Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Indystar.com to charge $12 per month for online access starting September 1st.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Re: Indystar.com to charge $12 per month for online access starting September 1st.

    Originally posted by imawhat View Post
    This is probably what I disagree with most. Netflix has real costs; they have to license content since they don't own much, and it's costing well in excess of $1B/year. That content then expires and they're left with nothing. It's actually much better for them to create content because they then own it and have actual assets. This is why they're dipping their toes into content creation.

    As for the Star and its ridiculous price: The New York Times spends $250M/yr in raw materials and circulates about 600M newspapers/year. If that translates to the Star, that's about $12.50 in monthly raw material costs for monthly print subscribers. That leaves less than $7.50 of profit to the Star before other operating costs, salaries, and other overhead.

    This digital edition? There are little-to-no raw materials costs, fewer operating costs, and the way I look at it, little-to-no overhead since most staff is already employed for the print edition. That means $12/month has a much, much, much higher profit margin. Unless I'm missing something, it's almost pure profit.

    Record labels can't go much cheaper than $40 for a digital album and stay in business as they are, but that doesn't justify a $40 album price, at all. The Star has to know the digital revenue earned from digital subscriptions will come nowhere close to compensating for the loss of physical print revenue, even with the much higher profit margins. There is no justification whatsoever for this high price. This is the Indianaplis Star, not a newspaper with hundreds of Pulitzer Prizes, top of the country journalists, and groundbreaking stories centered in the biggest city in the United States.
    I don't think you quite understand the costs involved in the creation of content. Yes, with all of the shows and movies Netflix has streaming the licensing fees can get quite expensive when combined. When separated though those fees are nothing to a full production. What Netflix is doing with the production side is trying to attract more people to their service so that they can hopefully expand their offerings. This also means the cost to subscribe will most likely increase. Just look at a service such as HBO. It charges more than Netflix even though it has far fewer offerings because the cost to create that is far more than the cost to license 100 TV shows.

    While the cost to keep servers up and running is not as much as creating something physical, it is also not as cheap as you think.

    You also then need to realize, while the staff is on staff for the print edition. The amount of sales of the print edition is much lower than it was 5 or 10 years ago. So while their overhead costs are probably staying the same or even increasing, the amount of money they bring in through print is decreasing. It is probably to the point now that the print cannot sustain the Star on its own, even with online advertising helping to subsidize it. So yes the online version is sharing those overhead costs.

    It is certainly possible the $12 is at a higher profit margin, but it most likely is probably rather small.

    Yes, it is the Indy Star, and they don't operate on the scale of the NY Times, which is a national newspaper. So even though they have a smaller staff, they most likely also have a higher operating cost per subscriber than the New York times.


    I'm not trying to argue that it is worth your money to subscribe to the Indy Star online. I am just trying to educate this board on the actual costs of something such as this. People see it is on the internet and just assume things should be cheaper than they need to be for the site to stay in business. The only reason why Netflix can charge what they do for streaming is because their streaming selection is not very good. They have a lot of TV shows, but their movies tend to be smaller less known movies and older movies. Yeah they do have a few blockbusters, but not very many. I mean just look at what people in this thread are suggesting. No online newspaper the size of the Star could survive on $12 a year subscription, or even $5 a month. The lack of understanding really isn't anyone's fault on here. I doubt the majority of people on here are even involved in these kinds of industries (not necessarily newspaper, but digital content) as I am. The people who are to blame for the lack are those who provide the content, but don't inform the people paying, or might be interested in paying, how much it actually costs them to run the business. What the IndyStar offers probably isn't worth $12, but I also doubt they can charge much less as they are currently structured. If the Star wants to stay in business they are going to have to make some drastic changes to their business structure.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Indystar.com to charge $12 per month for online access starting September 1st.

      Can we put a $12 a month paywall in here just for Kravitz?

      "Sorry Bob, you hit your 20 thread a month limit, you'll have to go dredge at another site for the rest of the month...."
      "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

      "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Indystar.com to charge $12 per month for online access starting September 1st.

