Anything longer than a week would eventually sideline LWN, IMO

Anything longer than a week would eventually sideline LWN, IMO

Posted Mar 1, 2003 12:01 UTC (Sat) by Duncan (guest, #6647)
In reply to: 1 week lockout is too short, IMHO by dneto
Parent article: LWN Update

<quote>
I still think that the lockout period for non-subscribers is too short.
[]
A month-long lockout would do better, I think.
</quote>

The problem with that is that at some point, the wait time begins to reduce the
value of the subscription, as well. IMO, that point is between a week and two
weeks, so the current week for subscriber only content is about right.

Why is that? A good part of the value of LWN is that it can serve as a source for
authorative stories and quotes. With a week's lockup, it gives subscribers a period
to read the content and form opinions on it, so the moment it goes free, they can
be out there pointing others to it, with comments already formulated. The
problem with making the lockup time longer is that stories a week old are already
starting to get stale, in many cases, and by a month later, nobody's still discussing
it any more. The value to subscribers of being able to authoratively cite LWN
content as a source dries up, because it can't be verified until long after the fact.
The value of the subscription, therefore, plunges.

However, there is more. As the ability to authoratatively cite LWN content goes
down, LWN becomes less of a recognized and quotable authority on the subject
of Linux and all things free source. Fewer folks are drawn by authorative quotes,
and end up liking the content well enough to eventually subscribe. People find
other sources for their Linux and open source news and commentary, and LWN
falls by the wayside. As this happens, the value of subscriptions drops even
further, and LWN becomes even less relevant to real life, however relevant it
might be to open source history of a month or more back. In a ever plunging
cycle, LWN becomes less and less relevant, and the value of subscriptions drops
lower and lower, meaning LWN becomes less and less relevant.

No one, least of all the editors, and certainly not me, wants this. I personally often
cite LWN content, and find the frustration index at being unable to point to stories
others can read begins to rise at 4 days, even. A week is a good compromise,
but get it much longer than that, and LWN would be better renamed LMH (Linux
monthly history). While history is nice, I'm paying for news, and like to cite and
link to news, not history.

---

(Log in to post comments)