PayWall - Yahoo News Search Results

Keith Law Will Find You If You Repost His ESPN Insider Articles

As an ESPN Insider, Keith Law has his articles tucked behind a paywall. You need a subscription to get those MLB nuggets. A couple of Braves fans on Reddit who wanted to read about the latest trade tried to circumvent the Insider tag by posting the article for everyone to read. Law tracked them down and delivered some street justice. Read more...

3 Problems McDonald’s Has That Raising Wages Won't Solve

  NEW YORK ( TheStreet) --  McDonald's made a big splash on Wednesday by announcing that it planned to raise worker pay at the outlets it operates by more than 10%, following similar moves by Wal-Mart and Target to raise the wages of some of their lowest-paid workers. According to The Wall Street Journal  (paywall), starting on July 1, McDonald's will pay at least $1 per hour more than the local ...

The West Australian looks at paywall options, revealing it now has 8,000 digital subscribers

The West Australian has confirmed it will look to follow the lead of Fairfax and News Corp and put up a paywall on its online website, Mumbrella understands. Editor Brett McCarthy refused to put a time frame on the decision but revealed, at a function for media buyers in Sydney, that subscriptions to its digital replica edition were already […] The post The West Australian looks at paywall ...

Regulation – why should it be one rule for the press?

Political stings and welcome verdicts have given Fleet Street a pleasing few days, but it doesn’t detract from the case against self-regulation Fleet Street was feeling pretty pleased with itself at the weekend. Four Sun journalists had been found not guilty of bribing public officials after mounting a public interest defence that impressed the jury. Good. The Sunday Times won an important point ...

Medical pick up Whangamata

Scoop's Operation Chrysalis transformation process is about to enter a new stage. To achieve sustainability it is now necessary for Scoop to seek new forms of revenue.

Hoopla to close after paywall pain

WOMEN’S site The Hoopla is to close almost four years after it launched as a failed paywall experiment caused it to lose speed.

"Operation Chrysalis" - Alastair Thompson "Ask Me Anything" is a website which I am sure Public Address readers are familiar with. NZ's largest independent online news publisher by audience size, Scoop reached 324,791 NZ users over the last 31 days . Over the past four weeks we have been running a crowd-funding campaign for something we are calling "Operation Chrysalis", which as the name suggests, is about transformation.


recent bookmarks tagged PayWall

La doble vía de ingresos que ofrece el paywall |

Posted on 12 February 2015

How a countrywide paywall faltered - Digiday

Posted on 12 February 2015

Capital New York, one year into paywall: 'We're breaking through.' - Digiday

Posted on 10 February 2015

Posted on 11 November 2014

Posted on 29 October 2014

5 Reasons Paywalls Fail - Recruitment Advisor

Posted on 14 October 2014

Posted on 4 October 2014

Posted on 3 September 2014

Tag: Paywalls and Pay Strategies |

Posted on 17 July 2014

Posted on 21 May 2014

Top Answers About Membership Sites on Quora

Top Answers About Membership Sites on Quora

What is the rationale behind scientific-paper paywalls?

The answer to your first question is, "Because if the publisher doesn't charge the reader, they charge the authors."  I recently published a conference paper in Hyperfine Interactions and reluctantly gave them the copyright because they wanted a four-digit fee to publish it Open Access (free to readers).  I have retired and couldn't afford it. 

The good news (sort of) is that this is changing.  Some government grants now require all results funded by the grant to be published Open Access.  So the paywalls will gradually disappear, which you'll like. 

The bad news (IMHO) is that this means all authors will have to pay to have their work published.  No one without a grant will be able to afford to publish in major journals, creating an elitism spiral that is already discouraging "unofficial" research. 

This new model has already spawned hundreds of new journals, some of which are sincerely trying to streamline and simplify the publication of well-refereed papers, but many others are simply "vanity presses" cashing in or the desperation of authors whose papers have been rejected by all the reputable journals (usually for good reasons). 

