http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=32703 The NewsBiscuit Community en-US Thu, 23 May 2013 21:10:12 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 q http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/search.php http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=32703#post-93132 Thu, 27 Oct 2011 21:40:31 +0000 John Ffitch-Rucker 93132@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Has it? gosh - what will hawkeye and hotlips get up to next? </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=32703#post-93101 Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:38:28 +0000 waylandsmithy 93101@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Could be! Although a fair number of the latest posts are from veterans, I think. I dunno, I've only been here 6 months myself. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=32703#post-93099 Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:10:44 +0000 dvo4fun 93099@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Yep that ronseal sub is indeed a gem</p> <p>Now, not the sharpest tool etc and so takes me a bit of time. But would that be why there seem to be more then the usual number of new writers here in the last 24 hours? </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=32703#post-93083 Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:26:07 +0000 GreenCross 93083@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>I guess the guys running the mash have decided that just taking an ordinary salary from it based on the advertising revenue isn't enough. They've decided it can make them seriously minted.</p> <p>Satire is cool, but I don't need it and I sure as hell ain't going to pay for it. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=32703#post-93082 Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:24:03 +0000 GreenCross 93082@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>I agree. Times paywall has decimated the online readership (not that I ever read it).</p> <p>They made the mistake of thinking they could apply the Wall Street Journal model. What they didn't take into account is that the WSJ is a niche product, with no real alternative out there for those who don't want to pay.</p> <p>The Times is not unique, everyone just moves to the Indy, Guardian or Telegraph - which is the same content but with different editorial slants.</p> <p>Same reason Murdoch was lobbying the government to reduce the BBC's remit. He doesn't like the fact that the BBC website provides news content for free - if it stopped doing it then he might be able to round up the major UK online newspapers into a cartel and have them all use paywalls.</p> <p>Mash is not unique. It's a shame, I liked it. But like most of the internet, it's cool - but I ain't gonna give you money for it. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=32703#post-93075 Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:47:01 +0000 Golgo13 93075@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Reminds me of this <a href="http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2010/12/01/calls-for-pay-wall-around-whsmiths-to-stop-free-browsing-of-newspaper-content/">gem from ronseal</a>. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=32703#post-93071 Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:38:34 +0000 waylandsmithy 93071@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Bad idea. Too much competition for just one to charge this way. It's a bit like The Times: haven't read it since the paywall went up. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=32703#post-93070 Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:34:42 +0000 Golgo13 93070@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>The Onion started doing this <a href="http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=29147">a month or two ago</a>...</p> <p>Mind you, the Onion has incredibly high production values, consistent quality and is worth the charge (imo).</p> <p>Mash, otoh, are having a laugh. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=32703#post-93069 Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:31:16 +0000 GreenCross 93069@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Has anyone else noticed this? I got a popup obscuring the article I'd loaded, declaring I'd had my free allowance of 10 articles every 30 days - and would I please purchase a subscription.</p> <p>Closing the popup just made it revert back from the article to the Mash homepage.</p> <p>Shambles! </p>