Chris Wysopal reports the Globe has closed the incognito/privacy mode loophole that used to let people read unlimited numbers of articles online without a subscription.
Deleting cookies - will that still work? (The only device I own is a smartphone; can I even delete cookies at all?)
Strictly for research purposes, I have tested and confirmed that deleting cookies still works on both desktop and android (Kindle Fire, in my case)*. In case anyone out there is even less tech savvy then me, keep in mind that deleting cookies means that you have to login again to all sites for which you keep an open login, such as email, UHub, etc.
*Incidentally, the same is true for the New York Times.
There's an extension called "self-destructing cookies" that you can set to delete always/sometimes/never. I've got it on both desktop and Android Firefox.
One need not delete all his cookies... just the glob ones!
in the case of this one, it's "ma'am" and "her cookies"
...and other similar apps will let you delete cookies selectively. This is done by means of a search for substrings of cookies' names (e.g. "globe") and then deletion of the particular cookies.
Oh, and hi to all Globe staff and Globe tech subcontractors reading this thread! Just TRY to keep us out for good! Curses, foiled again!
I have 3 browsers on my computer. Strictly for research purposes I have clicked and confirmed that you get 5 articles per browser - no techie - but guessing the cookies are browser specific?
For the record - my office also subscribes - so I can also get newsprint all over may hands and read the Globe as much (or more typically - as little) as I like.
A mode where, when you enter it, there are no stored cookies?
But the globe first looks to see if you are in a private/incognito window, and if you are then it stops dead and doesn't even bother with cookies.
So now they they've cast their lot into the hard paywall realm, will they start treating their subscribers like adults and cool it with the childish clickbaity headlines? If they're actively shunning basically all non-subscriber traffic, it sure would be nice if they stopped burning the stupid end of the content candle.
Sadly, they'll likely think they need the clickbait headlines to get people to the site so they can be told they can't read the articles unless they subscribe.
How many of them tolerate shilling and inanity from a news organization?
The Globe knows who it has to fire, if it wants to be taken seriously by readers who take journalism seriously.
They need to hire something more than communications interns with twerpy attitudes and no concept of local geography to cover local news before I will be interested in paying for their services.
I know the Globe has some good reporters.
Maybe they have enough good reporters to cover the important news that residents of the Boston area should know.
I would honestly pay good money if the Globe would investigate and communicate *to everyone* things like how real estate and economic development works here, and what is and is not corrupt about it.
You're not communicating, if you're burying the sandwich under a pile of junk food.
A good newspaper should result in an enlightened electorate, and it should scare any officials who are being bad.
Use Clearly. It's a discontinued Chrome extension from the makers of Evernote.https://www.crx4chrome.com/crx/625/
There are supported extensions that work similarly, but none has ever worked as well for me as Clearly.
No need for incognito mode.
If you want their content badly enough to go through gymnastics to get at it you might want to think about paying for it.
Back in the day, I just googled a portion of the article title in quotes, so it'd be the first search option that came up, boom free article.
Do they really think a SINGLE incognito reader is going to subscribe because of this change?
I wonder if the 'read rate' articles will start going down. (i.e. How many people really read the Globe this way).
I wouldn't be against paying per se, but $7/week foron-line only access to an OK paper is a bit much.
What are the particular Cookies? What are the Strings of the particular Cookies for deleting?
You can't just take a box of Twinkies out of the grocery store, you have to pay for them too
You also can't use your uncle's credit card without permission to fly yourself to Tahiti. But just like shoplifting Twinkies, that's not the same thing as blocking cookies to read the Globe.
I have a NYTimes and WaPo digital subscription but somehow the Globe never rises into consideration for paying for their content. They need to step up their game.
On iOS at least, tapping the reader view icon in the address field of the blocked page makes the article magically appear (and without the heinous ads). You're welcome :)
If you think it sucks so bad, stop trying to steal their content.
You mean that page views no longer determine ad revenue?
Enjoy paying more for that content now that those incognito page views won't be counted when it comes to that advertising revenue.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Copyright 2019 by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy