Slashdot Mirror
The Rise Of Reg-Only Media
cswiii writes "Following up his article a few weeks ago about the NY Times' loss of prominence across the online medium (previously discussed on /.), Adam Penenberg returns with a much wider assault on the
lurch towards reg-only content by Big Media as a whole. I just wonder what Margaret Thatcher would think about purportedly living in Beverly Hills..."
Is a very small price to pay for free content. Besides, with portals like Google news, if there is a story you are interested in, there is a good chance that several other media outlets have written a similar article.
I just wonder what Margaret Thatcher would think about purportedly living in Beverly Hills...
So I'm not the only non-beverly hills type who enters 90210 as a zip code? Heck I don't even live in the USA.
I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.
If you want the NY Times content without having to give up any information, then hustle down to the newsstand and actually buy a copy.
Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
Remember how Radio Shack used to always ask for your name/address/etc. whenever you bought anything? I could buy a germanium diode for $1 and get asked the same thing as if I bought a $1000 computer. Registration for news content is like making people key in their address to buy a newspaper from a vending machine. It's just completely ridiculous and unnecessary.
------
new t-shirts
stuff |
Register, and don't read it. The companies will see this in their traffic stats and realize that registration effects readership reach. They are after all driven by the number of eye balls that grace their sites.
Using fake data isn't going to help becuase it doesn't lower the traffic volume.
It's time for some "Virtual Boycotting"!
Isn't the whole idea of the Internet for information to be free?
I still resent having to register for newspaper sites. I don't need to register to pick one up at the newsstand, why should I for the site? Demographics blah blah blah but its not like the Chicago Tribune is going to start covering Denver news if a bunch of people from Colorado start reading it. They're going to be about Chicago, no matter who reads it.
I'm just glad google news has a partnership where you dont have to register when you use their links.
Moo.
It needs to change, and soon.
I'm tired of registering at every news site I visit. With the populatiry of sites like Fark and Slashdot, I no longer go to only one news site - I visit articles in newspapers in Arizona, Australia, Germany, Maine, in addition to my usual 3 - The Washington Post, the Seattle P-I, and the BBC World News.
I don't mind registering for my usual 3. I do mind registering when I want to read a single article in the Boston Piccayune. This makes me give up, and go somewhere else.
An accepatable compromise is to make registration necessary after reading 5 or so articles, instead of for all articles at that site. After all, do their local advertisers really care about someone who is miles away?
Tepp
It exists, and is called Passport. There was a hue and cry over it because people were worried about a centralized source of information in control of Microsoft about who they are and where they're going.
Even if you fake the information, it'd be like a super cookie. The best way if he's concerned about privacy is the current way -- stop the computer from broadcasting its IP address everywhere he goes and give a different piece of fake information to every website.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Maybe, but I don't even see advertising on the Internet. I tune it out, like, say, Yanni in an elevator. I also don't understand why publishers aren't more concerned about the integrity of their data -- unless, of course, all they care about is the illusion of accuracy.
That is EXACTLY all they care about- the illusion that they can target the ads properly, so that they can charge more money for "targeted advertising".
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Seems this guy fromWired has taken cues from Poynter Online (http://www.poynter.org/). They've been discussing this exact topic for weeks already.
It doesn't strike me as much of a "right" that I get to access content on my terms.
When you're in someone else's house, you play by their rules. Don't like it, don't register. Simple as that. It's on part of my rights that I get something for nothing.
Slashdot Moderation: From positive to terrible in 2 "insightful" posts.
Whenever I go to a newspaper or other media site to read an article and they demand registration, the odds are really good that someone has already registered a 'shill' account with some predictable username and password. Often [site]user@[site].com, with the password [site].
One day, the time will come when they'll start comparing IP addresses against the registrar of any given account, but until then, I don't bother with my own accounts anymore. To be frank, I can't even remember what I used to sign up (once upon a time) for the LA Times.
www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
Also, won't they lose a majority of their traffic which Slashdot and Google users send to them if no one can index their data for search engines or link to the content...
Stupidity is not a crime so you're free to go
I just plug the desired URL into google and follow the link. That never fails, bugmenot seldom works.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
This would be ok if they had some sort of universal "passport" where I can just type in an ID# and It'll take my information straight out of this "passport" type thing and make my life much much easier.
It would also be great if said "passport" can hold all my other info, like an address book, my social security number, all credit card information, and every password I'd ever need.
