First in Print-Cincinnati Enquirer's New Policy

[Johnny Footstool]

It's sad how the publishing industry is desperately clinging to its outmoded business model.

[WMR]

LOL way to try to turn that clock back to the 1980s, Enquirer. I'm sure this will be a huge success.

[Cyclone792]

The only reason I ever read anything on the Enquirer web site is because it was easy. Frankly, the quality of that newspaper isn't anywhere near worth running out and buying a daily copy. Most likely what's going to happen is I'll quickly learn that I won't miss whatever it is the Enquirer is preventing me from reading online.

[KronoRed]

People who would be bothered by this,ones who want the local stuff now, already subscribe to the paper, otherwise people will just go elsewhere.

[GIDP]

I wasnt aware anyone really read any of John Fays stuff other than his blog.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by Cyclone792

The only reason I ever read anything on the Enquirer web site is because it was easy. Frankly, the quality of that newspaper isn't anywhere near worth running out and buying a daily copy. Most likely what's going to happen is I'll quickly learn that I won't miss whatever it is the Enquirer is preventing me from reading online.

It could be the worst newspaper in a major city in America.

[AtomicDumpling]

Since the Enquirer articles are nearly inaccessible on their website within a few hours after they are posted, I don't see any harm in posting them here on Redszone. The new policy of posting only a snippet seems like an overreaction to a minor issue. We are essentially performing the Enquirer a free service by advertising their content on this site. Without links to the Enquirer from Redszone I would probably never go to the Enquirer's website. If they want to restrict access to their content they are only harming themselves.

[Johnny Footstool]

Originally Posted by westofyou

It could be the worst newspaper in a major city in America.

www.kansascity.com

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by Johnny Footstool

www.kansascity.com

The Oregonian is pretty bad too, but Gannett butchers more news in a day than most.

I still find the Enquirer about a 10 minute read at best

[UKFlounder]

You're advertising their copyrighted content and then providing motivation for readers not to go there, because their material that Redszoners are interested in is already here. You're basically saying "They have a great article over there. Instead of going there to read it, just stay here and read it." That helps them not a single bit.

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Since the Enquirer articles are nearly inaccessible on their website within a few hours after they are posted, I don't see any harm in posting them here on Redszone. The new policy of posting only a snippet seems like an overreaction to a minor issue. We are essentially performing the Enquirer a free service by advertising their content on this site. Without links to the Enquirer from Redszone I would probably never go to the Enquirer's website. If they want to restrict access to their content they are only harming themselves.

[frenetic wave]

I have to agree with the Boss-Hogg, you guys shouldn't be stealing content. Redszone has ads now because the truth is you have to support the websites you love and if you keep posting the full articles, how does that help? I almost feel like 2 sentences might be too much. Maybe just name the thread "Interesting Enquirer Content" or something and then make the body just a link to Enquirer.com? I dunno. If someone invited you over to their house for dinner, but instead you ate the dinner they cooked at your house, then Boss asked you to not eat the dinner, would you still eat two bites then drive all the way to the house of the guy who cooked the dinner and eat the rest? If I were that guy I would still consider it stealing dinner. But I think Boss said 2 sentences is a good policy so I think that is a great way to go at it. Anyway, I can't wait for the fresh grass smell of opening day. Go get 'em, Red legs.

[Redsfaithful]

I think there's a good chance this backfires, by explicitly labeling original reporting I think people will start realizing how much AP/other papers/etc. filler is in the paper. There's a lot of space being taken up in most newspapers by wire content that can be found anywhere and that has little value, reminding people of that, even in a roundabout way, seems like a bad idea.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by UKFlounder

You're advertising their copyrighted content and then providing motivation for readers not to go there, because their material that Redszoners are interested in is already here. You're basically saying "They have a great article over there. Instead of going there to read it, just stay here and read it." That helps them not a single bit.

No, you are exposing their website to people who otherwise would not see it. That is very valuable. Posting a link to an Enquirer article here on Redszone does wonders for their search engine rankings too. Restricting access to their content reduces the amount of money they make from their website.

Webmasters all over the world would pay dearly to receive the kind of exposure the Enquirer receives free of charge from Redszone.

I own multiple websites and make my entire living off the advertising revenue they generate. I know a little something about making money on the Internet -- and reducing your website's exposure is the worst thing you can possibly do.

The Enquirer management are resorting to a failed concept of reducing online content to try and get more newspaper subscribers. This is the 21st century. Paper news is ancient history. They need to accept that and move on to maximizing revenue from their website. Punishing people for using and sharing their online content is a surefire way to marginalize their business into obscurity. They should be thrilled that people here on Redszone care enough about their poorly written articles to bother posting them and linking back to their horrific website.

Having an article with a shelf life of 24 hours used by another site in return for a permanent link is a fantastic deal for the Enquirer. It raises their search engine "authority ranking" tremendously and also sends them a good amount of direct traffic.

Website owners distribute millions of free articles to online directories every day in the hope that another website will pick them up and post them on their sites with a link back to the author's site. Webmasters would pay thousands of dollars a year for the links that the Enquirer receives totally free from Redszone.

If my websites covered topics like baseball or other sports I would pay a lot of money to Redszone for the number and quality of links to my websites that the Enquirer is getting for free.

[Mario-Rijo]

I just keep thinking this is bad for RZ and anyone else like them. If I have to go to the enquirer to read the content then why bother coming here, if I want to quote something in the article I can't (I'm assuming). Sure there is still great discussion here but this place gets a lot of traffic because all the info you need to be a Reds fan is right here. It's still here but now you have to go to the sites you have been trying to avoid in the 1st place. I trust this site, I don't trust many others with their pop-ups and what not. I'm sure my whining is not gonna change anything but that is how I feel about it.

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by Mario-Rijo

I just keep thinking this is bad for RZ and anyone else like them. If I have to go to the enquirer to read the content then why bother coming here, if I want to quote something in the article I can't (I'm assuming). Sure there is still great discussion here but this place gets a lot of traffic because all the info you need to be a Reds fan is right here. It's still here but now you have to go to the sites you have been trying to avoid in the 1st place. I trust this site, I don't trust many others with their pop-ups and what not. I'm sure my whining is not gonna change anything but that is how I feel about it.

Speaking only for myself, I don't think this will have much of an impact. If I choose not to read the Enquirer's stuff, I don't think my information on the Reds is going to be limited.