Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wait, Google Sent Me

chrome.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 246 posts

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#121

Post by malnourish »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #64
stevesearer wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like Circa News (take my money please!) because they aggregate news from a variety of sources and present news items in small bit sized chunks listing facts or statements. They also link to the appropriate sources. edit: and you can follow news stories to get updates when new information is available.

They're either shutting down or being acquired soon: http://fortune.com/2015/04/30/news-app-circa-buyer/

That's a damn shame. Their (android) app has unfortunately become significantly less useful due to technical reasons lately. I always did wonder how they would monetize.

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#122

Post by alextgordon »

jashkenas wrote: post #81
joshtaku wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The backbone.js stuff was during NYT work if I recall.

That's not quite correct. Both Backbone.js and Underscore.js were extracted from DocumentCloud — a nonprofit organization. But I am currently a Graphics Editor at the NYT...

Not for much longer, I bet...

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#123

Post by indienkid »

colinbartlett wrote: post #32
patio11 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The design intent is almost certainly using Google's "first click free" policy, which primarily applies to newspapers like the NYT or WSJ. Google back in the day struck a deal with the print media: they would remain in Google's index if and only if clicking from a Google search to their articles circumvented their paywall on the first click. If they put only partial content or a full paywall, they'd be delisted. It w…

I am a working professional but I have always resisted buying a subscription because I don't want one single publication to become my de facto news source. I would love if I could pay $20 to $30 per month to some aggregator that lets me read articles from Al Jazeera, NY Times, WSJ, BBC, and a selection of other diverse sources.

If you get a chance you should check out BriefMe -- pretty much that, except free, with a very clean UI. http://www.getbriefme.com

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#124

Post by eli »

guelo wrote: post #118
eli wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it makes you feel better, I feel that both extensions are wrong. If you enjoy reading the WSJ, you should pay for it. They do some really great business reporting and it's not that expensive.

Fine you can have a paywall but then you won't get the free organic traffic from Google. WSJ tries to have it both ways.

I guess I just disagree. Right now if WSJ comes up in your google results, the link works and you can read the article. If link didn't work and paywall appeared instead of the article, that would be a problem (which is why Google outlawed it).

Would you prefer it instead if WSJ.com just removed themselves from Google? And applied the paywall to everyone? I don't see how that's better. Or is the complaint that any paywall exists anywhere?

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#125

Post by patcon »

donohoe wrote: post #55
patcon wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a fan of the shaming... If news orgs value their journalists and the future of the profession, they should experiment with more daring models, rather than ones that simply maximally enrich the org under the same old model EDIT: imho a model that falls apart legally under a browser extension that fits in a 40-line gist is nothing on which to base the livelihoods of a bunch of people

I agree - but to be fair you're assuming they haven't experimented. Micro-payments, dumb 'capthcha' based models, memberships, events, "premier access". All have been tried in various flavors. Some with limited success. I'm not asking for you to dream up an alternative solution, but don't assume this is a problem that has not been given a lot of thought by many organizations. This is partly why we are stuck with thin…

You're right. I was hoping to clear up my support of his extension with the edit, but it was still lacking. I realize I'm a peanut-gallerian, and both of you two are working harder than I on this.

I support him because it shows me there's someone inside who's pragmatic and not letting themselves be deluded by group-think. (I am genuintely not implying you are. I don't know you.)

Paywalls aren't going to work as-is, and I'm excited to see a clever wink to that sentiment internally -- it gives me confidence that something better might come from inside players

> I'm not asking for you to dream up an alternative solution

And not my idea, but just in case it's not on your radar: http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/Potential_DAC_Ideas#Asso...

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#126

Post by amyjess »

whatsgood22 wrote: post #72
jashkenas wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who'd link to the NYT if it was always a paywall, indeed? Of course I understand that the publishers don't want to cut themselves out of the conversation. But why must "the conversation" be limited to powerful internet companies? Do we not converse about news articles in blog posts? Comment threads? Up and coming social platforms that don't have Facebooks media clout yet? It's simply unfair to treat a visitor arrivin…

>Let's build a better paywall. and hasten the death of print journalism

I'm honestly fine with that.

