We've had a very good 2024 with readership growing substantially. Almost all our articles and resources are free for everyone. We want to keep it that way.
But that is a tough path to be on. So we will be making some changes in 2025.
Starting on Saturday, March 1, 2025, you will need to be a qualified supporter to comment.
And you will need to be a qualified supporter to receive our daily and weekly email newsletters.
Most of our daily or weekly email newsletters include valuable data summaries along with links to the latest news articles that are relevant to that newsletter. This is a very convenient way to stay updated.
You will still have the option to read those stories free, and get that data free, by going to the site directly. But to get the email in your inbox, you will need to be a qualified supporter.
The standards for being a "qualified supporter" are not changing. They remain being a supporter in Press Patron at either a $10/month or $100/year level. And as a supporter, you can also participate as a commenter. Further, you can get an ad-free reading experience.
We love our supporters. They enable us to build and extend our service in a truly independent way.
Until March 1, 2025, there will be no interim changes affecting your access to the site or newsletters. But after that the new standards will apply.
What we are not changing is everyone's free access to all our online content*. That will still be there after March 1, 2025.
If you are not already a Press Patron supporter, you can sign up here.
* Like in the real world, there is an exception. Some content we develop and produce for our subscription Banking & Finance Daily Newsletter will still be exclusive for those subscribers, even if we do post the headlines to our main website. Details of that specialised service aimed at senior financial industry executives is here. It is an email-only service, and does not offer special access on the website.
154 Comments
All the property speculators who refuse to stump up $100 annually to post "spruik to the moon" on a daily basis speaks volumes about the value of their contribution... or their cashflow. Bring it on.
Edit: Its $1.90ish a week. Give up one coffee a week and you will save money. Really surprised people cant see the value in that.
@ Averageman - All the tenants who refuse to stump up $100 annually to post "my greedy landlord" envy sob stories on a daily basis speaks volumes about their personal financial position...or their lack of. After all, their greedy money hungary soleless landlord who feasts on tenants tears has left them with nothing spare to give right? After rent they barely have enough to cover the ciggies, 2 cups of coffee, netflix, Disney plus, sky, uber eats, after pay, lavish holidays for the gram influencing and multiple consimer loans. What a terrible position to find onesself in, having to pay someone else to house you because ones financial priorities out way out of wack. Bring it on.
I think you'll find all these "greedy landlords" will have far more disposable income than all those entitled tenants. If anything, we will see less tenants complaining endlessly that it's everybody else's fault bar themselves why they can't buy a house.
Edit: (Not just the comments for free, but a bit of free financial advice for ya too, how crazy is that! Tenants just love free stuff) - Temporarily give up the ciggies, the vapes, 2 daily cups of coffee, netflix, Disney plus, sky, Uber eats, after pay, consumer loans & lavish frequent holidays for the gram influencing, get in a boarder or two instead, and you will save money. Really surprised people can't see the value in that.
Delayed gratification - a short term sacrafice for a long term goal. This is how ownership is achieved. That will look different for each person. "Let's do this".
Not really, it could be a perfectly principled decision.
If I pay to comment, does that then mean I get to say what I want without censure?
Also, it seems a bit hard that author writers don't get to comment (eg per PDK he isn't paid for it). In my view those in that contribute an article should be able to comment, even if only on their own article.
This is an interesting move, I recall one time the comments were down and how little time I spent on the site. I wish the owners well even though I think they're underestimating the value of the commenters/comment section.
As a reminder, I've said multiple times before, give me a blue tick or something different to represent supporting the platform only and ability to comment without supporting the notion that this site is 'independent' and I'll subscribe. The regular articles aren't of much value aside from the conversations they generate below to me - could just link to a headline and let the comments flow as far as I'm concerned.
Censorship is rife in our lives now, problem is you look for alternative sources and you get called a conspiracy theorist. Sometimes it doesn't appear as censorship rather just an entire omission from the news like it never happened. Lets be honest here its the housing articles that draw in the 200 comments, there has been some other useful stuff on here and it has received zero or maybe 10 comments at best.