All these problems are the result of an obsolete publication model based on financial profit.  This is no longer necessary, thanks to an ubiquitous Internet.  The goal of providing resders free access to new papers has already been met by services like the e-Print archive.  The other service traditionally provided by journals is peer review, whereby highly qualified researchers in the same field judge whether a new paper is worth reading; if it passes muster, it gets published by the journal.  This extremely important function can also be wrested away from the control of for-profit publishers using self-organizing online databases, as suggested at o'Peer

Unfortunately, the transition to a free, open, democratic but authoritative model of "publication" will probably take a while.

See Questions On Quora

Posted on 4 September 2015

How is Costco's membership model so effective?

Well, with Costco, what you're getting is:
  • A guarantee of quality.  Their model promises essentially "100% satisfaction" and they mean it.  I took my couch back after a year because the cushion in one section collapsed.  They'll take back an empty package of any food and give you your money back.
  • A rare-ish selection of products that is a bit more refined than most but at a damned good price.  Costco only carries about 5,000 items, and there's a bunch of those items that rotate frequently.
  • The "treasure hunt" model.  The store does have a layout, but within that layout, EVERYTHING is rotated frequently to keep you looking.  This would never work at Walmart or Target -- because you'd get frustrated (except softlines -- those need to be kept fresh).  But at Costco, it's part of the fun to "treasure hunt" a new find. 
  • Buying in bulk saves you money and it saves you money because (a) Costco doesn't make much on that product (you gave them money they need with your entry fee) and because -- well -- you're buying in bulk and that volume discount is being passed on to you. 
  • The membership fee also does something else but more quietly:  it discriminates against certain crowds that neither Sam's Club nor Costco really want in their store. Many people call this, "The Walmart Crowd".  You need to have a certain amount of disposable income to (a) buy the $55 membership (and justify it) and (b) afford to buy so much shit in bulk (many poor people cannot afford that).  This then "gentrifies" the club without hanging a sign on the front door that reads, "No poor people allowed." 

In the comments (above) you mention that they could never do that at Walmart or Sears and that's because customers have a different buying expectation in those stores.  Costco can almost certainly NOT be your sole source of goods for your home.  You'll need to get a bunch of stuff from JCPenny or Target as well.  But, interestingly enough, Kohls and JCP will also use the "treasure hunt" mentality as well:  the merchandise gets rotated frequently to keep you hunting.

See Questions On Quora

Posted on 8 May 2014

Why did abandon the freemium model?

We have an interesting twist on freemium. All Meetup Organizers pay Organizer Dues. And most Meetup Organizers were Members (free) before they stepped-up to be an Organizer. So in that sense, we are freemium. 99% of people who are part of Meetups (members) are free, and 1% pay (Organizers). We're profitable (sustainable!) & happy that way, without annoying & soulless ads.

See Questions On Quora

Posted on 21 October 2012

Are the holes in the New York Times paywall deliberate?

These are all good answers. There's one more: the NYT doesn't really care whether or not people read it for free on the web. The purpose of the pay barrier isn't to limit people's consumption of the NYT on the web but to push them to pay for it in mobile apps. If it were free on the web but paid on apps, the arbitrage pressure would be too great. Now, however, the barrier to reading it free on the web is high enough to persuade a lot of people to pay for the convenience of a mobile app, but low enough to circumvent for those who only want the web experience. And, as pointed out elsewhere, those who do circumvent it are likely to be advanced web users who share heavily and therefore bring the NYT benefits that compensate, somewhat, for their not paying.

Sulzberger's comparison of circumventing the pay barrier with running past a newsstand and stealing a copy suggests that he doesn't quite grasp this argument. The point is not that the Times can't make theft impossible. The point is that it deliberately decided to make it easy. And the right print analogy isn't newsstands but newspaper vending machines. You can steal a copy by sneaking up behind someone who has just bought one, or putting in money but taking two copies. The cost of these few free riders is set against the benefit of wide distribution. The Times is making the same gamble on the web.

See Questions On Quora

Posted on 5 April 2011

Are the holes in the New York Times paywall deliberate?