This passport should also be widely available to everyone, as that's the only way it'll be convenient. It should also be trustworthy and buzzwordy at the same time.
All I'm saying is that if I gotta register, might as well make it easy for me. If I gotta buy something, may as well be a half-click away. I mean if the interweb is supposed to be for everyone, it better be easy, right? Right? Security? Identity theft? Why the hell would anyone ever do that? I mean we're not terrorists or anything, are we?
if I go to a site where I don't want to register (vast majority of them),I *don't*, I don't even use any phony info, I just skip it, and they lose a potential viewer and customer maybe, but I WOULD check off a few boxes indicating any type of ads that I wouldn't mind having on the page. I'm a normal guy, some gadgets and services interest me, I *might* go visit some companys webpage from an ad, just not ads that have zero relevance. Let ME pick, then you don't have to guess! Just give me a quick list to scan, I make my selections, then poof on to the content. No registering needed then, no cookies needed, no transfer of email address, no hard feelings.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Using Bug Me Not will likely help a lot. When the sites realize that they can't control logins and they have dozends, hundreds or even thousands logged in with the SAME info, they'll know it's not helping them in any way. What'll happen next remains to be seen, but I doubt they'll pull content, it's too ingrained into people's expectations anymore.
Over 30 posts and no one has pimped BugMeNot yet?
All news.google.com needs to be perfect is an option to simply filter out all of the (subscription) articles.
Michael
The interesting thing is Radio Shack stopped the process, saying it was too annoying to customers.
Yet now even more places ask.
Right now in Minneapolis you can get 13 weeks of the StarTribune for $1.00 a week. $13 for ~3 months of the weekly paper. To buy it from the paper box or the store will run you 50 cents a copy. Now even at the higher rate I don't see 50 cents as actually paying for the content. I would hazard a guess that the
Sera
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
Even if only 25% of registrations are relatively accurate, that's still 25% better targeting of ads than purely random. The papers know this, the advertisers know this, and the pricing of ads reflects this.
Can I have my 5 minutes reading this article back?
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
I always put into some smart a*s name and info, as do pretty much all my friends (80% of whom are IT types). So any demographic information is really crap. I tell my parents, friends, etc to do the same.
'Readership' I've probably created 4-5 accounts on the same site b/c I forgot the stoopid uid/pwd and just create another one if I really want to read something. I think any numbers about subscribers/readers are totally off.
People are busy and cautious. It puts people off - they don't want to give up any information (asssuming they are honest on the forms), or they don't want to be bothered signing up for a site that they don't even know they're interested in. Plus how many freakin uid/pwd combos do I really want to keep track of? Not many.
I think for posting to bulletin boards etc it makes more sense, so a-holes, harassers, etc can be handled. But when it's non-interactive like just reading an article, I don't see the point (as a user, I understand why the biz does)
If a site forces a sign-up, unless I REALLY need/want to read something, I'm outta there. Otherwise they never learn anything useful about me, other than maybe some generic machine location info.
My 2 cents anyhoo
'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
It's truly a gem. Check it out...
http://bugmenot.com
Don't slashdot them. I mean...oh...hmm...
Thank god they have stopped that ... I complained my ass off everytime I went in there. It was such a hastle.
... lets say, new breaks. They make you answer close to 15 questions. Phone number, email address, mailing address, then the questions that would make sense about the product I was looking at.
... I was asked the same questions again. I told them not to put me in there computer, they refussed. They said its not possiable to even open the register without it. So, of course ... I gave them info such as:
... I told them that was the only info I was going to give them.
... but I was working on a friends car!
... guess what ... I have yet to vist there site since the first time I went there that forced me to sign up. Like many other say, they can do what they want in order for me to get there free content. Ok, fine ... but I get my news from other free sites. Why do I need them ? Hell, they can start charging for all I care ... I will still get my news from elsewhere. Its no skin off my back.
I remeber one time I was on a job site 3 hours away, they were the only place around, I had to run in for a screw driver. They asked me 9 million questions, and even more since I wasn't from the area. I explained to them that I was working and needed to hurry back to work. They told me that they can't sell me anything without that information.
After that, I called rs everyday for 3 weeks bitching about it. I stopped going to rs for a few years after that.
Now, Strauss auto does this. They go a step futher. If you call on the phone to ask a price on
When I went into the store to buy it
Joe Smith
123 Main St
Sometown, NJ 05555
(732) 555-1212
eat@joes.com
They bitched about it
Now, I understand WHY they ask you SOME of the info. They ask your phone number so they can track what cars you own. Thats great and all
I have called there corperate office quite a few times, with no result so far. Needless to say, I no longer shop there.
