Post by: krissel on March 20, 2012, 11:36:51 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/ny-times-cuts-number...-170931704.html
Post by: jchuzi on March 21, 2012, 05:19:10 AM
My advice: Accept the changes and pay your fair share.
Post by: Xairbusdriver on March 21, 2012, 08:14:11 AM
QUOTE
there is no free
Well, I guess I'll have to reconsider my planned trip to your area... 
As for paying for "news" it seems to be mostly from the printed media. Of course, they have always charged for their hardcopy and they paid for much of their news from AP/UPI/other media. We still subscribe to our (only) local newspaper...we often need to wrap a fish! They now (I think) don't allow any access to their "product" on-line without a charge/additional subscription. That's their choice. It's probably cheaper than the paper version but it's not the same tactile experience and difficult to share across the kitchen table.
As for non-local news, I depend on my support to NPR and their several-times-a-day emails. Of course, even the NYT provides feeds to other sites/outlets as do many other large newspaper companies. So, since I never had an emotional relationship with them, I've not been upset by their requests/demands for payments. Most for-profit do that and I simply choose the one I feel meets my needs best...and pay them.
I assume they had provided some free services for an un-determined time and are now turning to a completely paid format? I see that model in everything from phone service to credit cards to politics!
It's just a somewhat genteel version of the old 'bait-and-switch' method, in my humble opinion. TS is one of the few free sources of information and I think we'd have to admit that its breadth of coverage is somewhat limited. 
And most of us also know that it still has costs...
Post by: gunug on March 21, 2012, 09:43:24 AM
That said I will probably reconsider my subscription to the online NYTimes! I feel that whatever else it is a journal of record and probably worth more than a lot of local newsprint!
Post by: kimmer on March 21, 2012, 01:28:28 PM
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/2012...ork-Times-Media
A few select quotes:
QUOTE
Beginning in April, all users of NY Times.com will be able to enjoy 10 articles at no charge each month (including slideshows, videos and other forms of content). Beyond 10 articles and for unlimited access* to the site, users will be asked to become digital subscribers.
Readers who come to Times articles through links from e-mail, search, blogs and social media will continue to be able to access those individual articles, even if they have reached their reading limit. For some search engines, users will have a daily limit of five free links to Times articles.
The homepage at NYTimes.com and all section fronts will remain free to browse for all users at all times.
Readers who come to Times articles through links from e-mail, search, blogs and social media will continue to be able to access those individual articles, even if they have reached their reading limit. For some search engines, users will have a daily limit of five free links to Times articles.
The homepage at NYTimes.com and all section fronts will remain free to browse for all users at all times.
Also, I can read several newspapers either at my library, or when I log in to their web site. So there's ways, and there be ways.
QUOTE(Xairbusdriver @ Mar 21 2012, 05:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We still subscribe to our (only) local newspaper...we often need to wrap a fish! They now (I think) don't allow any access to their "product" on-line without a charge/additional subscription. That's their choice. It's probably cheaper than the paper version but it's not the same tactile experience and difficult to share across the kitchen table.
I dumped our local print paper after too much frustration with the delivery; and their online version cost MORE than home delivery. Go figure. We have 2 online, up-to-date, news sources for our area -- and both are free.
Still, I can understand the NY Times position. As long as I can get to their book and food sections, I'm happy. LOL
Post by: krissel on March 21, 2012, 09:36:43 PM
Post by: Highmac on March 22, 2012, 03:10:46 AM
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
ALERT....A number of local papers over here have tried the paywall route and most have quietly given it up. Most have still not figured out how to make money from the web, while the bean-counters have been hacking away at the journalistic side (my experience was with local and regional papers so can't speak for the nationals).
As a result the quality goes down because having fewer staff means more press-releases are C&P'd into pages to meet deadlines. And despite the beliefs of those same bean-counters, readers DO notice and vote with their wallets.
END
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
National newspaper Metro is given away to commuters on buses and at railway stations in larger towns and cities so it is aimed at being a 20-30 minute read for a very broad readership. The online version is also free, so if you want a peek at what the UK is talking about, check out
http://e-edition.metro.co.uk/2012/03/22/
for today's edition. Give it time to load...
And you can browse the archive here
http://e-edition.metro.co.uk/home.html
Post by: tacit on March 22, 2012, 03:51:54 AM
QUOTE(jchuzi @ Mar 21 2012, 10:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I can't complain. The NY Times, as with all other businesses, can't afford to give away their wares for free. I began subscribing when they first eliminated unlimited access to articles because I felt that it was fair, and the fee is hardly exorbitant. Free is nice for consumers, but there is no free lunch (to coin a phrase).
My advice: Accept the changes and pay your fair share.
My advice: Accept the changes and pay your fair share.
I would be a lot more willing to pay for access to Web sites if those Web sites didn't *also* have ads on them.
When you watch a TV network with ads, you expect it to be free. When you watch a premium channel with no ads, you expect to pay for it. Newspapers have long charged for the paper only for psychological reasons--people think that pay newspapers are worth more than free ones--but the real revenue stream is advertising, not subscriptions. Subscriptions hardly amount ot a rounding error in the advertising cashflow.
The NYT folks aren't even technically savvy. You can read the NYT articles for free all you want; you simply delete your newyorktimes.com cookies, that's all.
Post by: krissel on March 23, 2012, 09:59:53 PM
I did do a double take when I saw this:
[attachment=2526:vat_on_pasties.jpg]
Pasties in this country are something entirely different.
Post by: Highmac on March 24, 2012, 06:19:49 AM
Post by: krissel on March 24, 2012, 11:33:37 PM
Do you use this one:
http://www.google.co.uk/
or
http://www.google.com/ncr
Google explains:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/03/go...arch_explained/
Anyway, here is what I get when I Google "pasties":
http://www.google.com/#q=pasties&hl=en...f.osb&cad=b
More info, if needed...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasties
Post by: Highmac on March 25, 2012, 04:26:28 AM
QUOTE(krissel @ Mar 25 2012, 05:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Seriously? I guess Google's algorithms will give results according to the country of origin of the enquirer.
Think you're right there. I just did a search for bus timetable and got my local bus company as No 1; I'm not signed in to Google and use none of its social networking services, yet the .uk Google's sidebar shows my town and postcode (zipcode?) which narrows the location to about a couple of dozen homes in my road.
QUOTE
Hadn't noticed before but, on the MBP, .com seems to be the default (without the ncr) - I can't seem to replicate the original search which, I seem to recall, was "pasty american coarse". The "coarse"' was an assumption that your reference had nothing to do with the Cornish variety. I'd certainly never heard that one before, though.
QUOTE
Google explains:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/03/go...arch_explained/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/03/go...arch_explained/
Very interesting
Clocks went forward this weekend, it's a beautiful spring day and the weeds are thriving, so it's off to the garden.... predicted max temp 59F! It reached 63 yesterday