Absolutely. The idea behind this is called price discrimination.  Ever wondered why somebody pays three times what you pay for a flight?  The reason is that people who need to travel a lot on short notice for business simply don't care that theoretically they could do 2 hours of research to find the cheapest tickets.  Airlines know this so they try to sell the same seat for lots of money to business travels and for hardly anything to students and artists.

The NYT is trying to charge those that would rather pay the reasonable amount of $20-$35 than to go through the hassle of trying to figure out how to get it for free.  And the hackers/students who can't afford this amount - well the NYT is happy if they come and read for free - they still look at the ads and link to articles for them

See Questions On Quora

Posted on 29 March 2011

What is the market share of various ad servers?

I ran DoubleClick DFA for the last several years. I'm not going to provide share data since that would be confidential info from my former employer. However, I will give some guidance about who the players are and how to calculate.

First, you need to distinguish between buy-side and sell-side ad server markets.

On buy-side, it is pretty straightforward:
-DFA (Google)
-Atlas (Microsoft)
-A couple of others, mostly small guys

The only tricky question is whether to include DSPs and Rich Media vendors in your share list. For now, it is probably safer to leave them out since the majority of clients who use the products also track using a "primary" ad server.

On the sell-side things are more complex. First, you have to decide whether you're going to include the home-grown servers from Yahoo, AOL, MSN, etc. Second, you have to decide whether to include yield managers like Rubicon, AdMeld, etc who do get a "first look" at many remnant impressions. Finally, you have to consider whether to include video and mobile specialists like Freewheel, etc. So you're list might look like this:

-CBS/CNet (homegrown) (homegrown)
-DFP (Google)
-Google Ad Manager
-Open AdStream (24/7 Real Media)

See Questions On Quora

Posted on 24 January 2011 search results

Communications Minister Mitch Fifield flags shake-up of media ownership and concentration laws. Only The Australian cover it, behind a paywall.

I tried to find a link to this news story, but the only coverage of this important announcement sits behind a paywall (and so cannot be used as an /r/australia reddit link).

Media ownership and concentration is possibly the most important lawmaking Governments can make, other than perhaps laws affecting voting and political donations. The reason for this is that media ownership is an enabling set of laws.

They allow one company to have a wall-to-wall saturation of newspapers and television in particular geographies, and so allow media houses to push particular (potentially biased) viewpoints to build support for political direction.

Today, the laws prohibit all media being owned by (say) Newscorp or Fairfax. If you remember the last election, where Newscorp imported a policital campaign manager to coordinate an extended partisan campaign to which many credit Tony Abbott's election, you'll understand the risk.

Remember this?

Generally, media houses will support relaxing these laws, because it works in the industry's favour. It is much less certain that relaxing these laws work in the public interest, for obvious reasons. Maybe in 10 years time, when huge numbers of people are no longer reading newspapers and watching TV as their primary newsfeed, these laws will become merely important to a free democracy, not critical.

Until then, I pose two questions for discussion.

  1. Should we be worried that this indication of a major change in policy direction is getting almost no coverage in the media, and then only behind paywalls?

  2. Is this an issue that, regardless of our fondness for Turnbull, no party should get a free and unopposed run at?

submitted by TheGoldilocksZone to australia
[link] [25 comments]

Posted on 27 September 2015

The REAL Reason Why The GSL Quality Sucks or: How I Learned To Love The Paywall

Okay, it seems like once a week we get one of these threads - you know the type - about how GSL quality is terrible, how it's absurd there's a paywall for content everyone gives out for free, etc.

Also every week we get the replies - "Is $8 really that much to pay?" "Don't be cheap!" etc.

Online monitization is kind of my shtick... so these sorts of threads always bother me, because there's such a huge misunderstanding of why the GSL operates the way it does. This takes a slight fundamental understand of how advertising works.

I don't mean to be condescending, but I genuinely believe some people on this subreddit don't understand this-

Advertisements are only worth money if they're relevant. That's why Facebook makes so much money without selling anything - they sell your info to advertisers to make their ads more relevant. If ads aren't relevant, they're useless.