As far as NY Times goes
until (succeed) try { again(); }
One effect may be to encourage more readership of Government-funded news sites. That's fine, as long as they're not all from the same government. Google News frequently has links to Xinhua, the BBC, the Voice of America, and Al-Jazeera. None require registration.
It's worth reading all four of those. If all four have roughly the same take on some event, the info is probably correct. If they don't, news manipulation may be going on.
(It's also amusing to read the Jerusalem Post, which is Israel's equivalent of Fox News.)
Slashdotters don't often RTFA anyways. :P
This is one more reason why anyone who cares about the content of the news they read should ensure that they read some non-corporate news sources.
As a reader, you should demand that your media keeps your interests in mind, not just the interests of people who want to sell you things.
And i think making people pay for it is even worse... It's just a pain sometimes to have to register to see news and stuff.
Registering is a pain.
Paying, is not a pain. I'd gladly pay for unhassled access to my few favourite papers. I'm a firm believer in supporting what you enjoy. I pay for Red Vs Blue, for example. But at the BBC, or at the Washington Post, paying for online content is not an option.
Instead, every 60 days, they harass me about telling them my age, gender, sexual preferences, virginity score, geek score, pet's geek score.... UGH.
Tepp
I've heard that the following makes for a good fake name and address to use:
Alan Ralsky
6747 Minnow Pond Drive
West Bloomfield, MI 48322
Now for other sites, I would probably avoid depending on the amount and quality of content. I would certainly not waste the time to register for my local paper's website or something of similar value to me. If you don't think getting access to the nytimes for free is not worth the "hassle" of registering, boycott the nytimes. Otherwise, don't complain.
Scares most junk mail off.
at a vending machine you're buying the newspaper with a quarter. How do you pay for it online? With information. Or (as at Salon.com) sitting through some advertisement. Advertisers want to know the demographics of the people seeing the ads. At Slashdot that's easy to figure out, at NYTimes or WashingtonPost it's not. Thus the registration.
Best Slashdot Co
If you see a link on Slashdot or Fark for an interesting news story on the newspaper for a city you don't live in, the advertisements on the website (their key source of revenue, far and away surpassing paid subscriptions of any kind) will likely not be relevant to you, as they are tailored for local readers. And since you're just flying by, you're going to ignore the ads anyhow.
You will click the link, read the story (and probably not even notice the newspaper that is reporting it), and then click "back" when you're done.
You are not entitled to access the website free of any kind of hinderances like registration -- ESPECIALLY if the likelihood of you clicking on an advertisement is infinitesimally small. The "Boston Picayune", as it were, is not responsible in any way for shelling out for bandwidth and a web staff so that you can read neat news stories without compensating them in any way whatsover.
audioLibre - freedom of music
Use BugMeNot
There's even a FireFox extension that will look up a login for you.
From a former employee:
As annoying as that was, it was a critical part of Radio Shack's business. Giving a correct name and address would just get you a flyer every month. About 20% of the months business would be people coming in grasping that flyer looking for stuff.
Radio Shack employees are/were commissioned sales people. The address thing was used to build your business. The idea is you don't goto the Shack, you go see Jason, Bob, Steve...whoever @ the Shack. When people balked at giving name and addresses over purchases, you told em what was being done with them: Company mailing list for a flyer.
Enter the computer. RS employees are tracked on dolalr per ticket and were tracked on name and address percentage. The computer didn't care if the purchase was $1.00 or $1,000 dollars. If you fell below 90% Names and addresses, you were in trouble.
The point is, as annoying as that policy was - it brought back many customers. Then Radio Shack started policies that created higher turns on employees and then they had to can the policy...but thats a different story. The registration emails are supposed to generate more subscribers for these papers and we have to see from the financials at the papers if the strategy is working. (I doubt it.)
-Electrawn
Yes, they are called "average" people. You know: those people who don't know what Linux is, don't read /., don't know you can avoid spam, don't know they have a virus/worm. I know a LOT of people who have real logins for NYT and even pay for it just to get the crossword. Just as average computer users blindly open email attachments that contain viruses, they blindly use their real info when registering.
Even if only half of the registering people on NYT are putting in their accurate info, they are still able to target their ads extremely more effectively than from the almost complete lack of information they get from people buying on the street.