Yep. Discussions on how wrong most people were on house prices and interest rates, and also weird discussions on how to stiff old people out of their pension entitlements just because many people are poor planners and like to moan about it (as they have no planned and like to pen a million excuses here as to why not). They seem to be the most popular types to comment on, and the debate sure is interesting (mostly wrong, but still interesting). I also find it very interesting that this is actually supposed to be a financial web site, but very few people that comment here have the slightest clue about markets, interest rates, or anything related to finance (apart from the fact that many of them know they have made huge mistakes and their finances are buggered). But yes, you are correct, many of the most relevant articles here receive little to no attention at all, as they do not relate to housing or other things that people like to moan about.
"I also find it very interesting that this is actually supposed to be a financial web site, but very few people that comment here have the slightest clue about markets, interest rates, or anything related to finance"
Financial web site is different to a financial markets web site. Very small proportion of people in NZ have experience or interest in financial markets.
There does seem to be a larger number of people in the community involved or interested in the property industry and property finance industry.
Hi David,
Yes logging in on Press Patron is a bit cumbersome.
As an aside, an upgrade that would be welcome would be notifications on responses to comments you have made and easy navigation to said comments (click to view comment). Also being able to view all your own commentary plus all the commentary of others individuals. Also, perhaps, being able to message directly other users (who can, in turn, block such correspondence from individuals). These are standard functions of some other forums I am on.
Plus, change the blue color for one of "quotes" or "posts made after initial reading" so they don't look the same.
Just some suggestions. I hope the move to commentators having to be paid up members works well. Cheers and keep up the good work.
"We load the page content first, then the comments, ..."
Not quite how it works, David. For standard web pages anyway. For a standard web page, the web server streams an web page to a browser, and then the browser decides how best to render it using established 'rules'. One can construct a 'web page', over which the the browser has less control, but updates to browsers can break such web sites with an annoying regularity. The issue that kiwikidsnz describes can be resolved by understanding how browsers work - which is not quite the same way as the web server orders the streaming of the page. (Note: this is a general comment as I haven't done a network trace to see how exactly interest's pages are rendered, what CMS they may be using, what web server they're using, nor which OS they server is running on.)
Ditto. Excellent development.Without venturing into identification there have been more than enough commenters who have been incessantly strident going on boorish in deprecating and demeaning other participants and being unjustifiably personal whilst at it . From memory none of whom are green ticked the introduction of which has been quite telling. That attitude in itself smacks of freeloading and personally I will not be sorry to see it disappear. I anticipate the calibre of the site will improve markedly next March once this policy is in place. With a bit of luck some of those of that ilk will filter off well before March 2025.
Likely a necessary change in revenue model for survival of the business? Advertising revenues are likely to have fallen substantially in the current environment.
A potential unintended consequence - if there a commenter that breaches comment policy, they will be allowed to continue given that they have paid their subscription? Under the free to comment approach, that commenter's account would have been restricted or deregistered.
Makes sense, how else do you raise revenue without putting some articles behind a paywall, in which case the comments won't be available at all to non-subscribers. Don't think it is fair to shift more of the burden onto the current paid subscribers either...
I will likely start contributing though I fear the comments section, which is a big attraction for many including myself, won't be quite the same.
Survival of a niche comment forum like this only gets harder. Have to compete with the likes of Facebook, YouTube, Discord and the myriad other outlets people can release their brainfarts on.
Kinda sucks as online discourse only gravitates towards either being extremely generic, or extremely fringe.
Either from your log-in page options, or here:
https://www.interest.co.nz/newsletters-sign-up
The 'breakfast briefing' and the 'what happened today' may be improved with only comments by paid contributors - its taking too much of my day wading through the comments.
However for other subjects it should be left free. For example a reader may chose to only comment on a narrow range of issues. Some examples: Christianity, Water ecology, Pre-schooling, Bridge building, Railways - if there is a serious article about these issues and a reader has expertise If in 2025 there is an article about replacing the Auckland Harbour bridge we want comments from those who have built bridges and tunnels.
singautim,
If in 2025 there is an article about replacing the Auckland Harbour bridge we want comments from those who have built bridges and tunnels.
I think well argued comments from potential users and those directly affected-property owners on the proposed route- would be equally valid.
I think this is fair play. I've been a member for years now and really enjoy the articles. Just pay the $10 per month! It saves your partners listening to you go on about your property reckons, or your DGM vs Spruiker rants.. think of it like a cheap therapy session.
The amount of time spent on this site reading the articles etc $10/month is worth it for me just for the ad-free aspect. It's certainly a great website that seems to have a fair bit of worth to a lot of regular commenters and would be a shame if they don't contribute financially.
Aaaannnnd there goes the website. Thumbs up if you just come here for the comments, but will likely stop coming if it's just the same subset of paid up subscribers repeating their tired old taking points.
David, I've had nothing but respect for all you've done here, but mate, this is brainless.
Agreed (to some extent). My view is this will become a de facto 'referendum' on whether users come to the site primarily:
a) for the articles
or
b) for the comment section
I hope for the sake of the site owners/editors it is majority a and not b.
I pay for NBR, for example, not because I really care for the comment section (in part because it has such a low character limit that nobody can write anything meaningful comment-wise) but because I typically find the articles to be very good. E.g. their work on the Du Val saga.
If I'm honest, I come here primarily for the comment section. I do read the articles - particularly the briefing ones as they are useful for a quick run down on the day's events, but it was the comment section that has kept me here. That isn't a critique of the articles per se, more an honest reflection of why I personally spend a bit of time here each day.
Yes there are some annoying elements (like the property spruiker vs doomer war, or certain commenters always linking everything back to the end of the world) but I've long thought that the site has one of the more interesting and compelling comment sections. I'd come here for an ear-to-the-ground view of how the economy is performing before trusting the official stats, for example, and I'm not even joking.
I've had business interests in digital publishing for the best part 15 years, and one thing I've seen over and over again is the importance of understanding what draws the audience to your platform in the first place. Once you lose your "USP" it can be tricky to recover.
I fail to see how the comment section can retain its current "utility" and value if restricted only to paid-up readers. I fully respect the decision of the Interest.co.nz to do what they wish with the site ... it's theirs. But I can't help but feel it could be a commercial mistake in the long run.
I'm firmly in the b) camp, share your sentiments and know how little time I spent here when the comments weren't operating for a period (possibly post an upgrade). I know they will still be operating this time, but I think a thinning out of the ranks (on the basis of paying or not) will lower the value of the comment section.
To me the comments section should be worked on in other ways to increase their value such as only one comment per article for non-payers and the other good suggestions made in this comment section - possibly by non-payers!
Still, I guess it would be easy to reverse if readership takes a hit. I wonder if it's possible to measure the time people spend looking at the article vs the comment section based on scroll position.
Hi David. I trust the decision works out like you hope. I subscribe, and will continue to do so, because of the quality of the journalists and opinion providers. Comments are a mixed bunch. People like Jfoe are very good and you can actually learn something. Powerdownkiwi not so valuable. There is also a swag of very good information under your headings, which I also refer to. Thanks again, to you all for your efforts!!!!!
This is going to be something of a conundrum for powerdownkiwi. How will he justify wasting some worthless token attached to some non-existent future resource to be able to still comment on here. He will have to consume precious resources to rant at everyone not to use precious resources, cos de-growth. It will be interesting to see if the green tick appears above his name.
The conversation just now with she who (likes to think) holds the purse strings:
Me: "Darling, can I spend $100 a year supporting a great financial news site"?
Her: "No! ... [something I can't repeat here in mandarin] ... Too much."
Me: "How about $50?"