One common gripe is "Other organizations make their events decent quality for free. Why can't the GSL do the same?" But think again about sponsor relevancy. When you watch basketball on TV, you see sponsors that are relevant to you. That's why they're worth so much money. If you're watching the NBA and you see a Papa John's commercial, you can pick up your phone and order Papa John's. When you watch the GSL, it doesn't matter how much you want to drink a Hot6, you can't, because it's a KOREAN product. The GSL is a KOREAN production for KOREAN citizens, sponsored by KOREAN sponsors.

That means, the ad viewership for western viewers means LITERALLY NOTHING for GOM, Especially if you consider the 80% adblock rate. They make essentially $0.00 for providing a free english stream - but not only do they do it, they pay the salaries of Tasteless, Artosis, and the other guest commentators, as well as social media admins, an english production guy, makeup, wardrobe, etc etc AT A COST DEFICIT.

The fact that there is even an english stream at ALL is a charity from GOM. The fact that people complain about paying 12 bucks for 3 months for a hobby they supposedly love is a joke.

tl;dr - Other tournaments are free because sponsors are relevant to YOU. GSL/SPL only can exist because of Korean sponsors, but Korean commercials mean there's no way to monetize YOU without a paywall.

edit: so i thought about addressing the obvious question: "why not target international advertisers?"

I didn't address this because I don't know the inner workings of GOM. I had an unofficial internship at SPOTV last year, but that is an entirely different organization. My experience is more general, and isn't specific to GOM. I don't like talking about things when I'm not at least MOSTLY sure about them. But since the question keeps getting brought up, I'll give my opinion based on what I know about SPOTV.

If the money was there, they'd be idiots for not taking it, right? GSL is a program of GOM, and therefore the needs of the former don't override the needs of the latter. What I mean is, GOM services a lot of other audiences other than the ~10k viewers who watch GSL 3 times a week. The Big Bang Theory producers don't choose what ads play during their show, that's up to CBS. In the same light, GSL might make more money if GOM had international advertisers, but chances are their DOTA and WoT programming would lose money. Since GOM has had international sponsors before (Coca-Cola, Pepsi, etc) it probably worked out that they make more money targeting Koreans.

tl;dr 2 - International ads might specifically benefit GSL, but GOM has a lot of other content outside of SC2 that may affect their global advertising strategy. Korean advertisements (probably) make more money for GOM than international advertisers

submitted by jib661 to starcraft
[link] [204 comments]

Posted on 11 June 2015

Paywall culture in games and alternative ways to pay

Why paywalls?

All this talk about paid modifications got me thinking. Valve is trying to implement the same model we currently use to sell games to modding. But this ignores that in some parts modding culture gets it more right than the current business around games. The modding culture is based on freedom and sharing that neat thing you made without demanding anything in return. Seeing people enjoying what you made is the reward. I don't think paywalls are good fit for that kind of culture.

Paywalls do not really work for open source games either, like 0AD. Since the game uses free GPL license, paywalling a game on Steam would feel disingenuous. Currently the only sensible option is to release the game free on Steam. That's not optimal either. Instead if Valve would focus on building better tools for voluntary payments and ways too incentivize players to pay for what they like, it could open up all sorts of possibilities and would also make open source games more feasible business model. And wouldn't that be great if open source would become the standard for games? Just think of all the inventions gamers could do if they were completely free to modify GTA5 and distribute and make money off it. That would completely revolutionize gaming culture.

When you think about it, paywalls are really primitive form of payment. On fundamental level it's based on distrust that the gamer doesn't pay for what they enjoy, so better charge them in advance. But why is that? We could just as well be pirating games if we don't want to pay for them, but instead we choose to support the developers. I see no reason why players couldn't handle the payment like we do in restaurant, after they've enjoyed the delicious meal and they know what they are paying for.


You see a fine looking game, let's say Bik - A Space Adventure that currently costs $7. You download and play it. If a certain threshold is crossed in playtime (developer can decide this themselves from fixed minimum to upwards), a page opens up urging you to pay for what the developer asks for. You can now pay that $7 and throw tip on top of that if you really enjoyed it. It keeps popping up that invoice with encouragement to pay every time you exit the game, until you pay for it.

It's a fact that not everyone will pay, but that's okay. It's part of the system.

