LOL! REAL JOURNALISM???? All they do is spread the lies of the liberals and democRATic immoral, normalphobic demons and traitors in this country., A COMPLETE POS RAG! Lies lies lies!! That is all this POS is! What a bunch of morons who follow this and think it is reality! Thank God for Fox News and the truth!!!!

No one should misinterpret anything I write as encouraging people to *not* subscribe to the Times or in any other way undermine high-quality journalism. But I'll stand by this post -- despite the best research that money can buy, the Times has not launched an effective paywall, IMHO, which is not surprising because nobody else has either, for general news and opinion sites. I  agree with the point that for a (probably very small, 1-3%) portion of the Times readership, pay as you go will be just fine. But the holes make that strictly a voluntary decision. What one has to worry about is whether the Times will loose readers among the many people who simply bounce whenever they hit *any* paywall, regardless of the quality of content. These are the potential new readers the Times will need in the future, not its current base of loyal subscribers. In point of fact, the whole concept of accessing newspapers on the web via larger computers is going to be replaced by the mobile web quite soon. Apple claims that one third of all teenagers intend to acquire an iPod, iPhone or iPad in the next six months. So if, as some have suggested, the Times paywall is actually a sophisticated experiment to determine a paid subscription model for the mobile web, I'll be the first to laud that if it proves to be true. Somehow, however, I remain skeptical.

David -- your hunch proved correct. According to Sulzberger himself in today's Times, there will be no monthly limit imposed on articles accessed through external sources -- i.e. online freeloaders such as Google News, Huffington, Yahoo and Social Networks. Crazy. This totally undermines the logic of a pay wall. RIP serious news.

Reading the comments below gives me the first glimmer of hope that someone other than I recognizes and understands the critical importance of a QUALILY journalistic enterprise to a functional democracy. Having had the privilege and pleasure of subscribing to the NY Times for the past six months only re-confirms my belief. As a Bay Area resident for 40 years, I have watched with alarm as the SF Examiner has withered away into nothing more than a free daily rag, with the SF Chronicle close on its heels. Critical stories that are condensed to a few brief blurbs in the SF Chron are afforded several pages in the NYT. The difference in knowledge and information that I gain from the Times' in-depth and thorough coverage and analysis compared to the Chron's sound-bite overview of the same story is astronomical. The high caiber reporting represented by the Times does not come cheap. C'mon people. It's time to wake up, turn off your iPod and "reality" TV, and pay up. You have far too much to lose by not doing so.

With all due respect, I think your article is missing the point.

First, I really doubt that NYT hasn't already figured out these "giant holes" as you're calling them.

Second, I'm sure they've done enough research on their audience to determine the typical NYT reader won't jump thru the hoops to get at the content via these "giant holes" and have the $ to afford the $15 a month. I think many of their reader base have better things to do with their time than juggle multiple online identities or clearing out cookies every time they open a browser.

Third, NYT has the resources and I'm sure intention to analyze traffic patterns post launch to track what's working, what isn't and make adjustments from there. I don't think they've ever said this was the "solution" but at the very least a step in the right direction to finding a viable model.

Fourth, I really doubt NYT has this as their only pan in the fire (such as tablet optimization) and are looking at other ways to generate income in order to keep "good journalism" alive and well.

I'm happy to pay for the nyt, for intelligent journalism is essential for a functioning democracy. What is $15? One or two cocktails, big deal - 7x7 promotes hedonism, yet balks at paying $15 per month for the last bastion of true journalism?

I'd rather that the nyt take my money than have government employees fattening their pensions at my expense. I hope that enough people rise to pay rather than skirt the Times's legit efforts to run a business, albeit one which happens to serve an important role in our society. And I'd rather pay than be bombarded with even more intrusive advertising, and / or have content sacrificed.

I think the point is to raise the "cost" of the free NYTimes website. If I have to jump through too many hoops to get my news, at some point it's easier to just pay. It's the same concept as Microsoft uses to get people to pay for software or that the music industry to get people to pay for digital downloads. Yes, if you really wanted to pirate Windows or to use free file-sharing software, it's possible. And the bar is really not that high. The threat of litigation isn't really a threat. But at some point it's just easier to pay for the goods. Is 50 cents a day worth clearing your cache every day? Probably not.

Yes, Frank, I've heard different versions of the Google/Facebook traffic plan -- the precise details of the subscription are still being worked out and subject to change. That includes the pricing model, which divides the year into 13 "months," which is certain to confuse consumers.

If I had to guess, this paywall will not last much longer than Times Select did. I wish The Times well, as always, I love to read it, but I think they are swimming upstream with the paywall. Better to optimize their content to the iPad and work on monetization there.

As always, David, you're ahead of everyone else in media coverage. I'm not so sure about your point on the incoming-traffic loophole, however. Paul Krugman, in his blog, says that the Times will limit access through external sources such as Google News to 5 articles per day, and that they will count toward the monthly 20. Nonetheless, as you point out, there are other ways around it.

The sad truth is that these loopholes will probably make it impossible for decent journalism to survive. In many ways, the Times is already the last man standing on what passes for comprehensive national and international reporting. Until some new monetizing formula emerges -- or better, until the computer generation gets over its juvenile insistence "never to pay for content" (which is the only thing on line with intrinsic value) -- the Internet will remain what it is now: an information catastrophe posing as an information revolution. More and more of less and less.

Yes, how dare anyone support one of the last bastions of real journalism for the onerous fee of 15 dollars a month. The easiest hole in the paywall? Read the times so much that Lincoln (the car maker) offers to pay for your subscription because you're one of the "smart consumers" they'd like to engage.