IANAL, but I play one on
The problem is that bugmenot-type services work better the more people use them -- having one such service is ten times as good as having ten individual services. That means it's centralized, and that means it's vulnerable. Stopping such services in theory is difficult, but stopping any particular such service is easy:
What'll happen once sites catch on? They'll hire someone like me to spend half an hour writing a script that queries bugmenot for logins to their site, and disables those accounts. Making bugmenot useless won't be very hard.
Perhaps what we need is a more anonymous version of Passport -- a site that knows how to sign up automatically to a large number of free-reg-required sites, with information that you give it one time. Then when you want to read the New York Times, you go to RegItForMe.com and say "please create an account at [www.nytimes.com] with my (possibly fake) info," which doesn't take any longer than using bugmenot. This way the pan-internet super-cookie privacy concerns of Passport are neatly avoided -- as far as each reg site knows, you're using a local account with them. RegItForMe.com knows which sites you've requested a login for, but not when or how often you go.
Does that sound feasible?
Why can't these big news sites do something like that? Track what you read with a cookie and give you ads that relate to the content you're interested in? The NYT would see that I read lots of tech articles, and could hawk computers at me, while giving ads for dictionaries to someone who does the crossword every day. The technology obviously exists, and all it does is connect a browser with a set of preferences, not a person.
As it is, all the NYT knows about me is that Blonzo T. Yermalloy lives in Anytown, PA. (I live on 1234 No. Fucking way.) How does that help at all? Especially when compared to the alternative?
Another one bites the dust
Rumors of "the NY Times' loss of prominence across the online medium" have been greatly exaggerated. The current paper issue of _Wired_ includes a foldout graph of hundreds of (mostly unnamed) blogs, ranked by "inbound links" count, indicating the amount of traffic flow from the blog to the "web" sites it "logs". (Tellingly, the feature itself is missing from Wired's website issue.) The NYT is #1, at about 19K links, beating #2 CNN (at about 17K links) by over 10%. Slashdot is #5 at about 9K links (also exceeded by BBC News and the Washington Post); the counts fall off pretty steeply after the first 50 of the 2000 they claim to graph. So Wired's editors show their usual self-contradictions, and the NY Times is both the most influential "blog" on the Net, and no longer prominent on the Net. Sounds like the media biz as usual: controversial for being controversial, and never so wrong as when it reports on itself.
--
make install -not war
Kiddo, software and journalism are two different beasts. Anybody can code from their living room. Why they do it, I have no clue. But, do you know anybody who is going to fly to Iraq on their own dime, take pictures, write articles, publish their own newspaper, distribute it, for free? And even if someone is willing to do it, there's something called "jounalistic integrity" (ie: the opposite of Slashdot). People have to have some way of trusting said publication. For example, Slashdot, even though it is technically funded, has zero journalistic integrity. If a story is wrong or libelous, nobody really cares. The New York Times, on the other hand, has a lot of integrity, which is why when that lying sack of shit reporter was found out, it was a big deal. A very big deal.
Do they ask for the same info when you walk up to a news stand and buy a newspaper? No! Why? Because it would be a pain in the a$$ and no one would want to take the time to fill out the info, they'd be concerned about telemarket & junk mail, and privacy.
My point is, they don't make you waste 5 minutes to give them this info to buy a regular paper, why make us do it online? We just want fast news. The regular, non targeted ads (just like in the print edition), will do just fine.
Thank you.
© 2004 The SCO Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
While most of us use fake email addresses and info (or always try slashdot as username and password first) I have seen lots of friends and family members input their real information into those websites. So while the number of people who know better than putting real info into online forms is growing, I would imagine that there are still a majority of users that don't know better. Untill my I can train people like my dad to put in fake information, the registration sites will still be effective.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
Volunteer personal info, because targetted ads are more pleasant and useful than scattergun ads! (think Google adwords and Amazon suggestions).
This is an incentive for readers to volunteer personal information, at the level they are comfortable with - this self-selected data is more accurate.
I'm seeing ads that know I'm in Melbourne - and I pay more attention to them). This is key to Google's revenue model (Adwords targetting), and one of the great promises of the internet. Amazon's profile of your interests is seen as a benefit - I haven't heard complaints of that as an invasion of privacy.
