7 ms·

This could backfire. Surely this should result in a Google penalty against Wired.com for publishing thin content? https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer

This could backfire. Surely this should result in a Google penalty against Wired.com for publishing thin content? https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2604719?hl=en https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2604719?hl=en If Wired wants the article to be exclusive on Apple News, fine, but in that case it should not be on the website. Keep it exclusively on Apple News. There is no content on this page beyond a headline.

threeseed 11y ago
It should be fine if they add it to their robots.txt file. It could alongside the other interesting exclusions: http://www.wired.com/robots.txt http://www.wired.com/robots.txt
- codewithcheese 11y ago
  Some interesting disallows there such as Disallow: /topics/Brooklyn_Police_Department. Can anyone comment on why this is?
  - PhasmaFelis 11y ago
    And /topics/Advil? Wha?
  - chkuendig 11y ago
    That seems to pop up semi-frequently, It's basically a voluntary "right to forget" provided by the publishers. http://f.cl.ly/items/1o2k3u2J343O3y3X290J/Image%202014-04-07%20at%2012.22.04%20PM.png http://f.cl.ly/items/1o2k3u2J343O3y3X290J/Image%202014-04-07... http://harpers.org/robots.txt http://harpers.org/robots.txt https://twitter.com/waxpancake/statuses/453024948475293696 https://twitter.com/waxpancake/statuses/453024948475293696
    - codewithcheese 11y ago
      Very interesting, good to know. Thanks!
- chinathrow 11y ago
  Also in there: http://www.wired.com/2007/07/fbi-spyware-how/ http://www.wired.com/2007/07/fbi-spyware-how/
JohnTHaller 11y ago
Google should penalize sites that do that exactly the way they are penalizing sites with banners telling visitors to get their app. If you want your content on the web and have the benefits of it being on the web (searchable, linkable, etc) put it on the web. If you want it "exclusively on Apple News", put it there. But you shouldn't get to have your cake and eat it too.
- modfodder 11y ago
  Penalize the site or the story? Should Google keep it out of search until it shows up on the "greater" web or are you advocating punishing the whole site because they have some content exclusively walled for a certain amount of time?
  - rhizome 11y ago
    The whole site. The site is in the best position to know what is publicly available and which is within the walled garden and should adjust their robots.txt or spider responses to match. You pee in the pool, you have to take a time out.
    - modfodder 11y ago
      The one issue I have with that thought (without putting much thought into it myself) is the conflict of interest. By punishing Wired, Google is saying that the only approved (by Google) income stream is through advertising (Google's main revenue stream) and that other types of creative partnerships may lead to websites being downlinked (and downranking past the 1st or 2nd page is almost equivalent to delisting). That line of thinking also begs the question whether only freely accessible information should come up on web searches, which would rule out any links to many professional journals which survive by subscription and/or fees per article. If you're punishing Wired for putting articles behind walled garden then it makes sense to punish all walled gardens and Google search becomes a search engine cataloging only free articles.
      - splawn 11y ago
raverbashing 11y ago
So, did anyone try fetching it with an Apple News reader user-agent?
- xrjn 11y ago
  I don't know how Apple News works, but wouldn't they use a custom API to fetch news?
  - simonh 11y ago
    Apple News is basically a fancy RSS reader, with an additional private API for selected publishers.
- madeofpalk 11y ago
  Most of Apple News articles actually arrive via RSS, but top tier publishers (which Wired certainly is) push articles into Apple News via a private web API.
- Angostura 11y ago
  I would - but the app isn't available in the UK yet.
sksk 11y ago
While I agree that this is annoying, but how is this different from pay walls that vary from 1-2 sentences to blurred out sentences? And what about sites that show content when the referrer is Google but show paywall otherwise?
- ikeboy 11y ago
  And what about sites that show content when the referrer is Google but show paywall otherwise? Google explicitly allows this. https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/40543?hl=en https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/40543?hl=en
esolyt 11y ago
It should. But it hasn't yet. Right now, if I google "architect transforming NYC", this article is the first search result. Yet, when I click it, I am told to buy an Apple device and download Apple News.
Shivetya 11y ago
Well Apple could simply be holding up Job's legacy by doing their damn best to control advertising content/revenue simply to damage Google. There are a serious number of iOS devices out there, considering Apple's history with books, movies, and even music, who isn't to say they simply see this market as a win win, win in there is more money to be had, win in that it damages google; whom Jobs didn't like one bit for copying so much of what the iPhone brought to the table
snowwrestler 11y ago
The page will not be thin content once the exclusivity expires. Even if Google punished the page in the interim, it would not matter much, because Google drives very little of the initial traffic to articles. Social channels eclipsed it long ago. Google is more important for providing a "thick tail" of traffic after the initial social spike.

