I just opened Ars Technica's review of Lion intending to read it with Safari 5.1's Reader but it appears to somehow block Reader. I tried the following with no success:
- changed the extension on the url from .ars to .html but that didn't work
- Installed Readability's Safari extension but I couldn't get it to work to with any page so it might be broken in Safari 5.1
- Saved it to Instapaper but it only saved the first page.
Apparently Ars Technica thinks Safari reader is a "evil genius" plan from Apple but I think this theAppleBlog post sums up the issue fairly well.
I understand that well written long form articles take more time to write but I don't think breaking an article up into multiple pages is the answer. I know I can pay Ars Technica $5 a month to remove ads but I only ever read their Apple software and hardware reviews and Apple doesn't release new hardware or software every month. I just want a free 'lean back' reading experience. How about add more ads for longer articles?
Anyways I know this isn't a discussion forum so:
- Is there a way to use Safari Reader on blocked sites for free?
- If not is there any other service that provides a free 'lean back' experience for these blocked sites?
Best Answer
I have heard that readitlater works to assemble the full article whether you have paid for it or not.
I just went to the Introduction page in Safari 5.1 and reader is already to page 15. I'm not going to let it finish, but it doesn't look like it's blocked to me. I haven't paid yet - so something might be up in terms of server overload if reader isn't working for you.
The author of Instapaper did mention this specifically in his last podcast that it was quite possible technically for instapaper to scrape the whole article. The gist I recall is he didn't want to cross the line of bypassing ARS' intent since ARS has clearly decided to offer single page view as a benefit to their subscribers.
He urged people to spend the $5 for a month's access if they wanted the whole article to load in instapaper for later reading.
My take is that many of the services actually made sure their tools would not parse the whole article out of respect for a journal as well as an author that penned 27,000 words.