More possibilities

If on Steam API level we provide the information whether the player has payed, it makes it possible for devs to limit functionality of the game or for the game to remind the player to pay every now and then, between levels and so on. Both should be fine, but it should be clearly stated on the store page if the game is partly paywalled. There could be "Payment model" info, which could hold values like: paywall (traditional model), partly paywalled, play and pay, free. And even free games could add donation button if they wish but it wouldn't pester the player about it.

The partly paywalled games would be basically sharewares all over again. Everyone liked those. They were even full campaigns in many cases like in Doom and only the additional campaigns costed money. And they are very different from demos. You don't even need to download anything, you already have the full game.

This is not like free-to-play where the business model relies on whales.

While not a game, Sublime Text uses this model as well and it has worked well for them. It bugs the user every now and then to register but the editor is full-fledged. I like that because the dev has trusted me to pay for the editor. And it's not cheap, it costs $70.

There's a Finnish idiom "climbing a tree ass ahead". While I think Valve had the right idea with modders getting payed for their work, they were approaching it the wrong way. Maybe they should take some of what is good about modding culture and spread it to game business first.

edit: It seem like lot of people take it that I'm suggesting this as a replacement for the current way of doing business, which was not my intention at all. On the contrary the intention was to provide more freedom for developers to charge for their games as they wish. Naturally this kind of pay-later model requires a different mindset for gamers, a different culture that can't or shouldn't be forced from top-down. Instead it's something that indie devs could experiment with and provide data on. If it looks feasible more devs would adapt to it, if not, than no big deal.

submitted by santsi to truegaming
[link] [110 comments]

Posted on 28 April 2015

Why is it acceptable for CA to put certain factions behind a Day 1 paywall?

They did the same thing for Rome II. The only reason why I pre-ordered that abomination was so I could play as the Greeks without having to pay extra. Now they're doing it again with Attila and the Norsemen faction. Obviously if these DLC's are available with a pre-order, they are already developed and should be in the base game. So basically they're taking an enticing bit of the base game, putting it behind a paywall and telling us we have to pre-order the game to have it. This means they want us to buy the game before the reviews and let's plays potentially show us how buggy/broken the game really is like Rome II was. Why do we, as consumers, let them get away with this? I personally will skip on Total War for the first time since being introduced to Rome as a kid.

Edit: Some really fishy/unethical voting going on in this thread, y'all.

submitted by Anticreativity to totalwar
[link] [179 comments]

Posted on 9 January 2015

A change in how /r/Atlanta treats links (and other paywall sites) coming Aug 1, input wanted

The moderators feel that /r/Atlanta is here to benefit everyone. Links to paywalled sites don't benefit everyone, and instead cause frustration for many. We already have a few low quality sites on the blacklist, and we're contemplating putting on that same list. The reason is that useful news is being hidden behind a paywall, making links to useless for the majority of /r/Atlanta users. They click through, and just see the headline and a paywall.

The proposal is that on August 1, link will be marked as spam automatically. Yes, MyAJC is a way for the AJC to raise revenue, and they're completely entitled to do that. However we have no responsibility to help them raise their revenues. We're not simply an advertisement for the AJC. There are many other quality news sources in Atlanta, and we want to draw from all of them. We encourage people to find other sources for their links, which Google News should be able to help with.

We want to hear from you, do you agree with this? Disagree? Tell us here. If the popular outcry is against this idea, we won't go forward with it. If the general tone is agreement, then we will.

Thanks for your time.

The Management.

Edit: So far we have exactly one top level comment with a "nay" vote.

Edit 2: Still only one no vote, so on August 1, we'll be banning If you're an AJC employee, and would like to change our minds, whitelist referrers like WSJ and NYTimes does for Google. Otherwise, bye bye MyAJC.

submitted by burnte to Atlanta
[link] [81 comments]

Posted on 17 July 2014


Paywalled content [link]

Posted on 14 May 2014

Petit truc pour bypasser le paywall du Journal de Montréal

Même si le journal n'est pas toujours pertinent, je n'aime pas quand le contenu d'un site m'est barré. Pour cette raison, voici les petites étapes pour détourner le paywall.