threeseed 11y ago

It should be fine if they add it to their robots.txt file. It could alongside the other interesting exclusions: http://www.wired.com/robots.txt http://www.wired.com/robots.txt

codewithcheese 11y ago
Some interesting disallows there such as Disallow: /topics/Brooklyn_Police_Department. Can anyone comment on why this is?
- PhasmaFelis 11y ago
  And /topics/Advil? Wha?
- chkuendig 11y ago
  That seems to pop up semi-frequently, It's basically a voluntary "right to forget" provided by the publishers. http://f.cl.ly/items/1o2k3u2J343O3y3X290J/Image%202014-04-07%20at%2012.22.04%20PM.png http://f.cl.ly/items/1o2k3u2J343O3y3X290J/Image%202014-04-07... http://harpers.org/robots.txt http://harpers.org/robots.txt https://twitter.com/waxpancake/statuses/453024948475293696 https://twitter.com/waxpancake/statuses/453024948475293696
  - codewithcheese 11y ago
    Very interesting, good to know. Thanks!
chinathrow 11y ago
Also in there: http://www.wired.com/2007/07/fbi-spyware-how/ http://www.wired.com/2007/07/fbi-spyware-how/

JohnTHaller 11y ago

Google should penalize sites that do that exactly the way they are penalizing sites with banners telling visitors to get their app. If you want your content on the web and have the benefits of it being on the web (searchable, linkable, etc) put it on the web. If you want it "exclusively on Apple News", put it there. But you shouldn't get to have your cake and eat it too.

modfodder 11y ago
Penalize the site or the story? Should Google keep it out of search until it shows up on the "greater" web or are you advocating punishing the whole site because they have some content exclusively walled for a certain amount of time?
- rhizome 11y ago
  The whole site. The site is in the best position to know what is publicly available and which is within the walled garden and should adjust their robots.txt or spider responses to match. You pee in the pool, you have to take a time out.
  - modfodder 11y ago
    The one issue I have with that thought (without putting much thought into it myself) is the conflict of interest. By punishing Wired, Google is saying that the only approved (by Google) income stream is through advertising (Google's main revenue stream) and that other types of creative partnerships may lead to websites being downlinked (and downranking past the 1st or 2nd page is almost equivalent to delisting). That line of thinking also begs the question whether only freely accessible information should come up on web searches, which would rule out any links to many professional journals which survive by subscription and/or fees per article. If you're punishing Wired for putting articles behind walled garden then it makes sense to punish all walled gardens and Google search becomes a search engine cataloging only free articles.
    - splawn 11y ago

raverbashing 11y ago

So, did anyone try fetching it with an Apple News reader user-agent?

xrjn 11y ago
I don't know how Apple News works, but wouldn't they use a custom API to fetch news?
- simonh 11y ago
  Apple News is basically a fancy RSS reader, with an additional private API for selected publishers.
madeofpalk 11y ago
Most of Apple News articles actually arrive via RSS, but top tier publishers (which Wired certainly is) push articles into Apple News via a private web API.
Angostura 11y ago
I would - but the app isn't available in the UK yet.

sksk 11y ago

While I agree that this is annoying, but how is this different from pay walls that vary from 1-2 sentences to blurred out sentences? And what about sites that show content when the referrer is Google but show paywall otherwise?

ikeboy 11y ago
And what about sites that show content when the referrer is Google but show paywall otherwise? Google explicitly allows this. https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/40543?hl=en https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/40543?hl=en

esolyt 11y ago

It should. But it hasn't yet. Right now, if I google "architect transforming NYC", this article is the first search result. Yet, when I click it, I am told to buy an Apple device and download Apple News.

Shivetya 11y ago

Well Apple could simply be holding up Job's legacy by doing their damn best to control advertising content/revenue simply to damage Google. There are a serious number of iOS devices out there, considering Apple's history with books, movies, and even music, who isn't to say they simply see this market as a win win, win in there is more money to be had, win in that it damages google; whom Jobs didn't like one bit for copying so much of what the iPhone brought to the table

snowwrestler 11y ago

The page will not be thin content once the exclusivity expires. Even if Google punished the page in the interim, it would not matter much, because Google drives very little of the initial traffic to articles. Social channels eclipsed it long ago. Google is more important for providing a "thick tail" of traffic after the initial social spike.