[allears]

The NYT has put Wirecutter behind a paywall, and they're mounting a big campaign to push it as some kind of ultimate review authority. It's not. As ever, if you're looking for internet reviews, it pays to check out multiple sites, especially sites that specialize in the kind of product you're looking for. And you shouldn't have to pay for it.

[dfdz]

It’s much worse than you are describing: NYT put wirecutter behind a two layer paywall.

They no longer let regular NYT subscribers from accessing Wirecutter, one has to buy an extra subscription (I assume almost everyone buying this will also pay for basic NYT access so it is effectively a two layer pay wall)

https://www.nytimes.com/subscription/wirecutter

This is part of NYT plan to divide their content into different groups and charge a subscription for each.

I am not sure if this strategy is smart or not, but my gut feeling is that it is a horrible strategy, and could hurt customer retention rates.

[secabeen]

They did the same with the crosswords and other puzzles.

[cratermoon]

Perfect illustration of the kinds of negative nancy comments that the article explains are a big part of negative reviews

[allears]

If it's wrong to be right, I don't wanna be wrong. Right?

[wmf]

It sounds like they're following the Consumer Reports "it's better because you're paying for it" business model. I don't know if we need two of those though.

[ramphastidae]

A good workaround for this is to search for the Wirecutter article you’re interested in via Google and then select the cached version of the page — that will show you the full content, no paywall.