        Originally posted by travmil View Post
        Well I hit my 20 article limit earlier today. Decided I wasn't going to pay a dime for it. So, I surely thought that the Star wouldn't be stupid enough to allow you to simply clear your cache, cookies, and history out and get back in. I was wrong. I did exactly that, and went back to the site, my 20 article limit had been reset.

        I wish I could thank you a thousand times for this. I tried it, and it worked for me too. I never would have thought of that.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Indystar.com to charge $12 per month for online access starting September 1st.

          Originally posted by rabidpacersfan View Post
          You ARE missing something. Classified ads were the number 1 revenue source for print newspapers for decades, and that revenue stream has been devastated by craigslist and other internet sites. Print subscriptions have dropped dramatically as well, so the print edition is probably now just breaking even or maybe even operating at a loss.

          So the online edition really can't be considered "pure profit" when the print edition isn't even making money anymore. The online edition now has to bring in more revenue than it did before.
          What you're saying is that revenue/profit from the digital edition has to support all of Indystar because the print edition is operating at a loss. #1-I agree, and #2-the digital edition is still pure profit; the success/failure of the print edition has no bearing on the digital business model.

          Originally posted by rpf
          Finally, unlike companies like Netflix and Hulu etc, newspapers have a large (though shrinking) staff of actual journalists, writers, editorial staff etc. that create the actual content. Labor costs as related to revenue are probably much higher at Indystar than to companies like Netflix.
          My friend's pool business has higher labor costs to revenue than both companies. That stat doesn't tell me what you want it to tell me.

          Pound for pound, Netflix's labor costs are much, much higher than Gannett's. The average manager at Netflix makes 2 1/2 times more than a manager at Gannett; Directors make twice as much, and Vice Presidents make almost twice as much. Netflix has a reputation for paying at the top of their industry.

          The average "actual journalist" salary at Gannett is $38k/year, which ranks close to the bottom 1/3rd of all Gannett salaries. Given their number of employees, wages is not a majority contributor to their overhead expenses.

          And retail advertising is/has been the #1 revenue source for newspaper ad revenue, but I understand that wasn't your pont.
          Last edited by imawhat; 09-09-2012, 01:44 AM.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Indystar.com to charge $12 per month for online access starting September 1st.

            Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
            I don't think you quite understand the costs involved in the creation of content. Yes, with all of the shows and movies Netflix has streaming the licensing fees can get quite expensive when combined. When separated though those fees are nothing to a full production. What Netflix is doing with the production side is trying to attract more people to their service so that they can hopefully expand their offerings. This also means the cost to subscribe will most likely increase. Just look at a service such as HBO. It charges more than Netflix even though it has far fewer offerings because the cost to create that is far more than the cost to license 100 TV shows.
            No, HBO charges more because consumers are used to paying for more. Warner Communications was doing fine on its own; it merged with Time Inc. partly because HBO was going to be a freaking cash cow. Also, HBO has to split subscriber revenue (maybe 40-60% of the $20/month) with other cable providers like Comcast, Cox, etc., whereas Netflix gets 100% of subscriber revenue.

            You're not paying 2 1/2 times more for HBO because content costs for HBO are 2 1/2 times as much as Netflix.

            Originally posted by Eleazar
            While the cost to keep servers up and running is not as much as creating something physical, it is also not as cheap as you think.
            I'm not sure how this affects HBO itself, Netflix or Gannett since a majority of the costs associated with the usage of their servers are fronted by mobile/cable providers. If you're referring to the sites for the respective companies themselves, along with storage, then Netflix's costs are the highest amongst the three.

            Originally posted by Eleazar
            You also then need to realize, while the staff is on staff for the print edition. The amount of sales of the print edition is much lower than it was 5 or 10 years ago. So while their overhead costs are probably staying the same or even increasing, the amount of money they bring in through print is decreasing. It is probably to the point now that the print cannot sustain the Star on its own, even with online advertising helping to subsidize it. So yes the online version is sharing those overhead costs.
            IndyStar.com has been around for years, and its writers mainly write for the print edition. So no, outside of maybe a few new positions, this new business model has few additional overhead costs. I'm sure ChicagoJ or someone in his position can semantically disagree with that.

