Should we use [paywall] tag where applicable?

[radious]

Idea shamelessly stolen from petercooper: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16859287

With the grow of paywalled content getting to the first page, could we please start marking it somehow? It could help avoid disappointment when a link leads to an inaccessible content.

[masukomi]

yes. please. Better would be to just automate it because there aren't THAT many paywalls i get linked to from here. Just have a list of paywall sites and have the back end preface the the link with it.

[solarkraft]

While I would agree in theory, it seems that the people at Y Combinator are not really intending to touch the HN code base.

[cm2012]

No. Support high quality journalism.

[klez]

Wait, what? How would adding an indication that the article is paywalled inhibit/hamper support for high quality content?

If an article is paywalled and I don't have any indication about this, I would open the link, notice it's paywalled and then decide whether to pay or not. If a tag is present, this just moves the decision early in the process.

So, again, how would not using such a tag help support high quality journalism?

[plufz]

I'm not sure if your question is rhetorical or not. But if you really are wondering, it's because if we click the link, chances are that we read that first paragraph of text paywalled articles usually show. That makes us interested/curious and we might pay to view it. We also feel more invested in the content after that first click.

If we only have the title in the HN feed chances are lower that we will buy the content instead of simply scrolling by. Since the latter that takes less effort.

We humans don't always make rational choices, so nudging us in the direction of paying for content – if we want to support payed content – will of course increase the amount we spend on content.

[aaomidi]

I disagree with this line of thought.

Giving readers a fair warning is the right way to go.

[klez]

Not rhetorical, I was really asking.

Thanks for clarifying.

[dzek69]

How about not allowing such content?

[craftyguy]

This is the real solution. Adding a tag will just draw people to complain about paywalls.

[klez]

In my opinion yes. It will probably just save me a couple of clicks, but it's irritating, especially on mobile.

[Someone]

Where would that end? Would links to content that’s only partially visible such as to previews on the Amazon store, or to Google books, get a tag, too?

What about geographically restricted content (parts of BBC.co.uk)?

What about pages that beg for donations, either extremely politely (theGuardian.com) or more aggressively (Wikipedia.org)?

[DanBC]

This would have been better as a poll. https://news.ycombinator.com/newpoll

The people submitting the article don't always know it's paywalled. Either they have a subscription; or they haven't hit their article limit this month; or the article is free for a few days and paywalled later.

So any tagging would be inconsistent.

[beezischillin]

Yes, please. It would be useful for me, especially when I browse HN on my phone.

[gsich]

Yes.

[trebor]

Yes, absolutely.

[tones411]

+1 for tagging

[leotravis10]

Yes, a paywall tag should be visible so the reader can know that it can't be read. Makes it much easier too.

[ThatHNGuy]

yes, please, especially when someone is liking Wall Street Journal here!

[cerberusss]

I fell into the trap of subscribing to the WSJ once. When you want to cancel your subscription, you have to call an international number where they try and stop you from canceling. There is no way to cancel online -- not only annoying but also against Dutch law.

[NKosmatos]

Another vote for the [paywall] tag

[KiDD]

Yes Please!

I just close articles that are paywalled

[krapp]

If it means no more tedious complaint threads about paywalled content, then yes.

But what am I saying? Tagging them will probably just draw people in faster to complain about it harder.