WPP

[Raptor]

I sought advice from other moderaters on this, as I wasn't aware that posting links to articles behind paywalls was necessarily against any TLF rules. And in any case, a number of us subscribe to the FT, and a direct link would be useful.

Moreover, the argument that it is useful to see the article's title is persuasive, as that helps to locate it through other means.

I don't wish to disagree with another moderator about this; simply to reinterpret things a little more sympathetically.

So here is the link: https://www.ft.com/content/617147b4-6cda-11e8-852d-d8b934ff5ffa

MDW1954

Still of no use to me. I do not subscrbie or have the "free" access. The only way for me to read the article is to "google" it. So if you are posting the link, please add a "sentence" from the article and as per Gengulphus mention it is behind a firewall. This also aids other posters to decide if they want to click on the link if they know what it is about.

Raptor.

[Bouleversee]

Breelander -

What exactly is their portfolio service?

[melonfool]

Some subscribe to the FT, while others like me have a free registration that allows us to read a few such links each month. Even without any such access, the link would at least show the title of the article. Googling that title then following Google's link to the article gives full access for all. This seems to be a deliberate policy by the FT - a 'free sample' on a Google search to encourage subscriptions.

Please do not delete FT links, there are legitimate ways to read them - but ONLY if we know what they are!

I'd suggest that those who want to post FT links could very nearly as easily copy in the headline followed by "(Google it)", and thereby contribute to educating others about those legitimate ways!

Gengulphus

I sought advice from other moderaters on this, as I wasn't aware that posting links to articles behind paywalls was necessarily against any TLF rules. And in any case, a number of us subscribe to the FT, and a direct link would be useful.

Moreover, the argument that it is useful to see the article's title is persuasive, as that helps to locate it through other means.

I don't wish to disagree with another moderator about this; simply to reinterpret things a little more sympathetically.

So here is the link: https://www.ft.com/content/617147b4-6cda-11e8-852d-d8b934ff5ffa

MDW1954

Sounds like a good theory but the headline does NOT appear in the URL. And when I click on it, I just get a paywall, so the whole post is of no use.

Mel

[Bouleversee]

I can get it OK and I only take the FT on Saturdays.

[PinkDalek]

I can get it OK and I only take the FT on Saturdays.

Have you ever subscribed to the free views per Bree's earlier replies?

I get to Subscribe to the FT to read: Financial Times Martin Sorrell’s downfall: why the ad king left WPP although I have read the entirety using Google.

Other newspapers do have the story, of course, although maybe not in such detail. Such as here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... itute.html
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/ ... llegations

[Bouleversee]

PD -

I don't think so but I do pay for my Saturday FT by direct subscription and it is delivered by my newsagent, along with The Times.

[Breelander]

Sounds like a good theory but the headline does NOT appear in the URL. And when I click on it, I just get a paywall...

...which says, in the blue bar across the top...

Subscribe to the FT to read: Financial Times “Martin Sorrell’s downfall: why the ad king left WPP”

[melonfool]

Sounds like a good theory but the headline does NOT appear in the URL. And when I click on it, I just get a paywall...

...which says, in the blue bar across the top...

Subscribe to the FT to read: Financial Times “Martin Sorrell’s downfall: why the ad king left WPP”

I was replying to whoever said the headline would be in the URL posted, it is not. Plus, knowing I can't access the ft why would I even bother to click on it?

People really should only post links anyone can access.

Mel

[ElectronicFur]

People really should only post links anyone can access.

I disagree, especially in the case of the FT, as anyone can access the link via googling the title. The FT used to make it harder to see the title of the article if you were not a subscriber, but it's easy now. I have read many useful articles thanks to fools posting FT links, both here and on the old motley fool site. So I really hope it continues to be acceptable to post FT links. Yes it's better to provide an alternative link if it has the same info, but many times that is not the case.

[Gengulphus]

People really should only post links anyone can access.

I disagree, especially in the case of the FT, as anyone can access the link via googling the title. ...

Only theoretically. In practice, only people who spot that it's an FT link and who know that particular fact about the FT can do so, and that's probably quite a small proportion of readers...

Gengulphus

[PinkDalek]

I've also noticed that if one puts 617147b4-6cda-11e8-852d-d8b934ff5ffa into google you should see the article's url. When I clicked on the result of the search just now, I was asked a simple question which then gave me full access. There seems to be many ways to get there but, as others have said, putting something along the following is probably the simplest and most courteous:

Martin Sorrell’s downfall: why the ad king left WPP [< << search in Google's cache if direct access not available or words along those lines]
https://www.ft.com/content/617147b4-6cd ... b934ff5ffa