Her: "Okay."
Me: [Stunned silence. I'm not even going to ask her what her rationale was - life is too short.]
I guess what I'm trying to communicate is that there may be considerably better conversion rate at a lower price.
That wouldn't have worked. She's not that stupid.
And if I'd started at $200, and then $100, and then $50 and then $25? I'd have got a no all the way to zero. She's not that stupid, either.
edit: $2 per week wouldn't work either. She's annually fixated. ;-) Using $1 a week might have. I'll try that one after a few months. (price discovery is fun, right?]
@ Chrisofnofame - "there may be considerably better conversion rate at a lower price".
There sure is buddy. Called free speech, and it's free. The left believe it is an act of terrism as their dear leader has told them, but on the contrary one need not pay to have a voice, and to be able to use it.
Being charged a fee to voice your approved opinion on an approved subject is not free speech, its paid propoganda.
How high are you willing to jump? How much are you willing to pay? To ensure that you stay within the boundaries of approval?
But, Yvil, you miss the point.
If the method of making money shifts the habitat parameter-envelope beyond what we evolved to fit?
You end up with a whole lot of crumbling skeletons lying next to crumbling laptops - which once told them they had some numbers accredited to them.
Do you not, perhaps think, the 'financial' decisions are somewhat subservient, importance-wide? If not, go join the current 3-clown circus; they haven't a clue between them.
Hamish. I agree. Comments from subject matter experts, interesting anecdotes from the front lines and some of the humorous exchanges are drawcards for me. I get DC's position and salute his roll of the dice but wonder if the site will be as attractive without the same level of ranting and banter.
Yvil - I happen to be paid-up a year ahead - but you comment is wrong.
Financial nous is almost always ignorant of realities. As too, is a lot of academic pointy-end assertion.
But the biggest problem DC/Interest has, is that the truth is unfolding reasonably rapidly now, and a lot of journalism is going to have a lot of explaining to do. Few will be seen to have done enough for a mallowpuff.
I support the move. There’s plenty of rubbish online but decent content costs real money to produce, so I’ve been very happy to spend $100 pa (only 27 cents a day) to support - regardless of whether I’m coming for the articles or comments. I would hate to see a reduction in content quality due to lack of funding.
I think it’s a good decision and wish you all the best with the move.
Ok how about just showing that someone is a supporter with an icon silver gold platinum, works well with games for qudos, does not put up a paywall, and does not close off comments to regulars. Everyone should have an opinion. That would be a sad move to close off comments to those who can least afford it.
It used to be like that but regrettably some participants here have used the platform to vent and promote over zealously, personal viewpoints that are simply vacuous, oddities, fantasies and attach often, pure propaganda. The moderators shouldn’t need to suffer that anymore than any of us. All that is being introduced now is a desire for a tightening up of some discipline, objectivity and general standards. Bit overdue I think.
HMMM - I have come to the point where I can point out untruth in most of what comes from the MSM - Including much on this site. Having challenged journalism on that score, I can tell you it self-preserves, then continues peddling. One - not from this site, but on the Press Council at the time, and maybe still - used methods I would describe as 'unnecessary if one was telling the truth'. So they have a long way to go, and events are overtaking the mainstream narrative.
This is why many - who get that 'economic growth can go forever and is always good' is untrue - have gone down rabbit-holes (convinced the Elite are planning to do away with them etc). Ironically, history tells us they're somewhat right (I'm just reading 'Late Victorian Holocausts'; El Nino famines and the making of the Third World - Davis/Verso - which you would enjoy; we didn't tell ourselves the truth then, either).
Those who got close to it in the past were Kim Hill and Chris Laidlaw. Now Gareth here somewhat, and Danyl McLachlan ditto (he still hasn't questioned money). There is nobody else in the barnyard, and the fox just broke down the door...
Too right.
We have fallen into 'opinion vs opinion, pick the one which suits you'. It fitted laissez-faire dog-eat-dog growth-forever we are what we consume.
