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."
If you go to BugMeNot.com and enter http://slashdot.org, you get:
;-)
CmdrTaco
password
Sheesh, I'd expect better from him!
...but I imagine that 'joe@aol.com' probably doesn't...
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?
About 15 to 20 percent of the registrations for the Philadelphia Inquirer turned out to be bogus
:)
That percentage has just risen
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.
The day the online LA Times started requiring subscriptions... ...I stopped reading the LA Times online.
...I stopped reading the Washington Post online.
The day the online Washington Post started requiring subscriptions...
Luckily, the NYTimes didn't require a valid email, once upon a time...
There are still enough free sources of news on the Internet-- if some papers want to cut down on their advertising exposure and online circulation, fine. Screw 'em. There is no reason they need my name to send me their news and ads.
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.
slashdot
slashdot
Works on quite a few sites.
They call it "Information Poisoning" and are absolutely baffled why on earth anyone would ever practice it. Just for useful reference for other peoples information poisoning efforts I have an easy one to remember
Young America, MN 55555
This will match the zip code to the city and will pass those systems that try to verify against bogus data.
They don't care about the people who refuse to sign up, this is meaningless to them. But if they get enough bogus data, those databases become significantly devalued.
And to whoever has that bob@jones.com email address, I offer my sincerest apologies.
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!
They are not going to be too impressed with marketing data like this. If people can be proven to be lying about one thing in a survey then all the other data is suspect as well.
Compare it with banners ads sold on number of shows, clicks AND sales. The first are insanely high but also easily faked. Clicks are slightly more reliable but any advertiser is really intrestted in the number of sales generated.
So if your site can sell 1 billion views that is barely worth anything. If it can produce 100.000 clicks that might get you a few bucks. But generate 1000 sales and you are golden.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
For sites that require a valid email address for registration, there's an excellent site called www.dodgeit.com
You don't need to create an account, just invent one.
Then go to the site and you (and anyone) can look at the mail sent to that address. Go try it out, go to the site, and punch in "ihatespam" for example and you can see all email sent to ihatespam@dodgeit.com
If only sites like these were hosted on some sort of P2P network where any browser could access it, but the 'site' could distribute load across many hosts (and have differing information -- bad that it's not global and constant, but good that it's not controlled and thus can always exist -- an acceptible trade-off).
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
If you can't get a login/password easy, and need a valid email address to confirm registration, try mailinator.com.
They are email accounts that require no passwords, or even any setting up. They are throw away accounts designed to curb spam.
Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
When the latest movie hits the cinemas, you have to pay $10 to $15 (depending on currency) per viewing. If you're prepared to wait six months, you can rent it for $5 and view it a couple of times. If you wait a year, you can get it as a weekly video for less. If you're prepared to wait a couple of years, you can see that same movie for free when it is on TV.
The longer you're prepared to wait, the less it costs.
Newspapers should do the same thing. Keep the online edition free, and have no soul-sucking registration to view, but only allow the viewing of articles from non-current newspapers. The online edition would then become a free archive service. People who want today's news can buy today's newspaper, or wait a day or two when it's posted online.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
Google apparently cuts deals with sites so that Google's crawler can read them, while others can't. Those sites show as "(subscription)" in Google News. If Google took the position that "if we can't get in as a normal user, we won't index it", this "registration" thing would stop.
http://asdf.com/asdfemail.html
Ow. I'd hate to see their mail inboxes.
When I was a kid, I was always fascinated by how drivers on highways/interstates could be so mean to each other (cutting each other off, flicking each other off, etc...), and yet still occasionally help a brutha' out by flicking their headlights to warn of a sneaky hidden cop.
:)
I've got a bit of hippy in me thanks to a 70s generation mom, so I love to see any example of people banding together to fight annoying corporate trends like login requirements for free content. I previously had not heard of BugMeNot.com, but now I'm going to stick a link up on my site to spread it around a little more - as well as adding the firefox extension.
Of course, I suppose I should disable logins for my site in order to avoid hypocrisy/irony... although that'll seriously cut into my meager revenue...
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]
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!
I think it is great that different newspapers try different things. It gives us a chance to see what works and what fails.
It seems to me that newspapers lose more for requiring registration than they get from that little bit of demographic information.
Newspapers that require registration end up losing boat loads of traffic from search engines and they tend to lose the valuable backward links for article citations in blogs and what not.
In the long run, of course, the most successful format for online news would be the hybrid model that gives some features for paying, others for free registration and has a good amount of info available for free to build and maintain casual web traffic.
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.
Why does online registration offend, but not offline?
Why so much angst about online newspaper reigstration when we've been providing the same information to the same newspapers for years when we get a paid subsription to the dead-tree version?
The same info gets collected and entered into the paper's databases.
Why is providing a (real) name and address so someone can deliver your subscription not a privacy issue, but everyone gets hysterical about keying the same info into on web form?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
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.