            Originally posted by Eleazar
            It is certainly possible the $12 is at a higher profit margin, but it most likely is probably rather small.
            See above.

            Originally posted by Eleazar
            The only reason why Netflix can charge what they do for streaming is because their streaming selection is not very good.
            I would say the opposite; the selection is good enough that they can charge $7.99/month. Outside of HBO and a few other partners, they have a very good selection that includes several of the best television series ever created, and up until the expiration of the Starz deal, they had a lot of mainstream full-length feature content. And if you read/believe Netflix, the share of views coming from those mainstream releases was relatively small compared to their higher level content, and that's why they didn't renew with Starz.

            But I think I understand what you're saying. The cost of licensing more mainstream content would make it impossible for Netflix to charge $7.99 and still make a profit.

            Originally posted by Eleazar
            The lack of understanding really isn't anyone's fault on here. I doubt the majority of people on here are even involved in these kinds of industries (not necessarily newspaper, but digital content) as I am.
            Heh! You'd be surprised if you knew what some of your boardmates did for a living. Maybe not.

            Originally posted by Eleazar
            The people who are to blame for the lack are those who provide the content, but don't inform the people paying, or might be interested in paying, how much it actually costs them to run the business. What the IndyStar offers probably isn't worth $12, but I also doubt they can charge much less as they are currently structured. If the Star wants to stay in business they are going to have to make some drastic changes to their business structure.
            The key is your last sentence. It's a buggy whip business. Or maybe a better example of the future of IndyStar is what happened to the vinyl record industry. Vinyl (paid-subscription newspapers as a whole) was replaced by a more convenient medium (free content on the internet) and a lot of companies/jobs in the process. However, there are a few individual companies that still make vinyl records for the much smaller (than it used to be 25 years ago) contingent of consumers that prefer to listen to higher quality artists (New York Times) on vinyl (paid-subscription).

            I think what's happening to IndyStar is unavoidable, but I think they're expediting their decline. They probably can't afford to charge less than $50/month, but that's not how pricing works. You have a few sustainable options as a business: #1-you charge the value of your service (Netflix), #2-you charge less than the value of your service as a loss leader (Amazon.com), or #3-you charge much more than the value of your service because you can get away with it (Apple).
            Last edited by imawhat; 09-09-2012, 01:38 AM.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Indystar.com to charge $12 per month for online access starting September 1st.

              Firefox users, all you have to do is turn on private browsing whenever you want to visit Indystar.com, it will reset your article count. So you don't have to lose all your browser history and cookies from useful sites.

              Pretty freaking hilarious that the entire premise of their business model can be worked around with a setting in your browser. Thats and epic fail on their part.
              You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Indystar.com to charge $12 per month for online access starting September 1st.

                Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                Firefox users, all you have to do is turn on private browsing whenever you want to visit Indystar.com, it will reset your article count. So you don't have to lose all your browser history and cookies from useful sites.

                Pretty freaking hilarious that the entire premise of their business model can be worked around with a setting in your browser. Thats and epic fail on their part.
                Sadly, their epic fail will probably work on the majority of web users.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Indystar.com to charge $12 per month for online access starting September 1st.

                  If the Indy Star want to make their online business model work, they should invest more in articles that have a national appeal instead of just reposting whatever AP article is available. That and they need to fix their advertisements on the website. They are terrible sometimes. They make it hard to navigate without having popups all the time. In fact, serving up that content has to be a considerable drain on their servers even if it's just the scripts and not the content. You can tell because any time there is a national story in Indy where the Drudge Report or MSN links to the Star, the site takes FOREEEEEEEEVER.

                  Clean up the ads and make it relevant to a wider audience... you can just go ahead and name me CEO now.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Indystar.com to charge $12 per month for online access starting September 1st.

