The New York Times has a science blog. A science blog that I cannot access because I am not subscribed to TimesSelect. The Times wants readers to pay to read a blog. This is worse than a blog without comments.
(Via Complex Medium.)
- Log in to post comments
I'm with you on the John Hawks no comments thing, and I agree that it's silly to have a subscription based blog. The Times did the same thing with Michael Pollan's excellent blog "On The Table." I'm glad a friend of mine ponied up the money so I could borrow his access.
What's the difference between paying to read a blog -which I assume won't be plastered with ads -and reading a blog that is inundating me with them? I'm starting to feel like "not much."
Snap! Yeah, you've got a point there. There is a difference, though, between actively paying to read content versus passively paying due to advertising. I don't mind ads, but I hate paying for text on the internet. You can also subvert the ads using plugins.
Besides, it's fun to say Krakatoa!
I find it less fun when I repeat it three times a page.
Hmmmm, I sense dissension in the ranks. ;)
Reading a blog that has ads is totally different than paying hard cash to access content. It's like the difference between commercials on TV and pay-per-view. You can ignore them as you choose but someone reaching into my wallet is hard to ignore.