|
01 Apr 11 - 05:28 PM (#3126541) Subject: BS: New format for Washington Post-neat! From: Bill D The Washington Post has recently changed its online format. I was not overwhelmingly impressed until I clicked on the "todays paper" at the top... Now they give you images of the print version, with all the pages except classified ads included. This allows you to 'turn the pages' much as you would with a print copy and click on individual articles to read....and if this is not 'real' enough, there is a place that says "Download .pdf page" which lets you see an enlargeable version. (The also have a 'view full screen' button, but all it seems to do for me is show a pop-up of an 'almost' readable copy.) I use PDF-Xchange viewer (free version) and set my browser's preferences to open PDFs in it, and suddenly I have that entire page...even the comics pages... looking as if it were almost like old times. (I stopped the home delivery last year). THEN, one can go to any date in the last 14 days and do the same. I HOPE they will not begin charging for access.... I really like being able to scan pages like I used to do. (The New York Times is beginning a system of charging for full access) |
|
01 Apr 11 - 05:57 PM (#3126558) Subject: RE: BS: New format for Washington Post-neat! From: Bobert I like the discussions more.. There is less name calling and more thoughtfulness... B~ |
|
01 Apr 11 - 07:31 PM (#3126608) Subject: RE: BS: New format for Washington Post-neat! From: John on the Sunset Coast Thanks for the clue, Mr. D. It's bookmarked until further notice. |
|
01 Apr 11 - 07:45 PM (#3126614) Subject: RE: BS: New format for Washington Post-neat! From: Bill D Bobert... discussions more than what? All I was noting was a format... |
|
01 Apr 11 - 07:59 PM (#3126625) Subject: RE: BS: New format for Washington Post-neat! From: Bobert Sorry, Bill, but I engage in a lot of the behind the scenes debates (twitters or whatever) at the WaPo and the new format is more friendly to folks with real intelligence and less so to the flame throwers... It's good... It used to be that you could post every 3 minutes but the new format takes a little longer and has run off a lot of the knuckle draggers... Everyone is more accountable... I like that... B~ |
|
01 Apr 11 - 09:13 PM (#3126651) Subject: RE: BS: New format for Washington Post-neat! From: catspaw49 Any change of anything in DC is good. I saw the other day that Monica Lewinski is now 45 years old! Seems like only yesterday she was crawling around the oval office and putting things in her mouth............They grow up so fast. Well, I guess everybody gets 15 minutes of fame and she really sucked up hers! Send that girl a cigar......... Spaw |
|
01 Apr 11 - 10:28 PM (#3126686) Subject: RE: BS: New format for Washington Post-neat! From: Bobert Heck, Spawz... You get the ol' gal corralled up and I'll volunteer to light that cigar!!! Oh, baby... B~ |
|
01 Apr 11 - 10:40 PM (#3126688) Subject: RE: BS: New format for Washington Post-neat! From: Bill D "A woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke." ~Rudyard Kipling, The Betrothed |
|
01 Apr 11 - 11:41 PM (#3126700) Subject: RE: BS: New format for Washington Post-neat! From: MarkS Bout time they recognized that print media is going the way of the commercial sailboat. I suspect that in a few more decades using paper to get your daily dose of information will be a small niche market, kind of like recreational sailing craft are today. But it is a shame - you just cannot start fires or wrap fish with an ipad! |
|
02 Apr 11 - 09:46 AM (#3126893) Subject: RE: BS: New format for Washington Post-neat! From: JohnInKansas (The New York Times is beginning a system of charging for full access) The news that the NYT is imposing charges for access has been up at a variety of web news sites in the past few days, but while this may be a different charging policy, it apparently isn't really new. A couple of years ago, I made note of a NYT article or two (o.k. maybe two dozen?), for free of course; but when I went back to verify a citation a couple of weeks later I was informed that I had "exceeded my free quota" and would have to purchase a subscription to see another article. The "free access" may have had different limits since then, but I suspect (for absolutely no good reason) that there's always been some limit - and price - on "unlimited" access at NYT. The new "charges" have been only vaguely reported, but some say you'll still be allowed a limited number of free accesses per month(?) but will need an account if you visit too many times. I may investigate when/if I actually need to get into their stuff, but for now "vague" is clear enough for my needs. At most web news sites, stories stay up for a limited time, and once they go to archive most publishers have generally required fee payment to recover one. Even with a subscription, there may be additional fees for archived stuff. If the place where you saw it quoted someone else, the site where you saw it may not even have an archive of it. Making notes when the news is new is still a good idea if anything might be of interest later. John |
|
04 Apr 11 - 12:07 PM (#3128343) Subject: RE: BS: New format for Washington Post-neat! From: Bill D I regret to add that DEEP in the bowels of Post 'help' FAQs is the remark that full access to these new features is temporary. I have written them about my wishes that they be totally upfront as to the plans. ah, well |
|
04 Apr 11 - 06:06 PM (#3128550) Subject: RE: BS: New format for Washington Post-neat! From: Seamus Kennedy Yeah, what he said. |
|
04 Apr 11 - 07:19 PM (#3128598) Subject: RE: BS: New format for Washington Post-neat! From: Bill D well, my answerfrom the Post came.... it said " Thank you for your questions. There are no current plans to charge for usage of Today's Paper, although that may change as the online media industry continues to evaluate ways to support our journalism. " so...a hedge against needs...but usable features...for now. |