  • Dans Adblock ajouter l'URL* à votre filtre bloquant
  • Dans Stylebot ajouter le style
  • Tester avec cet article:

Vous pourrez maintenant lire le contenu bloqué sans problème.

EDIT: Merci pour le Gold!! Je vais mettre à jour cette procédure lorsque celle-ci ne fonctionnera plus.

submitted by GotNoob to Quebec
[link] [32 comments]

Posted on 28 April 2014

TIP: Bypassing Press+ paywalls with Adblock

It seems that more and more Canadian news outlets are using Press+ paywalls to limit access to content above a certain number of views per month. Some, like the National Post, are quite restrictive at only five views per month.

Fortunately, all these paywalls do is use a script to hide the content behind a DIV. The actual article is still there. Now, you could right click and delete the DIV elements each time, but that's rather onerous. A better solution is just to block the script with a couple of Adblock rules. Just add these two lines to your Adblock definitions:

||* ||* 

There, you never have to worry about that stupid paywall ever again.

submitted by freyyr to canada
[link] [34 comments]

Posted on 26 April 2014

Drama-magnet and former mod Agentlame banned from /r/technology, SRD recap submission removed and flaired as "paywall"

Former /r/technology moderator and drama magnet /u/agentlame submitted his highly popular SRD recap, "The failed moderation and gaming of /r/technology", to /r/technology hours ago.

The post, which consisted of a direct link to the SRD submission, received a considerable number of upvotes and rocketed to the front page, but was later deleted by the /r/technology moderators and flaired as being "behind a paywall".

Shortly after, /u/agentlame was banned from /r/technology with no reason given. Upon questioning the mods about why his removed post was flaired as "behind a paywall" despite being a direct link to /r/SubredditDrama, he received a response from /r/technology moderator anutensil, saying:

Oops! Must've hit the wrong removal reason.

The post has currently been reflaired as "not appropriate subreddit" but the process took a few hours.

Edit: Another user, Creesch, has resubmitted the deleted thread to /r/technology here:

As you can see, this thread has also been deleted, and flaired as... "Already covered". The only other submission covering it was the one above which had already been deleted and flaired as "paywall".


In further internal mod drama news, the new mods of /r/technology are apparently having continual disputes with top mods. In this screenshot provided by /u/gaget, a recently added /r/technology mod, /u/X019, claimed that he had to remove one of anutensil's comments from a recent /r/technology sticky thread because she was acting "childish at best".

Relevant links:

submitted by BipolarBear0 to SubredditDrama
[link] [288 comments]

Posted on 19 April 2014

As people who appreciate and love Xbox, I think it's time we became more vocal as a community and finally said no to the XBL app paywall.

Since the first Xbox I have been a huge supporter of Microsoft and their gaming console. I've put hundreds of hours into single and multiplayer halo, into curating my Viva Piñata garden, in exploring outside of my emerged bathosphere, and I regret none of that time spent.

I adore my Xbox One equally. I wouldn't trade the reliability of Xbox live for anything. And while I love the tech behind the machine, I find it painfully archaic that it still prevents people from using free services, that are available virtually everywhere, unless they pay for an annual online subscription.

As a next gen machine, it needs to stop relying on old policies. It needs to evolve and by making people pay to use apps like netflix, they are just reminding people of tired and old practices that harken back to a day that we've all matured away from.

If the Xbox one is truly a console for everyone, then this is an obvious boundary that needs to come down.

Edit: Basically, Xbox live is a service worth paying for. But charging for access to other subscription services makes the platform look bad, especially considering that no other hardware on the planet does that.

Microsoft is creative. Create content and new features in place of holding these apps hostage behind a paywall to draw in paid users.

submitted by Tastybread to xboxone
[link] [553 comments]

Posted on 14 December 2013

Why Should Video Subscription Services be Behind a Paywall?

