Posted Feb 1, 2007 8:12 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
[Link]
with the ability for subscribers to send links to others I think it's reasonable to consider extending the blackout period
Sending links ...
Posted Feb 1, 2007 22:28 UTC (Thu) by kmself (subscriber, #11565)
[Link]
... is that still available? I've looked for the feature a few times
recently and failed to find it. Should be a good advertising technique,
I'd think.
Sending links ...
Posted Feb 1, 2007 22:39 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link]
The "send a link" feature is still available. There is some information in the FAQ on how to use it.
Sending links ...
Posted Feb 5, 2007 19:30 UTC (Mon) by gerv (subscriber, #3376)
[Link]
Yes, I always find it hard to track down as well. Something else which could do with being more prominent.
An LWN reader survey
Posted Feb 1, 2007 8:53 UTC (Thu) by aschwinm (subscriber, #33817)
[Link]
I was also going to go for one year, maybe the question could have been more clear.
Beste regards
Aschwin Marsman
www.marsman.org
An LWN reader survey
Posted Feb 1, 2007 13:51 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190)
[Link]
On that particular question, I'm very happy with being able to specify a number of months for which to subscribe; but I'd have preferred to be able to specify a few more months than 19 in one go! Up to 36 seems reasonable.
As for how long articles should be subscriber-only - I don't know; having them delayed by a week was incentive enough for me, and I don't think just lengthening the embargo will necessarily encourage any more people to subscribe... in fact, perhaps it's already had a cost.
An LWN reader survey
Posted Feb 1, 2007 15:25 UTC (Thu) by grouch (guest, #27289)
[Link]
As for how long articles should be subscriber-only - I don't know; having them delayed by a week was incentive enough for me, and I don't think just lengthening the embargo will necessarily encourage any more people to subscribe... in fact, perhaps it's already had a cost.