But truth ain't what we like - it is what it is (try coming out of oncology with a 3 month sentence - a second opinion is going to nullify it? I don't think so).
I've spent the last 20 years - and more - researching all things, as they interrelate. More time than a PhD - probably more than two. Probably more casual lecture attendance, than a BSc would require - and a personal (non-fiction) library wider than most. All read a least once. I realised after 2005-8, that finance couldn't be right, so learned about it. And it isn't. By some measure. The interesting aside, is the number of people who need that not to be true, because it would invalidate their narative, ego, whatever. Usually vulnerable-if-pricked types, I've found, maybe adding a reason for the recalcitrance.
Look around, Yvil. When I started commenting here, there were 2 billion less global inhabitants, than now. Every 11 days, since then, we have burned a billion barrels of oil; they're gone while we wrote.. Yes, I'm sure of truths...
In your greater than PhD level study, why didn't you pick up the population is going to retrench?
I picked up on that at around the age of 8, when I noticed I had less siblings than my parents, they had less than theirs, and much the case for most of my friends at the time.
Fair enough. The masses though think en masse. For instance in the eighties the Middle East was serviced primarily by Gulf Air, flying primarily 727s. Nowadays at least four major international airlines are flying from that region and often half empty of passengers, A380s, A350s , 777s you name it, to all points of the compass, globally, Fuel for said enterprises is conveniently underground owned by said nation. The world’s population witless you would say, lap it up and climb on board and I would wager it will continue to do so until said nations are reduced to selling dates and sandpaper. Barry McGuire, the “Eve of Destruction” years ago was banned, folk just don’t want to hear what they don’t want to hear. Billions of them in one shape or form, whether they know it or not, until it’s too late.
I appreciate your posts PDK. I've learnt a lot from what you've posted. When I first read your stuff I thought you were a bit pompous and used complicated words to sound clever.
But I've since done some research on some of the ideas you discuss and you're 100% right. We're breaching planetary boundaries on some many levels, and the systems we have in place are not going to be able to cope as they can't even recognise that there is a problem.
The push back comes from those that can't face the consequences of what you point out, so you get shot as the messenger. Kia kaha.
agnostium,
PDK is indeed clever and climate change is all too real, but I now pass over his comments. Why? Because i know precisely what he will say (which represents an admirable consistency over many years), but more importantly, because he admits of no possibility of error-he reminds me of old testament prophets. I find his absolute certainty on the(very bleak) future of mankind to be repugnant. In his view, Earth's carrying capacity is under 2bn,making global societal collapse inevitable-in the not too distant future.
He may be right, in which case, my grandchildren's future is bleak indeed, but I am not prepared to accept that. I certainly accept that everything we mine is finite, so moving on from fossil fuels makes sense, irrespective of climate change and the process is very unlikely to be smooth.
Agreed, PDK thinks he's right and others are wrong, he doesn't believe in nuances. He admits above that he knows the truth ! That, to me, is a clear sign of short sightedness and narrow-mindedness. Life is much more nuanced than black or white.
PDK: "I have come to the point where I can point out untruth"
PDK: "your comment is wrong"
thinks he's right and others are wrong
Who doesn't?
he doesn't believe in nuances...sign of short sightedness and narrow-mindedness
He gives a range for when things go tits up i.e. nuanced. Furthermore, he has admitted to being wrong on things in the past which shows an ability to change when new information emerges.
Tell me why you think we can go on the way we have with 'growth' in population, resource use and debt, yet not hit a significant problem in the next 20 years? We already cannot afford ourselves at current levels e.g. health and housing.
Shoot the message, not the messenger. Will be PDK be wrong about some things? Of course, but the elephant doesn't disappear just because you put your hands over your eyes.
I liked how he said the truth is unfolding rapidly.
It is, but it's not really the same as the peak oil narrative he's vehemently pushed for a while.
