4 ms·

Incognito doesn't work for me. Like I said in the OP, all of the workarounds I've heard of have not been working for some months now. Neither does Google search

Incognito doesn't work for me. Like I said in the OP, all of the workarounds I've heard of have not been working for some months now. Neither does Google search or anything else. I don't even use a mainstream browser with an incognito mode anyway, I'd have to open up a seperate browser just to read WSJ articles even if it did work. This is ridiculous.

gravypod 10y ago
You should also take into account that by the time an article makes it here there are usually multiple copies of it from other news providers. WSJ rarely has exclusive articles so it makes no sense to provide a link to WSJ when the exact same article is on some other site. The only unique pieces are usually op-eds which usually have similar articles on other popular publications as well.
- lloydde 10y ago
  This is in no way accurate. I've done this type of search almost every day in the last couple of weeks and my success rate is less than 50%. For example the Snapchat article on the IPO and voting rights did find any articles that were more than the WSJ headline.
- dublinben 10y ago
  To counter this point, when the WSJ does actually have an exclusive story or is the first to break it, we ought to recognize that. Rewarding blogspam copycats is a very bad policy.
jrs235 10y ago
I'm beginning to believe that the WSJ and others are starting to monitor the number of referrals directly from google and if it hits some threshold they turn on the paywall for the article for some period of time as the direct link from google in incognito doesn't always work for me either. "Oh look! Direct hits from google have gone up 300% (or have been hit XX times) in the last 2 minutes... turn on the sliding 5 minute paywall!"
- aembleton 10y ago
  Or they check by IP Address. They know the Google ones as they regularly crawl all of their site whereas the IP addresses of random HN users don't.
  - detaro 10y ago
    The workaround only exists because Google requires sites to serve users the same page as the crawlers, so if they do that Google should de-rank them or throw them out of the index.
    - jrs235 10y ago
      I agree. But if they are in fact using some "temporary" paywall "technology" then it would be [more] difficult for google to know and/or catch them in the act. As someone else stated in these comments: "If you start an incognito window with a Google News search for the headline and can't access it, use the "Send Feedback" link at the bottom of the search page to let Google know."
stronglikedan 10y ago
Using a mainstream browser with incognito mode is a workaround. Although, as some others have pointed out, that may no longer work either.
- ddevault 10y ago
  If you had read my comment properly, you would have seen that the "workaround" doesn't work for me, and I was saying even if it did work, it's fucking stupid to have to go to such lengths to read an article here.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  That trick used to work for me, but as of last week it doesn't. While I know it is unlikely, I wonder if WSJ has figured out a counter-trick.

gravypod 10y ago

You should also take into account that by the time an article makes it here there are usually multiple copies of it from other news providers. WSJ rarely has exclusive articles so it makes no sense to provide a link to WSJ when the exact same article is on some other site. The only unique pieces are usually op-eds which usually have similar articles on other popular publications as well.

lloydde 10y ago
This is in no way accurate. I've done this type of search almost every day in the last couple of weeks and my success rate is less than 50%. For example the Snapchat article on the IPO and voting rights did find any articles that were more than the WSJ headline.
dublinben 10y ago
To counter this point, when the WSJ does actually have an exclusive story or is the first to break it, we ought to recognize that. Rewarding blogspam copycats is a very bad policy.

jrs235 10y ago

I'm beginning to believe that the WSJ and others are starting to monitor the number of referrals directly from google and if it hits some threshold they turn on the paywall for the article for some period of time as the direct link from google in incognito doesn't always work for me either. "Oh look! Direct hits from google have gone up 300% (or have been hit XX times) in the last 2 minutes... turn on the sliding 5 minute paywall!"

aembleton 10y ago
Or they check by IP Address. They know the Google ones as they regularly crawl all of their site whereas the IP addresses of random HN users don't.
- detaro 10y ago
  The workaround only exists because Google requires sites to serve users the same page as the crawlers, so if they do that Google should de-rank them or throw them out of the index.
  - jrs235 10y ago
    I agree. But if they are in fact using some "temporary" paywall "technology" then it would be [more] difficult for google to know and/or catch them in the act. As someone else stated in these comments: "If you start an incognito window with a Google News search for the headline and can't access it, use the "Send Feedback" link at the bottom of the search page to let Google know."

stronglikedan 10y ago

Using a mainstream browser with incognito mode is a workaround. Although, as some others have pointed out, that may no longer work either.

ddevault 10y ago
If you had read my comment properly, you would have seen that the "workaround" doesn't work for me, and I was saying even if it did work, it's fucking stupid to have to go to such lengths to read an article here.
enraged_camel 10y ago
That trick used to work for me, but as of last week it doesn't. While I know it is unlikely, I wonder if WSJ has figured out a counter-trick.