6 ms·

The paywall is extremely simple to bypass using Google as the referrer (just Google site:article URL and click over from it). They do the Google thing to avoid

The paywall is extremely simple to bypass using Google as the referrer (just Google site:article URL and click over from it). They do the Google thing to avoid a potential cloaking penalty which would get them de-indexed altogether. So the interesting part of all of this is that people choose not to bypass it and pay. The reminder that they need to pay alone seems to be working.

dmix 14y ago
Or if you're in chrome, just use "Edit this Cookie" and blacklist NYTimes from saving cookies.
- downandout 14y ago
  Yeah, I'm in Chrome, but have never taken the time to block their cookies. The Google thing takes 2 seconds, and I rarely spend time on the site, or I would.
  - quaunaut 14y ago
    You can also just open an incognito window and post the URL there.
    - positr0n 14y ago
      Or right click and "Open link in incognito window" (the front page of nytimes.com isn't behind the paywall obviously).
ngoel36 14y ago
Wall Street Journal does the same. My guess is that it's intentional - they don't want to necessarily block you from reason their content, just convince those who can to pay.
- fpgeek 14y ago
  The WSJ seems to be more targeted with their paywall than other papers. Some articles are still behind the wall even with the "Google trick": http://searchengineland.com/wsj-pulls-back-on-what-google-searchers-can-read-for-free-112922 http://searchengineland.com/wsj-pulls-back-on-what-google-se...
- thefreeman 14y ago
  It's intentional, but not because of that. In order to be indexed, they have to show the content to google. It is against googles TOS to show them content and not display it to visitors referred by their index.
  - wahnfrieden 14y ago
    This is incorrect, there is special allowance for paywalled media to serve the content to googlebot but not necessarily all Google referrals.
joshdick 14y ago
Or you know, maybe many readers of the Times want to support the great journalism that the paper produces, since they realize that without their subscriptions, the paper could not exist in its current form.
- jeremyarussell 14y ago
  That's crazy talk, like all the people that pay over a dollar in the humble bundles or actually go out and buy the music they tried out via illegal download. Just crazy talk.
untog 14y ago
I think (and I have no professional knowledge) the pay wall is more about establishing the concept that the content is worth money. If you don't want to pay for it then you'll find ways around whatever NYT implements- it's not worth the effort. As long as you establish that the content is worth money, a lot of people are more than happy to pay for it.
- alexqgb 14y ago
  Exactly. Even if you're honoring the rule in the breach, you're still honoring it. An that, by itself, represents a major win for the NYT. As time goes by and the unsustainability and injustice of the "all content should be free" mantra becomes widely recognized, a much clearer line between contet that is and is not worth paying for will crystallize—and with it, the social attitudes that work with or against payment for publishers, depending on the surrounding expectations. The Times has done a solid job of positioning itself. Pity those that lack the resources an foresight to do the same.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - ableal 14y ago
    > honoring the rule in the breach The other day, I found out we're now using that figure of speech against the intent of the original phrase: a custom best ignored, e.g. http://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/mangled-shakespeare/ http://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/mangled-sh... In this case, I like the modern take, because it provides us with words for a real phenomenon. I dislike some other modern takes, such as the literal "beg the question", that deprive us of precise meaning (petitio principii, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question ).
    - lmm 14y ago
      I've never seen anyone actually using the precise meaning of "beg the question". So I think we're better off with the more common usage.
devb 14y ago
There's also a simple way to modify the URL once the paywall kicks in after you've viewed the total number of free articles for the month. Despite the workarounds, I'm still one of the people that pays for the content.
btipling 14y ago
Or just use an incognito window. Much easier.

dmix 14y ago

Or if you're in chrome, just use "Edit this Cookie" and blacklist NYTimes from saving cookies.

downandout 14y ago
Yeah, I'm in Chrome, but have never taken the time to block their cookies. The Google thing takes 2 seconds, and I rarely spend time on the site, or I would.
- quaunaut 14y ago
  You can also just open an incognito window and post the URL there.
  - positr0n 14y ago
    Or right click and "Open link in incognito window" (the front page of nytimes.com isn't behind the paywall obviously).

ngoel36 14y ago

Wall Street Journal does the same. My guess is that it's intentional - they don't want to necessarily block you from reason their content, just convince those who can to pay.

fpgeek 14y ago
The WSJ seems to be more targeted with their paywall than other papers. Some articles are still behind the wall even with the "Google trick": http://searchengineland.com/wsj-pulls-back-on-what-google-searchers-can-read-for-free-112922 http://searchengineland.com/wsj-pulls-back-on-what-google-se...
thefreeman 14y ago
It's intentional, but not because of that. In order to be indexed, they have to show the content to google. It is against googles TOS to show them content and not display it to visitors referred by their index.
- wahnfrieden 14y ago
  This is incorrect, there is special allowance for paywalled media to serve the content to googlebot but not necessarily all Google referrals.

joshdick 14y ago

Or you know, maybe many readers of the Times want to support the great journalism that the paper produces, since they realize that without their subscriptions, the paper could not exist in its current form.

jeremyarussell 14y ago
That's crazy talk, like all the people that pay over a dollar in the humble bundles or actually go out and buy the music they tried out via illegal download. Just crazy talk.

untog 14y ago

I think (and I have no professional knowledge) the pay wall is more about establishing the concept that the content is worth money. If you don't want to pay for it then you'll find ways around whatever NYT implements- it's not worth the effort. As long as you establish that the content is worth money, a lot of people are more than happy to pay for it.

alexqgb 14y ago
Exactly. Even if you're honoring the rule in the breach, you're still honoring it. An that, by itself, represents a major win for the NYT. As time goes by and the unsustainability and injustice of the "all content should be free" mantra becomes widely recognized, a much clearer line between contet that is and is not worth paying for will crystallize—and with it, the social attitudes that work with or against payment for publishers, depending on the surrounding expectations. The Times has done a solid job of positioning itself. Pity those that lack the resources an foresight to do the same.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- ableal 14y ago
  > honoring the rule in the breach The other day, I found out we're now using that figure of speech against the intent of the original phrase: a custom best ignored, e.g. http://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/mangled-shakespeare/ http://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/mangled-sh... In this case, I like the modern take, because it provides us with words for a real phenomenon. I dislike some other modern takes, such as the literal "beg the question", that deprive us of precise meaning (petitio principii, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question ).
  - lmm 14y ago
    I've never seen anyone actually using the precise meaning of "beg the question". So I think we're better off with the more common usage.

devb 14y ago

There's also a simple way to modify the URL once the paywall kicks in after you've viewed the total number of free articles for the month. Despite the workarounds, I'm still one of the people that pays for the content.

btipling 14y ago

Or just use an incognito window. Much easier.