- populations are aging
- the US is retreating from being global sherrif and hotspots are flaring
- there's economical upheaval from a COVID black swan
But
Gas price hasn't moved much in 15 years.....
Your point?
I just wrote that I realised finance had to be wrong... Before 2005-8, I believed that economists must know what they are talking about, and assumed a price of $200/barrel, as did G/Sachs. The difference is that I've realised that you cannot measure joules in keystroked debt...
My point is you've crafted a story of how the future is going to unfold, tie anything you can to it, and omit the parts that don't fit. It's the exact opposite of the sort of introspective inquiry you're trying to promote.
I'm not sure how finance gets to be wrong. I can see many of the problems and pitfalls, but it's not a game of right vs wrong.
Debt is a fairly old concept, rarely (never?) has the underwrite been measured in an accurate way, because the future is beyond accurate prediction.
In principal, I agree with much of you. But I also don't think anyone is capable of accurately predicting time-frames and means of what'll unfold. You have pinned yourself to a theory, and now need to fulfil it. You see an endgame by X date, I see a trajectory that could unravel quickly, or more likely in a longer, lingering fashion.
Fundamentally, humans haven't managed to avoid the tyranny of a power structure that's tied to larger civilisations. To me, overcoming that is a more pressing question than things like resource depletion, or limits to growth.
Well, freedom from thought is probably the largest pressing question.
It used to be like that but regrettably some participants here have used the platform to vent and promote over zealously, personal viewpoints that are simply vacuous, oddities, fantasies and attach often, pure propaganda. The moderators shouldn’t need to suffer that anymore than any of us. All that is being introduced now is a desire for a tightening up of some discipline, objectivity and general standards. Bit overdue I think.
Making people pay to comment will not prevent that. Some of the most obvious examples you give are posted by people with a green tick. Paying to be heard has never, never been a way to achieve better discussion. It's the opposite actually. Those who can afford to pay and have time to comment will come to dominate the discussion and create a warped view of what the general feeling is in the community. I really, really oppose this move. Removing barriers to discussion rather than putting them up is what we should be doing.
I wouldn't be surprised if the comment section just moves to another site where a link to the article is posted (which will still be free to access) and where people can comment freely, but now rather than being moderated by interest the comments are moderated by whoever sets the site up.
Disagree. According to the summary by the editor, here not so long ago, the subscribers, the green tickers if you like, are in a substantial minority. To conclude, even pro rata, that they harbour the majority of comment that is disagreeable is rather disproportionate. Still come 01/03/2025 you should be able to judge that well enough from the sidelines.
Nowhere did I say those that pay or will pay harbour the majority of comment that is disagreeable. I said only allowing those who pay to comment
1 - does not prevent the type of comment that was mentioned as some commentators with a green tick makes these comments
2 - will result in less plurarity of views as there will be a significant number of people who even if they wanted to could not justify paying the fee, which means that we lose their voices in the comment section. The fact that most of the people with the green tick think $100 a year is nothing shows how disconnected they are from many kiwis. That $100 for some people is the difference between their kids being able to join a basketball team, or have Xmas presents.
You have either misread what I wrote or have a poor grasp of logic. Apologise and move on.
Understandable, though I hope you have a plan for assessing the impact of these changes once implemented. I suspect you may see a fall in the number of visitors with less content (yes, the comments are valuable content that is provided to you in return for the hosting of them). Hopefully this doesn't have too much impact on the revenue you collect through advertising.
Personally I would be interested to see what might happen if you were to apply a comment quota to free accounts.
Fair call. In the past I've asked for flexibility on the amount - I am irregular reader, and even more irregular commenter. Would've been happy to pay 50 bucks to support a good site.
More recently the comments hold less and less insight (I appreciate this comment can be added to that pile), and act more as a vehicle for entrenched positions to be communicated. I'll continue to pop in now and then especially for the great currency pieces from Kerr and Wong.