                    Chicken and Egg really. Did lost revenues create weaker content or did weaker content kill revenues? I'm not sure, but the content is a lot worse than it was 20 years ago. It's bordering on Huffington Post AP compile rather than good local news. I do think they've tried to do more local LIFESTYLE articles in recent years, but local NEWS? They haven't been supporting that well for years. I can't imagine they have many quality journalists being given any quality time to do long research stories that really impact the community.

                    And having just rewatched The Wire I'm even more hyper-aware of these issues. So do I financially support a poor product in hopes that it rebounds and returns to filling a community need or do I avoid sending my implicit approval for the current content levels?

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Indystar.com to charge $12 per month for online access starting September 1st.

                      It's sad that newspapers are quickly becoming a thing of the past but I think they are. I enjoy reading a newspaper but I also run a business that used to advertise in newspapers and doesn't any longer. I can run an ad in the newspaper for employment for a specialized position and get perhaps 2-3 applicants for $500 in 1 week. With Monster.com com I can get several hundred applicants and have multiple adds for 1 year for the same cost. With Craigslist I can get several dozen applicants for no cost. We ran a weekly full page newspaper ad for several years up until the paper went under at a cost of about $1200 weekly. I could have changed to the sole remaining local paper but went to a web based and direct mail program for about 25% of the cost. I'd say the results are 10 times as effective as the newspaper ad. I really don't know if there's a solution for newspapers to compete. Charging for Internet access may be a good idea but only if the cost are in line with the product which I'd say this isn't.
                      Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Indystar.com to charge $12 per month for online access starting September 1st.

                        Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                        Firefox users, all you have to do is turn on private browsing whenever you want to visit Indystar.com, it will reset your article count. So you don't have to lose all your browser history and cookies from useful sites.

                        Pretty freaking hilarious that the entire premise of their business model can be worked around with a setting in your browser. Thats and epic fail on their part.
                        Like I said weeks ago, the paywall is unenforceable to anyone who knows what they are doing.
                        "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                        "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Indystar.com to charge $12 per month for online access starting September 1st.

                          In 2012, how can Gannett have such **** poor websites for their papers? Gannett is basically the Wal Mart of newspapers, I wish the Star was locally owned.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Indystar.com to charge $12 per month for online access starting September 1st.

                            It seems like the only way they could enforce this is to require all readers to login and to have their servers do the counting instead of the users computers. And even then they might just register multiple accounts.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Indystar.com to charge $12 per month for online access starting September 1st.

                              I've noticed the limit is across the board with Gannett newspapers. At least the ones I've been to so far. It's not 20 articles per month on the Indystar site alone... If you are down to 1 article left at the Star and you happen to click a news story on some other Gannett news website, then you're limit will have been reached for that site you've never been to AND for the Star.

                              Also, correct me if I'm wrong (and maybe this has already been mentioned) but I don't think Gannett blogs count against your limit.
                              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                              ------

                              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                              -John Wooden

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Indystar.com to charge $12 per month for online access starting September 1st.

                                Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                                Firefox users, all you have to do is turn on private browsing whenever you want to visit Indystar.com, it will reset your article count. So you don't have to lose all your browser history and cookies from useful sites.

                                Pretty freaking hilarious that the entire premise of their business model can be worked around with a setting in your browser. Thats and epic fail on their part.
                                And this is why I struggle to muster much sympathy for the newspaper business as a failing industry. It has been clear for a decade that print media needs a fundamental restructuring. Instead, they've been content to do exactly what the NUVO article described - loot whatever remaining silver they can find. If that is Gannett's answer to the very real and legitimate problems facing the industry, they deserve to fail. That isn't to say I hope they fail. I recognize an informed citizenry is critical to a healthy democracy and I shudder to think what will happen in the absence of any trusted, reliable news source (although I hesitate to even use those words in describing Indy Star in its current incarnation). It's evident the Star has been dying a slow, painful death for some time now, but this latest development could be a stake through the heart.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X