once your signed in you don't have to re-sign in, it remembers you. But is that Mike's sole beef w/ nyt? I've been reading it daily since the 70's but always with a healthy grain of salt. I use my page mostly to bookmark source info on various personal interests (instead of actually clipping articles) but I hope sharing them is of some interest to others. I use nyt because that's my primary read of the day and don't feel too compromised by the access gauntlet.
Yeah, there really isn't much problem with cookies. Most of the worry is misplaced. I like the Times too. I read the paper version most mornings when I go for my coffee and bagel. It's nice to have something physical to occupy yourself with when sitting alone in a crowded place and a newspaper does this well. Usually there will be one laying around by the time I get there, but if not I'll run across the street and buy one. I don't even mind the $0.75, so it doesn't really make any sense to hold the minimal hassle of having to sign in once with an unverified email address against them. But I still do because it seems to discount what the web does best. The best things are links, and as the google model demonstrates well, the web values those things which are linked to a lot. 50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong, or something like that principle. The required sign in thing disrupts the level ground over which this web of links would otherwise flow. You might say it introduces another dimension. Like they built a little wall around themselves, and we can see the outline poking up into the otherwise flat cloth of the web. Microsoft is trying to build these structures too. AOL too. I guess anyone with an eye towards profits is thinking about walling in a part of the web, either mildly and through annoyance - like the NYT sign in - or more forcefully like AOL with it's instant messanger or Microsoft with .NET.
Sorry to ramble. Anyway, in my case, it just makes me mad because they would either be, or clearly have a shot to be, the news source of choice on the web. It's unclear, I think, whether this is a potentially profitable position or just a money loser, but I'd like to think that the Times would want to be the leader in either case. I think the sign in shows them hedging their bets. Some people don't link to them now, because you can't be sure the page will work for one of your readers, and you want all your links to work. And, at least in the Cluetrain way of looking at these things, less links to the Times means they are not as central to the conversation. And I'd think the Times would want to be right in the middle of it.
But yes, this is to make too much out of the relatively simple sign in requirement.
|
- bill 9-22-2001 8:40 pm
Yeah, there really isn't much problem with cookies. Most of the worry is misplaced. I like the Times too. I read the paper version most mornings when I go for my coffee and bagel. It's nice to have something physical to occupy yourself with when sitting alone in a crowded place and a newspaper does this well. Usually there will be one laying around by the time I get there, but if not I'll run across the street and buy one. I don't even mind the $0.75, so it doesn't really make any sense to hold the minimal hassle of having to sign in once with an unverified email address against them. But I still do because it seems to discount what the web does best. The best things are links, and as the google model demonstrates well, the web values those things which are linked to a lot. 50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong, or something like that principle. The required sign in thing disrupts the level ground over which this web of links would otherwise flow. You might say it introduces another dimension. Like they built a little wall around themselves, and we can see the outline poking up into the otherwise flat cloth of the web. Microsoft is trying to build these structures too. AOL too. I guess anyone with an eye towards profits is thinking about walling in a part of the web, either mildly and through annoyance - like the NYT sign in - or more forcefully like AOL with it's instant messanger or Microsoft with .NET.
Sorry to ramble. Anyway, in my case, it just makes me mad because they would either be, or clearly have a shot to be, the news source of choice on the web. It's unclear, I think, whether this is a potentially profitable position or just a money loser, but I'd like to think that the Times would want to be the leader in either case. I think the sign in shows them hedging their bets. Some people don't link to them now, because you can't be sure the page will work for one of your readers, and you want all your links to work. And, at least in the Cluetrain way of looking at these things, less links to the Times means they are not as central to the conversation. And I'd think the Times would want to be right in the middle of it.
But yes, this is to make too much out of the relatively simple sign in requirement.
- jim 9-22-2001 9:22 pm [2 comments]