I'm on the fence as to whether I would pay to continue to contribute to the discussions on this site. I have a rule where I don't pay for any site, where that site is also collecting money from advertising. Such a site should stand on it's own through the quality of its content. I notice Stuff started popping up some sort of logon and request for money recently, so I simply stopped using it, their news is generally old and not accurate anyway, which is true for most NZ media. They always seem to be several days or weeks behind in international news stories, so mostly I consume news from international sites. This site, is classified as a left leaning site, and it is clear from many of the contributors that they are quite left wing types, which is fine, and has led to interesting debates on many topics. What I will say is that this site is not like "thestandard", which is very feral site. I had heard about that site and went to have a look one day to see what it was all about. Quite disturbing content, far to the left of here. I decided to join and post a comment, obviously disagreeing with something someone posted about the ACT party. I was immediately banned, so I guess that is why they seem to have so few users. So big ups to interest.co.nz for at least letting debate continue here as long as it does not get too unreasonable.
Anyone who thinks in the limited terms of left and right politics, is failing to scope by some orders of magnitude.
Communism (not its real name) draws down resources just as a free-market economy (not its real name) does.
The problem is resource draw-down; by whom? is a side issue.
Liberty of a seperate thought. Strikes me now that you have broken cover as a subscriber you may have lost some sense of subtlety, and perhaps strategy. After all, come 2 March 2025, you would still have able to sally forth on here as to be expected, and likely to the surprise of many, and done so without the green tick as if Zorro without the Z slash. Just a thought.
I think you are the one that thinks in limited terms, i.e. you are right no matter the question or the subject matter. Whatever you blurt out is correct, and everyone else is wrong. That is what I would call very limited thinking. I have seen you blurt out something, and then someone agrees with you (doesn't happen often I know), and then you launch into some tirade about how wrong are. So, limited and bizarre thinking going on there.
There is this information that I see most years, this link appears to be from 2020.
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/06/which_media_are_seen_as_most_left_an…
Interest is left leaning, as I said, well according to those that completed the survey.
...and from powerdownkiwi's confusing mutterings it seems he would prefer it to be far left.
So -9 on a scale of -100 to +100 is a left leaning website?
Just below the results is this very quote from the author.
Interest.co,nz comes closest to neutrality.
I think you're seeing things that aren't there. I'd say interest.co is about as close to neutral as you could get. Whatever the flavor of any political thought pieces, the comments are only policed on rules and any comment that is strongly supportive or negative against the article is left alone unless it's abusive.
I have a rule where I don't pay for any site
Understandable, but this is the real world today, where it becomes harder and harder to get a full product with no additional subscription costs, or having to pay to continue using after a period of time. The world is out to extract as much money as possible from you as possible of course. I don't pay for any other sites, and although I don't have to pay for this one, I find the diverse and educational discussions in the comments section, as well as the range and quality of the journalism is both refreshing and worth supporting. As you say, stuff went to the dogs and effectively lowers ones IQ by reading it, but intetrest.co.nz provokes thought, reflection, and analysis from various angles which is more than any other site I know or read.
I dont recommend this. Every site that has made comments only available to subscribers has ended up dying a quick death due to lack of comments. Like Macrobusiness, which used to get hundreds of comments on an article when it was free to comment but now gets just one or two. Macrobusiness lost so many commenters that I actually stopped paying my subscription because the site just wasnt delivering the additional content. The comments section is the best part of Interest - will people still pay for Interest if there are no comments?
Also the comments section will rapidly devolve into a small group of commenters who start to use the site as a personal chat room, discussing their weekend plans and other boring stuff because they are the only ones there. Which turns other readers right off.
People come to this site often just to read the comments. A substantial reduction in comments and people will lose interest (pun intended).
I am one of the freeloading commentators and I think it's a really good change. If we can't spare a $100 a year considering the value the platform provides, we really shouldn't be able to get away commenting can we...
I mean, I still won't get approval from the wife to spend $100 on interest.co.nz vs on the mortgage, but nevertheless I'm in support.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.