7 ms·

The subject says it all, but am I the only one who isn't a subscriber of the Wall Street Journal? Is there no free source on the Internet for this same piece o

The subject says it all, but am I the only one who isn't a subscriber of the Wall Street Journal? Is there no free source on the Internet for this same piece of news? I'm not saying everything should be free. I build paid-for services on the web myself. But how is “To Read the Full Story, Subscribe or Sign In” useful on the Hacker News?

quantumhobbit 10y ago
Use the web link at the top. Even better is that you get an AMP version of the story.
- metafunctor 10y ago
  The web link at which top? The link on news.ycombinator.com, which I was responding to, goes to a paywall teaser.
  - d0ugal 10y ago
    "94 points by dcgudeman 1 hour ago | flag | hide | past | web | 95 comments | favorite" The "web" in this line, just below the title. It takes you to a google search.
  - ericzawo 10y ago
    The link at the top of the google result of the headline you should search. (But if you enjoy the WSJ, consider picking up a subscription or a paper from time to time.) :)
  - robteix 10y ago
    Just below the headline in hackernews, you'll see a small "toolbar" of links: > N points by someone 2 hours ago | flag | hide | past | web | N comments | favorite The OP was referring to the one that says "web"
    - metafunctor 10y ago
      Interesting, didn't realize the Hacker News had a paywall workaround built in. Let's just hope Rupert Murdoch doesn't sue us all.
      - randomanybody 10y ago
        I hope he does try to sue for a link to google which has a link to his own site which behaves in a certain way based on the if HTTP_REFERER header says it was from google. He could stop the behavior at any time by changing his own code. It would set a good public precedent to help curtail such buffoonery moving forward.
- psykpsyk 10y ago
  If I or you cloaked website content ww would get delisted by google...
- khedoros1 10y ago
  That hasn't worked for me, for several months now. I've had good luck with a Firefox add-on called Paywall-pass, though.
  - khedoros1 10y ago
    Rather than a down-vote, I'd be interested in some suggestions about what I'm doing wrong. 1. Click "web" (or alternately, Google the title of the article, verbatim from the article itself) 2. Click the appropriate link from Google, so that my referrer will be google.com. When I do that, I still get the pay-walled article. I've tried deleting my wsj cookies and doing the same. I've tried using another computer on another network, with the same result. That raises two questions for me: What am I doing wrong? Why do I get dinged without explanation for suggesting a second approach that does work for me?
jamestanderson 10y ago
If Google refers you to the article from its search results, you can see the whole thing. Try searching for the headline!
- metafunctor 10y ago
  OK. So it's the old "Google for the URL or title" and you may get the content thing. Am I the only one who thinks this sucks? If so, I will bite my lip and shut up. I believe in the open Internet. I don't even run an ad blocker for sites that aren't complete assholes with their ads. But this is just stupid.
  - aeharding 10y ago
    Look dude, if you hate it so much, buy a subscription. You sound entitled. Be glad you can use the google referral trick at all.
    - metafunctor 10y ago
      I don't mind buying things I find valuable. I do that all the time. However, I think Hacker News is not supposed to be a place where ads to buy subscriptions are among the top news.
      - elorant 10y ago
        Fuck the article if it compromises your values been on top of HN. Just read the comments. I do it all the time and I know I’m not the only one.
  - ak4g 10y ago
    What would you have them do instead? I don't love it, but I don't have a problem with it, mostly because I have no idea what other route they could take. Ad-supported is something Buzzfeed can make viable, but it means tailoring both the substance and the form of their content to optimize for that. Doesn't work for WaPo.
WhitneyLand 10y ago
Because sometimes they break stories and have exclusive content and in depth info that others won't have immediately if ever. For example they were ahead of everyone with the Theranos news. I think the idea of putting links on HN is its better to know about it asap, rather than possibly using a slower or less comprehensive source.
- metafunctor 10y ago
  That's a good point, and I applaud the Wall Street Journal for their journalistic efforts. I'm thinking we should get a WSJ subscription in our company. I'm not so sure if Hacker News should be an outlet for breaking news. The HN platform is not very well suited for real-time news in general. Myself, I use Hacker news for "daily important news" much less than breaking news.
  - johnchristopher 10y ago
    I don't like getting into word definition argument but doesn't that information about Samsung fall under the daily important news rather than the breaking news ?
    - metafunctor 10y ago
      Yes, it does. That's why I'd like to see a link to a free source (that doesn't require one to pull ostentibly illegal tricks to read the contents) rather than an advertisement.
      - johnchristopher 10y ago
        Ah, my bad. I misinterpreted.
- leereeves 10y ago
  But is this exclusive content? Is there anything in the WSJ article that isn't in another source, like The Telegraph? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/10/11/samsung-tells-galaxy-note-7-owners-to-turn-off-devices-and-stops/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/10/11/samsung-tel...
elorant 10y ago
Google the title of the article. Follow the link from Google and voila. A free version of the article.
- jhwhite 10y ago
  This is what I came to say. Not sure why that works, but it does!
  - elorant 10y ago
    Because due to a black hat trick called cloaking [1], Google penalizes pages that show different content to users and crawlers. So web sites serve a free version of their content to Google. [1] https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66355?hl=en https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66355?hl=en
    - bluehazed 10y ago
      This is a "black hat trick"?
  - robotnixon 10y ago
    Google discourages websites from appearing in search but requiring registration to view. If the website detects that the user came from a Google search, they don't throw up the paywall.
  - Coincoin 10y ago
    Because google will ban the page if the crawled content is not the same as the displayed content when you click their link.
richardboegli 10y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12684081 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12684081
efvxcgci 10y ago
Plus, if you give in and subscribe to the WSJ they go out of their way to make it difficult to unsubscribe, requiring users to call in by phone and be subjected to a sales pitch just to cancel the recurring charges. It's a very scummy retention tactic.
- arjie 10y ago
  It's so common, it's ridiculous. The NYT has the same policy, and you have to call in on certain days of the week at certain times. They even published an opinion piece decrying the practice while participating in it. The call centre employees will even discount your subscription to try to keep you. Not at all cool.
  - subway 10y ago
    I finally started letting Amex sort this out. I'll attempt to call to cancel a service (during my local business hours), follow up with a short letter if the call is unsuccessful. After that, any new charges that appear result in a call to the Amex Fraud Dept. Sadly there have been a couple services I had to do this with.
    - misnome 10y ago
      I had the same thing with the Times (Murdoch-owned) in the UK. I remember that I got through on the phone but they said that it wouldn't be possible to cancel my account without charging the next two (monthly) billing cycles. I cancelled my card and somehow they managed to cancel the account once payment didn't go through. Only fucking subscribed because of one article we were in, ended up paying for almost a year of none-usage.
- petemc_ 10y ago
  I had a subscription to sugarsync for a few months longer than I needed due to their "cancellation dept" only being open a few hours a day in some far off timezone. Hateful.
- hbosch 10y ago
poshli 10y ago
WSJ's reporters and servers are funded by money, not nice words on HN. I don't understand everyone's obsession with bypassing paywalls on news links. I occasionally buy paper copies of newspapers.

