3 ms·
HN does make the submission source visible, so you can check that before you click. If it's a source you're not familiar with, you might still hit a paywall une
by grzm 9y ago
HN does make the submission source visible, so you can check that before you click. If it's a source you're not familiar with, you might still hit a paywall unexpectedly, but wsj.com (and others, like the Washington Post) come up frequently enough that you generally know before you click through.
- petre 9y agoJust flag it as paywalled. So I don't hit a paywall "unexpectedly". I'd rather not bother clicking at all.
- dang 9y ago(Edit: I think I misread what you meant by 'flagging', since on HN that word means a user clicking a "flag" link to report that a submission is bad for HN.) If you flag stories for that reason you'll eventually lose your flagging rights. HN's policy is: paywalls with workarounds are ok, users can supply workarounds in the threads, but complaints about paywalls and paywall policies are off topic. The paywalls suck, of course, but banning NYT, WSJ, Economist, New Yorker, and all other such publications would suck worse. I realize not everyone agrees with this, but it seems the right call to me, which doesn't mean I like it any more than you do. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989 https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html Lots more at https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix=false&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment&query=by:dang%20paywalls https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix=false&page=0&date... if anyone wants to read it.
- grzm 9y agoYour parent may be recommending tagging such articles with [paywall] or some such as opposed to clicking “flag”. It certainly could be worded better. I’d rather not see titles further cluttered, personally. The source already effectively provides that, and additional context.