3 ms·

Whats up with this strange URL/domain?

by z3j4e 6y ago

randywaterhouse 6y ago
Seems to be using a university proxy to get around FT's usual paywall. I had not seen this method before, am somewhat surprised the university proxy doesn't require some kind of SSO/auth. (if it's indeed working the way I surmise.)
- samizdis 6y ago
  To quote from a comment I made in response to a similar query the other day: I've an FT subscription and often post articles, but I try to do a search and find an alternate link - quite a bit of FT content is syndicated fairly quickly to non-paywalled sites. A few days ago, an FT article that I'd posted and then searched for showed up with the OCLC domain [1]. I've been trying to figure out how it all works, but have failed. If you try to hit "baldwinlib.idm.oclc.org", you get a login page. [1] That was referring to: https://www-ft-com.baldwinlib.idm.oclc.org/ https://www-ft-com.baldwinlib.idm.oclc.org/ - it turned up when I'd searched in DDG for an FT article's headline. Then, maybe yesterday or the day before, a similar search turned up an FT article via: https://www-ft-com.ezproxy.babson.edu/ https://www-ft-com.ezproxy.babson.edu/ Anyhow, it seems to offend some people if links are posted to paywalled sites, and it seems to offend others if one posts a paywalled link and then adds a non-paywalled link in comments. I have, therefore, been experimenting with posting the non-paywalled links via these resources if a search doesn't turn up a syndicated copy of the original article. I suspect that the university-linked resource sites referenced here will probably close these loopholes pretty sharpish. If any moderators see this, I would be happy to learn of any HN party line, or preference, about this behaviour. (Guidance welcomed by comment or by email. Thanks.)
  - detaro 6y ago
    Not a mod, but afaik the policy is to always submit the canonical source and share workaround links in the comments (e.g. the FAQ explicitly say that submitting links to paywalled content is fine, as is asking for and sharing workarounds in comments)
    - samizdis 6y ago
      Yes, I had read that and abided by it until I noticed that every time I added a comment with a workaround link (rather than to a syndicated copy), the comment would be downvoted - often repeatedly so that it could no longer be seen.
      - billme 6y ago
        Agree that the official source link is the link to post, which you appear to understand - yet then claim to violate due to the reasoning you described. Once the blocks happen, all the links you posted will be broken, please stop doing this.
        samizdis 6y ago
        A valid point, and thank you for saying please.
        billme 6y ago
        No problem, agree with your intent, but appears you understand it more likely than not will result in problems. Thanks! PS - While it unclear in this situation, other issues with proxies & mini-URLs is that they might easily be used to mine IPs, set cookies, launch attacks, etc.

Whats up with this strange URL/domain?

by z3j4e 6y ago

Whats up with this strange URL/domain?

Seems to be using a university proxy to get around FT's usual paywall. I had not seen this method before, am somewhat surprised the university proxy doesn't require some kind of SSO/auth. (if it's indeed working the way I surmise.)

samizdis 6y ago
To quote from a comment I made in response to a similar query the other day: I've an FT subscription and often post articles, but I try to do a search and find an alternate link - quite a bit of FT content is syndicated fairly quickly to non-paywalled sites. A few days ago, an FT article that I'd posted and then searched for showed up with the OCLC domain [1]. I've been trying to figure out how it all works, but have failed. If you try to hit "baldwinlib.idm.oclc.org", you get a login page. [1] That was referring to: https://www-ft-com.baldwinlib.idm.oclc.org/ https://www-ft-com.baldwinlib.idm.oclc.org/ - it turned up when I'd searched in DDG for an FT article's headline. Then, maybe yesterday or the day before, a similar search turned up an FT article via: https://www-ft-com.ezproxy.babson.edu/ https://www-ft-com.ezproxy.babson.edu/ Anyhow, it seems to offend some people if links are posted to paywalled sites, and it seems to offend others if one posts a paywalled link and then adds a non-paywalled link in comments. I have, therefore, been experimenting with posting the non-paywalled links via these resources if a search doesn't turn up a syndicated copy of the original article. I suspect that the university-linked resource sites referenced here will probably close these loopholes pretty sharpish. If any moderators see this, I would be happy to learn of any HN party line, or preference, about this behaviour. (Guidance welcomed by comment or by email. Thanks.)
- detaro 6y ago
  Not a mod, but afaik the policy is to always submit the canonical source and share workaround links in the comments (e.g. the FAQ explicitly say that submitting links to paywalled content is fine, as is asking for and sharing workarounds in comments)
  - samizdis 6y ago
    Yes, I had read that and abided by it until I noticed that every time I added a comment with a workaround link (rather than to a syndicated copy), the comment would be downvoted - often repeatedly so that it could no longer be seen.
    - billme 6y ago
      Agree that the official source link is the link to post, which you appear to understand - yet then claim to violate due to the reasoning you described. Once the blocks happen, all the links you posted will be broken, please stop doing this.
      - samizdis 6y ago
        A valid point, and thank you for saying please.
        billme 6y ago
        No problem, agree with your intent, but appears you understand it more likely than not will result in problems. Thanks! PS - While it unclear in this situation, other issues with proxies & mini-URLs is that they might easily be used to mine IPs, set cookies, launch attacks, etc.