March 29, 2011

NYTimes links?: Should we as a group try to avoid linking to the Times going forward since with the new paywall reading the articles may not be possible for many SpoFites? As much as I agree that even journalists need to be paid I don't see the bulk of us forking over $4/week or more any time soon.

posted by billsaysthis to navel gazing at 12:23 PM - 5 comments

There should be a work-around since they aren't charging anyone who links from google.

posted by bperk at 04:10 PM on March 29, 2011

You pay Rupert to watch the game on TV, and then you pay him again to read about it.

/Well, he is a Yank, now.

posted by owlhouse at 07:15 PM on March 29, 2011

You only get 20 links per month via Google, and you wouldn't be able to directly link the NYT page in your post, correct? That seems grounds enough not to do it.

posted by dflemingecon at 07:44 PM on March 29, 2011

Let's see how it falls out in the next couple weeks. I get the impression that it's supposed to work better than it does at the moment.

It would be a shame to lose Times links entirely, but if they don't let blog links through the paywall we may end up going that route.

posted by rcade at 09:07 AM on March 30, 2011

Me, I wonder how on earth they spent $40 million on a "gateway" that consists of:

1. One CSS overlay, and
2. One overflow:hidden CSS rule.

And it's cookie-based. Just delete your cookies and you're golden.

posted by DrJohnEvans at 12:03 PM on March 30, 2011

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.