After Netflix, Hulu Plus, and various other subscription based services have remained behind the Xbox Live Gold paywall for such a long time, should that requirement be taken down with the launch of the Xbox One? It did make sense that Netflix was once behind a paywall solely for the fact that Microsoft was developing the Netflix app for the Xbox and it featured things such as Group Video Watching and such, but is there really any reason for it to still be as such?

submitted by NimbusBear to xboxone
[link] [62 comments]

Posted on 1 August 2013

Anyone else think Microsoft should take things like Netflix and HBO out from behind the Live Gold Paywall?

Not everything obviously. But for apps that someone can get on a Roku or Apple TV or PS4 for that matter.

Make deals for exclusive content apps and keep them behind the paywall, but let's free up the popular ones that are on every connected device. Would give someone one less reason to avoid the One.

EDIT: I believe Microsoft's position on this is that they are more valuable on the Xbox due to kinect integration (motion & voice commands)

submitted by standard_user to xboxone
[link] [179 comments]

Posted on 21 June 2013

Dear Reddit, We Changed Our Paywall Just for You

Redditors- really values the Reddit fantasy football community and so we changed the way our paywall works just to make it easier for you to read our articles without seeing a subscription message.

Our paywall was always meant to allow a free view per day to accommodate discussion forums like Reddit. But that didn't work in some cases because people would click to our site, then click back, and then try to click the site again after having used up their free view. We've changed the code on our site so that if you're clicking from Reddit, it should let you read the article you're clicking to even if you've already used a free view.

tldr: We like you guys and we changed the way our site works to make it easier for you to read it.

A great example of the kind of content we're trying to put out is this post on the Giants backfield and Tom Coughlin's historical use of running backs:

submitted by frankdupont to fantasyfootball
[link] [27 comments]

Posted on 19 June 2013

Missoulian, Billings Gazette, Helena IR & MT Standard now have a paywall: Here's how to easily disable it.

*Article at NewsAndTech: *

I'm an employee of Lee who has made arguments against the "paywall" from the very beginning. My reasons include...

  • Our sites are already unattractive enough as it is, and offer little value to existing print-edition customers.

  • We sell local advertising on the basis of exposure (e.g. "Your add will receive 30,000 views a month in our 'Sports' section!") and the numbers of our most-viewed sections will now tank as a result of requiring people to pay after 15 articles. In turn, my department's revenue will also drop substantially.

  • Rather than taking suggestions from the people who actually work with the websites, it was simply decided that this is what we're doing, and it's non-negotiable.

The company who sold this to Lee, PressPlus (a subsidary of RR Donnelley) essentially sold us a bottle of snake oil, because the system relies entirely on JavaScript, which if blocked, disables the "paywall" entirely.

Disabling the Lee paywall in Google Chrome (All MT Sites):

  • Click the wrench icon in the upper-right corner, and chose 'Options'

  • Click 'Under the Hood' on the left, then click the 'Content Settings' button

  • On the 'JavaScript' section, you can leave the "Allow all sites to run JavaScript" selection, then click the 'Manage Exceptions' button

  • Add the following two entries to the "Pattern" field, with 'Block' in the dropdown box:



  • Close the 'Options' tab - You're done! No more paywall at any of the Montana Lee newspaper sites.

Disabling the Lee paywall in Firefox (All MT Sites):

  • Install "BlockSite" from the Mozilla Add-ons website (Just click the green 'Add to Firefox' button, then allow the add-on to install.)

  • Restart Firefox when prompted

  • Click the 'Tools' menu, then choose 'Add-Ons' (or in Firefox version 4+, click the orange Firefox menu in the upper-left, then choose 'Add-ons')

  • Click 'Extensions', then click 'BlockSite' and then 'Options'.

  • On the "BlockSite Preferences" window, click the 'Add' button to add each of the following (without the initial "http://" value):



  • Click the 'OK' button at the bottom of the "BlockSite Preferences" window, quit Firefox entirely, and then open Firefox again.

  • You're done! No more paywall at any of the Montana Lee newspaper sites.

Disabling the Lee paywall in Internet Explorer (All MT Sites):

  • Instructions forthcoming. For now, get Google Chrome or Firefox.


submitted by around_lee_paywall to Montana
[link] [25 comments]

Posted on 1 August 2011