Star Tribune (& other local media)

[uptown067]

soooo many ads!

[grant1simons2]

adblock my friend

[Viktor Vaughn]

I'm not going to comment on the redesign yet, because it doesn't seem to be loading right on work browser so I'll judge after they work out the bugs.

But I've been thinking lately about the last redesign where they changed the comments options from a thumbs up / thumbs down option to only being able to thumbs up a comment.

Somehow, I think this change made the comments even worse (and I didn't think that to be possible). The comment section seems to be dominated by a handful of really ignorant reactionaries (or maybe even sock puppets) who bring down every issue to the right wing gutter. I think there's enough of them to thumbs up each other's comments and be like, wow 14 people on the internet agreed with this completely insane comment. But maybe under the old system 200 people would have scoffed at the underlying racism, the politicizing of a non-political issue, or just how completely uninformed the comment is and thumbed it down. Then it looks like a rejected idea. Like it or not (definitely not) newspapers comments are a reflection of our community. It was somewhat satisfying to thumbs down ignorance, thereby expressing the fact that this comment does not reflect me or my community. Often now reading through, there's just nothing to like. So I don't read them.

Another nice thing about the old system is you could sort by the most-liked comments (like on the NY Times). This way you could sometimes actually get a few well-informed comments that shed light on the issues of the article.

So anyway, I just mean to say I'm disappointed they don't move back to this type of system with the latest remodel. But maybe newspaper comments are doomed anyway.

[jw138]

While I can maybe understand needing to make money via online subscriptions (I still won't pay to see more than 10 articles a month though), what I can't understand is startribune.com now refusing to show content with an installed ad blocker in my web browser. I consider this dirty and uncalled for. Sorry Star Tribune, you've lost me forever now.

[Didier]

To be sure, ad revenue and to a lesser extent circulation fund the Star Tribune's news gathering operation. So if you're unwilling to look at their ads or pay for access, you're not worth having as a customer anyway.

[bus14]

Go "incognito".

[trkaiser]

If you're unwilling to look at their ads or pay for access, you're not worth having as a customer anyway.

Well said!

[mattaudio]

I'm fine looking at ads. I refused to be tracked through ads. Big difference.

[Tiller]

I'm fine looking at ads. I refused to be tracked through ads. Big difference.

This. It shouldn't be a problem as long as the ads aren't intrusive. It's something they'll have to work on too, considering adblock is even coming to Apple products now.

[Wedgeguy]

You have ads on the side I don't care. But when you have ads that cover what you clicked on to read for 15-30 seconds, then I'm not at all happy with you.

[Anondson]

I use an iOS content blocker called 1Blocker, customizable and by default doesn't block some ethical ad networks.

I'm good with ads but I become a cushion-seated rage machine when I get App Store redirects, auto play videos, abusive pop overs and dismiss fakery. 1st world problems. StarTribune loads fine for me without the ad blocker blocker, and I still see some ads, for which I'm okay if they aren't nasty.

1Blocker is letting me also knock out trackers, share widgets, comments. I'm pleased with it so far.

[Didier]

To be clear, I wasn't intending to be rude or "snarky." I'm just pointing out that, given those conditions, jw138 is not offering the Star Tribune any value, so it doesn't seem unfair that the paper is withholding its product in this case.

[xandrex]

To be sure, ad revenue and to a lesser extent circulation fund the Star Tribune's news gathering operation. So if you're unwilling to look at their ads or pay for access, you're not worth having as a customer anyway.

Yeah, pretty much this.

News gathering isn't free. If you block ads and don't have a subscription, every article you read is effectively being subsidized by the rest of us.

[jw138]

To be clear, I wasn't intending to be rude or "snarky." I'm just pointing out that, given those conditions, jw138 is not offering the Star Tribune any value, so it doesn't seem unfair that the paper is withholding its product in this case.

No, I understand. I thought about it a while and tried to analyze why things like this piss me off so much. "Free" has been the status quo on the web since it's emergence in the middle 90's. Prior to that, anything you found with archie could be downloaded with ftp, for free. For old fogeys like me everything on the Internet has always been free. It's been the norm, and the expectation. While I used to think about software in the same way, I came to the point where I had no problem paying for the software I use and actually despise those who don't. Content on the other hand seemed different. "Soft", if you will. Quick and easy to make. But I guess that's actually really not the case after all. It takes time and resources for a business to generate content. They're in it to make money and won't, if they can't. We're now at the point where web technology is mature and no longer a novelty. The business world is no longer just playing and experimenting with it. It's now a critical component for any business to succeed because the brick & mortar world is crumbling under the weight of the Internet.

This has really made me reconsider subscribing to the online version of the Trib if, and only if, ad block software can be used while viewing any and all content. I will never willingly accept ads regardless of how unobtrusive they might be. I'll certainly never pay for the pleasure of viewing them. I have too many moral issues with the advertising world. If I can block them, I will. If I can't, the content or service better be really really good, without alternatives elsewhere, and free... or good-bye!

Does anyone who pays for a startribune.com subscription know if content is still blocked while using ad block software?

[mplsjaromir]

I have an online subscription and use ad block. They they are forcing me to stop loading the entire page before the ad blcok message appears.

[jw138]

I have an online subscription and use ad block. They they are forcing me to stop loading the entire page before the ad blcok message appears.

Rats. If not for that they may have got an additional subscriber today...

[mattaudio]

Wait, you went on an entire defense of advertising and then ended with "Does anyone who pays for a startribune.com subscription..."???

Yes, I have a Strib subscription. Yes, I am fine seeing ads just as I would in the paper paper. No, I refuse to be tracked by online ads.

[jw138]

Wait, you went on an entire defense of advertising and then ended with "Does anyone who pays for a startribune.com subscription..."???

No. I expressed a change in heart about the expectation that news content on the Internet should be free. I'm willing to pay for my consumption with a subscription fee but not by means of viewing ads.

[xandrex]

I hate ads (especially pop over video) as much as the next guy, but the problem with relying on the subscription model is that it's actually pretty hard to get people to pay full freight the cost of news content creation and delivery. As in, it's never happened. Magazines in particular, but also newspapers/digital publications, rely on advertising to fill a pretty large gap between the true cost and what people are willing to pay.

After all, you've got to actually staff a media organization and then pay them wages they can survive on. Reporters and editors and designers and sales and backend functions. Even still, wages at most media orgs are pretty low and plenty of journalists make the jump to PR/communication gigs because they can sometimes double their salary with roughly the same skill set.

[trigonalmayhem]

I'm at the point in life where I gladly pay subscriptions for things I like. But the Star Tribune will never see a dime of mine because they burned any good will or trustworthiness as a news source when they helped push the stadium deal through so they could profit off their land. If they'd even maybe put some disclosures in their articles it might have been one thing, but they were as dishonest as a paper could be.