Registration is not equivalent to purchase price, as that price covers printing/distribution, which are not incurred by internet editions (acknowledgment: the parent poster's insight)
The key is to let the user *choose* the level of personalization - eg: my city, but not my name or my income. This results in *much* more accurate data.... BUT news providers can not afford to value accuracy until their advertisers value it - until then, it's a waste of their effort.
I think the industry is too immature at present for advertisers to worry about accuracy... they are concerned with more basic stuff, like popularity of the website, and converting leads into sales.... "Does this thing actually work?" it's *still* a whole new ballgame for most advertizers. Accuracy is definitely second to these basics.... Once accuracy is valued, evidence of it will be required (but not at first - initially, voluntary data is self-evidently more accurate than bugmenot data etc).
sig without a cause
I've registered for the New York Times, Washington Post, the Belo conglomerate (Dallas Morning News etc.). These sites ask for email address and a small amount of info. Yes, it is annoying, but I can live with it.
But check out the registration for the Miami Herald. They want:
But even if you do not opt in to receive emails for any "newsletters", "special deals" or "discount" emails, the fine print says that:
Come on now, I love Dave Barry, but there is no way I'm going to give them permission to spam me!
Bugmenot plugin for Mozilla - http://bugmenot.mozdev.org/
Can't they use geolocation services like Maxmind, Quova etc. to verify entered information in most cases? If someone enters country=USA / ZIP=90210 and comes from Italy judging from his IP address, the server knows it got screwed and can at least drop the entered information. It doesn't have to deny access, but that way less crap would find its way into the database.
...(at least read the last paragraph)
Has anyone here received a phone call, usually around dinner
time, where there was nobody there?
Recently, I went to the Blockbuster I usually go to and when I
went to check out, this not-very-nice person says I can't rent
anything because my phone number is 'no longer valid.' Well, I
begin telling her that I removed my land line service and was
only using my cell phone and I was not going to give her my cell
phone number. Well she starts on about how they need a
number and I realize that it had only been 4 days since my
turning off service! I then interrupt her blabbering and ask her
loudly and forcibly, how did they know my phone had been
disconnected so soon after the fact. I then asked if Blockbuster
was one of the companies that used robots to call people in the
evening, just to see if the phone number works. She then
looked down at the floor and said she don't really know about
that. I told her Blockbuster could kiss my ass and that I would
just go to one of the many other Blockbuster outlets and ask
about it.
So, I go to this other Blockbuster and get the same DVD and go
check out like normal. Well, this guy checks me out no problem,
so no I'm confused...
So, after several weeks of going to this Blockbuster, I go just the
other day, go ring up, and goddamnit if it's not the same bitch
from the other store telling me my phone number's not valid! She
remembers me the same time I remember her and I start going
off on the whole robot phone call thing and I'm not giving her
my number and apparently she was the only one that
cared about it anyway. She says she's filling in for the manager
for two weeks, and she let me check out w/o a phone number,
but when the manager returns she'll ask about it.
So, long story short, I hate those fnck!ng robot phone callers
and that's why I disconnected my phone. And I have found out
some of the reason why they do it. The robots call every few
days to make sure you are still there.
Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
I Hate \.
This is like the path Microsoft will use to beat Google. Microsoft has no problem making deals with other companies, and locking their own content. So over time, big media may disappear from Google, but it will appear on Microsoft Search.
Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
Okay, they want to do targeting advertisements. Then why do they need...
...my name? They only need this if they want to track what content I, personally, am reading.
...my home address? They only need this to send me junkmail and sell my address. They might want to know about where I live for demographical purposes, but they certainly don't need my house number and street name for targeted ads.
...my phone number? If they are just using it for demographics all they should need is my area code and maybe my prefix. Nope, they're selling this, too. Or at least using it to sell subscriptions.
...my DOB? Give me a break. That combined with my current address, phone, and name, all an identity theft needs at this point is my SSN. If they want to target to my age group, ask my age, or at most, the year of my birth. You don't need to know the exact date I was born.
Yours sincerely,
Elwood Blues
1060 W Addison
Chicago, IL 60613
Perhaps we just need a simpler, uniform method to provide the critical info. Rather than having to type in 5 different boxes and pick from a list of states, wouldn't it be easier to have a simple alphanumeric code? For instance, 2-letter state, 2-digit year-of-birth, 1-letter sex (for a man in Texas born in 1976, the code would be tx76m). After a few days, it would become as natural as typing a password, and provides too little enough information to get up-in-arms about, but is enough for most advertisers. It would be easier for both user and content provider than having a username and password, and gets nearly as much accomplished.
G