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#127

Post by marcosdumay »

tokenizerrr wrote: post #98
habosa wrote: post #84

Interesting. I posted a Chrome extension that did the same thing a while back (WSJ specific) and HN unanimously told me I was in the wrong, so I took it down. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8109987 This time the comments seem to be mostly positive.

Wow, those comments are really odd. Every time a WSJ article is submitted here a comment contains a link to avoid the paywall, and every single time people are grateful.

Every time there is also somebody complaining that we shouldn't evade pay walls at all.

But that's indeed a really odd set of comments. While there is some criticism on this thread here, it's way more down to Earth, nobody is talking about theft or anything.

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#128

Post by patcon »

jameshart wrote: post #113
patcon wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a fan of the shaming... If news orgs value their journalists and the future of the profession, they should experiment with more daring models, rather than ones that simply maximally enrich the org under the same old model EDIT: imho a model that falls apart legally under a browser extension that fits in a 40-line gist is nothing on which to base the livelihoods of a bunch of people

The model doesn't fall apart legally because it can be trivially circumvented. Any more than the model of renting bikes falls apart legally if people just don't bring the bikes back, or the model of selling software licenses falls apart legally because people can easily copy it. You can base the livelihoods of people on these things, provided the amount of circumvention remains low.

I see what you're saying, but I wasn't intending to stretch my thought that far. I was just assuming that changing the referral header couldn't possibly be illegal.

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#129

Post by bdcravens »

donohoe wrote: post #37

Disappointed in you Jeremy. Its fair for many here to complain about some of the online advertising practices of publishers. However the viable alternative it to pivot to some form of subscription model. Its a hard transition and many orgs are making risky changes to do better. Extensions like these are a step backwards. If you value the work you should support it. See bio for usual disclaimers

Problem is that Google, HN, "share" links etc is free advertising. Media says that certain discovery channels (Google) should be let in, while other (HN, emailed links, etc) shouldn't. This extension only equalizes that.

Perhaps a better extension would be to hide organic search results in Google for pay-walled content providers, while leaving AdWords links intact. In the interests of protecting profit-based interests.

Additionally, Facebook should require paywalled content providers to pay users that use their integrated comments or click a like button, as we certainly don't want free buzz, as that would violate the profit-driven flow of information.

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#130

Post by OrwellianChild »

mapgrep wrote: post #76
donohoe wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree - but to be fair you're assuming they haven't experimented. Micro-payments, dumb 'capthcha' based models, memberships, events, "premier access". All have been tried in various flavors. Some with limited success. I'm not asking for you to dream up an alternative solution, but don't assume this is a problem that has not been given a lot of thought by many organizations. This is partly why we are stuck with thin…

Even people inside the NYT know the pricing for digital subscriptions is excessive. They're high because circ department won an internal war and inflated digital prices in a misguided attempt to protect print subs. The NYT has experimented but is still clinging to the past. Which is why the "All Digital Access" subscription costs more than Netflix, Hulu, and HBO Now combined. Give me a break.

This raised an interesting question for me - how much money is saved on a per-subscriber basis by sending the digital version vs. print (for the NYT)? Their pricing certainly doesn't reflect it:

  Web + Smartphone:    $3.75/wk  $16.25/mo  $195/yr
  Web + Tablet:        $5.00/wk  $21.67/mo  $260/yr
  All Digital Access:  $8.75/wk  $37.92/mo  $455/yr
  7-Day Home Delivery: $8.90/wk  $38.57/mo  $463/yr
There are multiple levels of insanity here:

  Web + Smartphone & Web + Tablet are identical except
    for device type but Tablet is 33% more.
  Web + Smartphone plus Web + Tablet cost as much
    *together* as All Digital Access (and are feature
    equivalent).
  7-Day Home Delivery *includes* All Digital Access and
    costs about the same. Paper is free?
None of these pricing strategies appear to be designed to maximize readership, broaden subscription basis, or grow brand penetration. They are structured to capture the most value possible from customers with high switching costs or price indifference. This is what a conservator in a dying market looks like.
Post reply on HN