quantumhobbit 10y ago

Use the web link at the top. Even better is that you get an AMP version of the story.

metafunctor 10y ago
The web link at which top? The link on news.ycombinator.com, which I was responding to, goes to a paywall teaser.
- d0ugal 10y ago
  "94 points by dcgudeman 1 hour ago | flag | hide | past | web | 95 comments | favorite" The "web" in this line, just below the title. It takes you to a google search.
- ericzawo 10y ago
  The link at the top of the google result of the headline you should search. (But if you enjoy the WSJ, consider picking up a subscription or a paper from time to time.) :)
- robteix 10y ago
  Just below the headline in hackernews, you'll see a small "toolbar" of links: > N points by someone 2 hours ago | flag | hide | past | web | N comments | favorite The OP was referring to the one that says "web"
  - metafunctor 10y ago
    Interesting, didn't realize the Hacker News had a paywall workaround built in. Let's just hope Rupert Murdoch doesn't sue us all.
    - randomanybody 10y ago
      I hope he does try to sue for a link to google which has a link to his own site which behaves in a certain way based on the if HTTP_REFERER header says it was from google. He could stop the behavior at any time by changing his own code. It would set a good public precedent to help curtail such buffoonery moving forward.
psykpsyk 10y ago
If I or you cloaked website content ww would get delisted by google...
khedoros1 10y ago
That hasn't worked for me, for several months now. I've had good luck with a Firefox add-on called Paywall-pass, though.
- khedoros1 10y ago
  Rather than a down-vote, I'd be interested in some suggestions about what I'm doing wrong. 1. Click "web" (or alternately, Google the title of the article, verbatim from the article itself) 2. Click the appropriate link from Google, so that my referrer will be google.com. When I do that, I still get the pay-walled article. I've tried deleting my wsj cookies and doing the same. I've tried using another computer on another network, with the same result. That raises two questions for me: What am I doing wrong? Why do I get dinged without explanation for suggesting a second approach that does work for me?

jamestanderson 10y ago

If Google refers you to the article from its search results, you can see the whole thing. Try searching for the headline!

