Slashdot Mirror
Turning Up The Heat On On-Line Registration
Saeed al-Sahaf writes "CNN is running a story on the growing number of print newspapers with on-line editions that are requiring registration. Apparently there are some folks out there who don't like this 'feature'! I found a few things interesting about the story: Privacy groups say it's a dangerous practice and promotes spam; I didn't realize people put real personal info into these things (110-year-old surgeons from Bulgaria named Mickey Mouse). About 15 to 20 percent of the registrations for the Philadelphia Inquirer turned out to be bogus, a figure that was much lower than I would have thought. Also mentioned in the story is a web site called BugMeNot.com, which lists 'communal' logins and passwords for on-line newspapers."
Of course, now that BugMeNot has been publicized, how long until all these sites check that site often and just disable all accounts that ever get listed there?
I live in Austin. I used to read the Statesman online, but now they require registrations, and the damn thing asks for the password every single time.
So, I read www.kxan.com instead. I think that no matter where I turn, I can find an equivalent article from a competitor. Even content such as what salon.com carries can be found elsewhere. Slate.com and theatlantic.com can give me lots to think about when salon.com's advertisements fail to run on Linux.
So, no biggie. If they make it easy for me, I'm content to set myself up as a 99 year old woman from Ahzerbaijahn. But if they bug me twice about it, or if they fail to test their advertizing/authentication scheme with the browser that I choose to use, then I'll never visit their shithole again.
So long, Austin American Statesman. You suck!
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Just a theory, of course, but I bet the newspapers could care less what info. you use to register, as long as you do. And if you register with a new name every time, even better-- that's twice the number of readers they can claim to have to their advertisers.
They found that 10-15% of email addresses are bogus. This makes perfect sense, because most users who register probably figure that they need to recieve an e-mail to confirm registration, (even if you don't, as in the case of the Philadelphia Inquirer). If you look at Name/address/phone number/other personal info, then the amount of falsified data is probably at 85%+. Of course, there's no way to run a database queue to find out how much of that is fake, since they can't just count bounced e-mails. But to the companies e-mail is really all that matters anyway, so the fact that the other info is fake is moot.
No sane advertiser will pay for a spot based on research data where such an easily checked piece of data is already proven to be false 1 out of 5 times. Income, job, interest are then likely to have a far higher error rate.
I do know that newspapers have to make money and that giving their content away for free does not make too much sense. But this doesn't make sense either.
If they want to get info let them start with basic geographic data. Don't show someone with a european IP ads for america only products. Surely that shouldn't be that hard?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
bout 15 to 20 percent of the registrations for the Philadelphia Inquirer turned out to be bogus, a figure that was much lower than I would have thought.
I thought the same thing, but almost every time i ask a nontech-savvy person, they tell me they put their real info in. Also, many of these people will also put your email in to those 'send this to 5 friends for $1 off!' type deals. I have had to teach everybody in my family that when you do things like this it adds to spam. Some of them seem to think that its wrong to give fake information, or that you may be tracked down or something. people need to be educated about this stuff!
The actual quote was:
The Philadelphia Inquirer started online registration in March, asking readers for e-mail, home address, gender and birth date. About 10 percent to 15 percent of the 300,000 registrations to date have bad e-mail addresses, said Fred Mann, general manager of Philly.com.
Just because an email address will accept mail does not mean the rest of the information is accurate in any way. I have a few junk-dropper email addresses that I'll point these things to in case there is something it might send that I would need (like a password). But the rest of the information can be totally false...
So the real amount of bad data may be closer to the number you were thinking of in the first place (I'd guess 30-40% bogus registrations myself).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I get these things from my bank all the time, neatly enclosed with all sorts of other advertisement flyers in my credit card statement.
It miffs me off everytime I read one. Its the couchy language they use.. like "only sharing personal information as permitted by law."
What I want to see is the word required by law.
How do you feel they would think if I told them I would haxor their system as permitted by law to verify confidentiality of my personal information, especially after its been shown how the RIAA can apparently use similar techniques to verify misuse of their copyrighted information.
Its obvious that that piece of paper they sent me is just to fulfull some legal requirement that says they must inform me that they are going to share my information, but in order to mislead me, they couch it in "businessese" lingo to make it look like they are only going to violate my trust if they have to. But that's not what they actually say at all!
I just try to limit my exposure by doing business with as few of these guys as possible.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
Ummmm... Why do people bitch about the beer not being free?
What is the big deal? The washington post, nyt, etc are comercial operations and have to pay to keep the lights on. You can pay to read the newspaper in print or read it online for free provided you give them something in trade (i.e. account info).
