Maybe the NYT doesn't like it when you link to them . . .

http://www.newser.com/off-the-grid/post/11/The-New-York-Times-is-Falling-Down-Falling-Down.html (AKA Read Less, Know More)

Just in case you were wondering about Michael Wolff's perspective in the Gawker article.

http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090319/the-new-york-times-slaps-another-web-wrist/

Incidentally I got the link above from Brownstoners twitter. Hmm. So far most of these stories about The NYtimes are being generated by competitors and those directly effected by its action. I'm not saying that means anything, just saying I find it curious as a reader.

bleibtreu wrote:

"Google's famed PageRank algorithm, which weighs Web pages based on how many other pages link to them, and based on the rank of those linking pages. So the newspapers and magazines are basically whining they don't get enough links"

This is a little off topic, but... that's a wildly simplistic and inaccurate explanation of how Google ranks results. While the papers may be arguing that their content should be higher placed in results, the Gawker writer's jump from there to "they don't get enough links" show that he's clueless about how the algorithms work today. More links from blogs wouldn't be the solution.

Bleibteu-I wouldn't consider your remark off topic at all. I think it is on point. I have no idea how the algorithms work myself, (I'm actually still wildly impressed by the ratchet) but at least we know what the Boingboing post was referring to now.