metafunctor 10y ago
OK. So it's the old "Google for the URL or title" and you may get the content thing. Am I the only one who thinks this sucks? If so, I will bite my lip and shut up. I believe in the open Internet. I don't even run an ad blocker for sites that aren't complete assholes with their ads. But this is just stupid.
- aeharding 10y ago
  Look dude, if you hate it so much, buy a subscription. You sound entitled. Be glad you can use the google referral trick at all.
  - metafunctor 10y ago
    I don't mind buying things I find valuable. I do that all the time. However, I think Hacker News is not supposed to be a place where ads to buy subscriptions are among the top news.
    - elorant 10y ago
      Fuck the article if it compromises your values been on top of HN. Just read the comments. I do it all the time and I know I’m not the only one.
- ak4g 10y ago
  What would you have them do instead? I don't love it, but I don't have a problem with it, mostly because I have no idea what other route they could take. Ad-supported is something Buzzfeed can make viable, but it means tailoring both the substance and the form of their content to optimize for that. Doesn't work for WaPo.

WhitneyLand 10y ago

Because sometimes they break stories and have exclusive content and in depth info that others won't have immediately if ever. For example they were ahead of everyone with the Theranos news. I think the idea of putting links on HN is its better to know about it asap, rather than possibly using a slower or less comprehensive source.

metafunctor 10y ago
That's a good point, and I applaud the Wall Street Journal for their journalistic efforts. I'm thinking we should get a WSJ subscription in our company. I'm not so sure if Hacker News should be an outlet for breaking news. The HN platform is not very well suited for real-time news in general. Myself, I use Hacker news for "daily important news" much less than breaking news.
- johnchristopher 10y ago
  I don't like getting into word definition argument but doesn't that information about Samsung fall under the daily important news rather than the breaking news ?
  - metafunctor 10y ago
    Yes, it does. That's why I'd like to see a link to a free source (that doesn't require one to pull ostentibly illegal tricks to read the contents) rather than an advertisement.
    - johnchristopher 10y ago
      Ah, my bad. I misinterpreted.
leereeves 10y ago
But is this exclusive content? Is there anything in the WSJ article that isn't in another source, like The Telegraph? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/10/11/samsung-tells-galaxy-note-7-owners-to-turn-off-devices-and-stops/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/10/11/samsung-tel...

elorant 10y ago

Google the title of the article. Follow the link from Google and voila. A free version of the article.

jhwhite 10y ago
This is what I came to say. Not sure why that works, but it does!
- elorant 10y ago
  Because due to a black hat trick called cloaking [1], Google penalizes pages that show different content to users and crawlers. So web sites serve a free version of their content to Google. [1] https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66355?hl=en https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66355?hl=en
  - bluehazed 10y ago
    This is a "black hat trick"?
- robotnixon 10y ago
  Google discourages websites from appearing in search but requiring registration to view. If the website detects that the user came from a Google search, they don't throw up the paywall.
- Coincoin 10y ago
  Because google will ban the page if the crawled content is not the same as the displayed content when you click their link.

richardboegli 10y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12684081 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12684081

efvxcgci 10y ago

Plus, if you give in and subscribe to the WSJ they go out of their way to make it difficult to unsubscribe, requiring users to call in by phone and be subjected to a sales pitch just to cancel the recurring charges. It's a very scummy retention tactic.

arjie 10y ago
It's so common, it's ridiculous. The NYT has the same policy, and you have to call in on certain days of the week at certain times. They even published an opinion piece decrying the practice while participating in it. The call centre employees will even discount your subscription to try to keep you. Not at all cool.
- subway 10y ago
  I finally started letting Amex sort this out. I'll attempt to call to cancel a service (during my local business hours), follow up with a short letter if the call is unsuccessful. After that, any new charges that appear result in a call to the Amex Fraud Dept. Sadly there have been a couple services I had to do this with.
  - misnome 10y ago
    I had the same thing with the Times (Murdoch-owned) in the UK. I remember that I got through on the phone but they said that it wouldn't be possible to cancel my account without charging the next two (monthly) billing cycles. I cancelled my card and somehow they managed to cancel the account once payment didn't go through. Only fucking subscribed because of one article we were in, ended up paying for almost a year of none-usage.
petemc_ 10y ago
I had a subscription to sugarsync for a few months longer than I needed due to their "cancellation dept" only being open a few hours a day in some far off timezone. Hateful.
hbosch 10y ago

poshli 10y ago

WSJ's reporters and servers are funded by money, not nice words on HN. I don't understand everyone's obsession with bypassing paywalls on news links. I occasionally buy paper copies of newspapers.