouldn't be required in most cases, that it often requires quite unjustifiable levels of personal information, and that it tramples over people's privacy. But in my experience registration just doesn't lead to spam.
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
You're not really Aaron Sorkin, are you?
Personally I prefer registration. Years ago when bbs's were the only way to get daily pr0n and warez feed... uh oh, news feed. It was acceptable use NUV and NUP, even before actually getting account. What about anonymous? Newer heard. Back in the today, ever used ftp, or telnet, or ssh... etc. Okay ftp has well known anonymous login/pwd. But in the other side, if user authentication is needed, why physical address is needed, or gender, age, mothers name, sisters age, or even email address. No way Jose, ya ain't gonna get it, preferred login and passwd is okay for me to submit.
It's not our fault you're some gui lamer.