Don’t you hate those sites that make you register in order to see the content on their sites? A lot of newspaper sites specifically do this, and it really annoys me.
There are several workarounds for this, such as extensions like BugMeNot, which will allow you to use an account from a pool of free accounts submitted by other users, but there are some cases in which no one has created an account via that plugin, and you don’t want to be the first. Also, popular sites probably (or at least could) regularly check these extension databases and deactivate those accounts.
Today I saw a clever workaround for this: be Google!
The concept is that these sites still want their content indexed, since they know that people find pages by searching, but they also want real users to have to register (and give them an e-mail address, etc.). The catch is that the only easy way for them to make that distinction is also fairly easy to work around. Extensions like the User Agent Switcher make this a breeze.
14 Comments
so many naughty uses for this too…
I think it’s their content so they get to make the rules. If I don’t like their rules I don’t read thier stuff. Their loss, my loss. Whatever, at least we’re all being fair.
It would be good for http://ExpertSexChange.com
Damn, they changed the url for the more obvious reasons.
http://www.experts-exchange.com/
Excellent.
[Link]
HA HA, I posted you on Digg
Yeah, I saw that in your feed earlier.
I was almost going to set up a digg account just so I could respond to the first comment, but the next commenter already said pretty much what I was going to say: this trick won’t work everywhere, but it does come in handy for those sites that fit the profile I described (they want their site indexed but also want to require registration).
BTW, (and kind of on topic for this post) I think it sucks that you have to register to comment on digg.
I don’t know how I missed it before, but I didn’t catch Nate’s comment earlier. As for playing by their “rules”, I see your point, but at the same time you could argue that they can’t have it both ways.
For the sites on which this trick works (specifically some newspaper ones), they have made the decision to configure their sites this way, so in effect they are allowing it by their policy. They always have the option of not allowing Google to index their site, or going through some extra measures to allow the Google bot (or other search engines) that don’t involve only the user agent description.
Whether they choose not to do this consciously or just out of lack of knowledge is unclear (and probably differs from site to site), but either way, I’ll take it as an open invitation, since there are means they can take to “fix” it if they so desired.
ah, the old “it’s ethical if they fail to prevent me from doing it” argument…
As it relates strictly to this specific issue, yes - not a blanket rule. Every situation is different.
They made the conscious decision to allow page requests containing certain user agent descriptions to bypass their registration process, while at the same time they know (or should know) that people can easily specify any user agent string they want to.
So, in my opinion, they are OK with this, which is probably fairly accurate (as opposed to being my own convoluted justification for doing it). They probably do know that this workaround exists, and probably also know that few will do it, so they don’t really care.
so you’re okay with minors buying alcohol and cigarettes with fake ids? i know you said it’s not a blanket rule, but that seems like the same scenario to me. so few do it that it’s not worth law enforcement’s time to prevent every single instance.
right and wrong are not determined by enforcement.
No, those situations are completely different. One huge difference (ethics aside) is that minors buying alchohol and cigs with fake IDs is illegal, both for the minor buying them AND for the shopkeeper selling them.
In addition, there are many other obvious ethical issues with the scenario you presented, whereas I don’t see anyone being harmed at all by going to web sites without registering.
I never said that right and wrong were determined by enforcement, I was just pointing out that in this specific instance, where prevention is a very simple matter of configuration, someone somewhere along the line at those companies has decided that they don’t really care that much about forcing people to register to read their content.
As for this particular situation, I see this as no ethically different than someone “beating the system” by taping (or DVRing) their TV shows and fast forwarding through the commercials. Since I’m pretty sure you do this, do you feel guilty about violating some sort of implied contract that accompanies your viewing of those broadcasts?
good points, although i think (just knowing the way businesses work and the way i’ve seen lots of tech staff withhold information from stakeholders simply because they don’t want to go to extra trouble) this decision was made by whoever configured the site. if an executive were informed that someone could spoof google and bypass registration, they’d put a stop to it.
i guess i’m just mad because i can’t spoof google to play bottle cap games.
Yes, I’m with you on that; the decision was probably made by the tech guys and they probably did tell the management that people must register in order to view the content. However, as an external observer, I’ll take any action (or inaction) that an employee of that company makes as done on behalf of that company as an entity, and their internal communication issues are their own problems, so I still feel OK about it. At least that’s what I’ll keep telling myself.
BTW, you wouldn’t want to anonymously play bottle cap games would you, because what if you win?