They have to pay those journalists and pay for the Reuters/AP feeds. If you want to read their stuff, be prepared to trade for it. $/ or info.
If you want free beer, there are a million crappy blogs...
No, how much information they want is not your call to make , it's definitely theirs.
But it is entirely your call whether or not to give that information, or forego the use of their service.
They all know damned well that just becase they ask for information doesn't mean they'll get it. They're also probably aware that their readership will go down proportional to how much information they want, so they make a judgement as to how valuable that information is to them.
You make that same judgement....
Also, the parent was not equating incorrect information with piracy, he was comparing...there is a big difference. His comparison was not entirely without merit. You can choose to ignore the nag screens on Shareware, and continue using it for free, just as you can enter false data in the registration pages of a service, therefore getting it for free. In both cases the providers of the software or the service are aware that this will happen, and are counting on enough people to be honest to make it worthwhile. But being one of the expected dishonest people does not make you any less dishonest....
Advanced users are users too!
Right, and he made the statement that he would not read their content as he doesn't like their rules.
The real problem here is that some sites are more professional about the whole privacy issue than others. Some, like the NYT seem to be very good. Other sites have been a huge mistake to sign up for, IT industry rags seem to be the absolute worst - I never sign up for those anymore with anything other than a disposable webmail account.
I'd like to see a useful accreditation for a site's privacy policy. As it stands right now a site with a good policy can change pretty much at the whim of the owners. Even a site that sincerely swears on a stack of bibles that they will never sell your info is subject to being sold to weasels who will bury you in spam.
[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
Sorry, this is just too much. Not everything is a right or discrimination.
Yes men should be allowed to view female targetted ads.
Realistically companies target their advertising to the intended customer. This isn't a violation of your rights. They just wanted to target a different group.
You would be wasting time selling Maybachs in trailer parks, so don't bother trying.
Got this username/password from bugmenot.com. Too bad I won't actually get any Karma if this comment should be modded up.
This account has been seized by the GNAA. That is all.
When you get the newspaper at the newstand you PAY for it with MONEY. The bulk of that cost goes to defray the cost of printing. A major daily paper has HUGE expenses that keep going up, yet they don't raise the price of a paper very frequently.
The profits from a newspaper come from advertisers who are willing to pay a fair rate for print advertising because it works. So far most online advertising has failed to meet the expectations of advertisers, so they don't want to pay much for it.
Newspapers know that the world is changing around them and they are trying to adapt. Are they making the right choices? Don't know. I don't like registering any more than anyone else, but I do know that if newspapers don't figure out how to make a LOT more money online, they will cease to exist. The trend is for anyone younger than say 45-50 to get their news online rather than from print. The good news is that it costs a LOT less to publish online (newsprint costs are soaring -- newsprint is the paper itself). The bad news is that the BULK of the jobs at a large daily paper are NOT reporters and editors, but printers and circulation people. That equals a ton of lost jobs in the future if newspapers go totally online.
We're coming up on 10 years of large numbers of people actively using the Internet and we STILL haven't figured out a way to exchange money for information that people are willing to use that will generate enough money to make it worthwhile to provide that information. Yes I'm a capitalist. Yes I expect people provide goods and services only in exchange for SOMETHING that can be equated to money.
It is basically a paradox. People pay for Internet service, so they figure everything out there should already be paid for, yet if you required ISPs to pay into a fund that was distributed amongst all web sites and services, each site would make microscopic revenues and would cease to operate.
People here are always complaining about registering to read news. All those jokes about giving your first born child to the New York Times. Yeah, they're funny, but let's be serious for a moment.
First of all, the New York Times is a FOR PROFIT company. Second of all, they have employees to pay so that their employees can then eat and feed their families. They offer their service for free. All they ask in return is that you provide some information so that they can target ads. Is that so much to ask for? Would you rather just lay out cash?
Frankly, I was more than happy to provide the NYT with real registration information. I use their service and I'm very happy that they provide it for free. I'd be pretty upset if they had to start charging for it because everyone was sharing registrations or providing false information.
Complain about it all you want, but I think it's a very small price to pay. I registered years ago with correct information and to date, they have not sucked my checking account dry, trashed my computer, or done anything else sinister with the information that I'm aware of.
Too many people in the online community feel they're entitled to get stuff for free, but you have to remember that there are people behind the scenes, real people, with jobs that need to feed their families.
I'm personally very thankful that so many news sites do offer their stories for free.