4 ms·

If they're now blocking clicks from Google, doesn't that mean that they're cloaking and violating the Google's Webmaster Guidelines [1]? [1]: https://support.g

by slig 11y ago

If they're now blocking clicks from Google, doesn't that mean that they're cloaking and violating the Google's Webmaster Guidelines [1]? [1]: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66355?hl=en https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66355?hl=en

elaineo 11y ago
Google is not okay with cloaking, but they will whitelist publishers if the publisher specifically includes a parameter that declares if the site requires registration or subscription. This is done in the sitemap. https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/74288?hl=en https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/74288?hl=en
- slig 11y ago
  I didn't know that, thanks. But reading, it seems that option is about Google News, not the main Google Search. > News-specific tag definitions > Yes, if access is not open, else should be omitted > Possible values include "Subscription" or "Registration", describing the accessibility of the article. If the article is accessible to Google News readers without a registration or subscription, this tag should be omitted.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/40543?hl=en https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/40543?hl=en seems to specifically ban this. WSJ is in violation, not fitting any of the categories there.
- pacquiao882 11y ago
  WSJ is big enough to negotiate their own terms with Google Search.
  - morgante 11y ago
    They're really not. They need Google a lot more than Google needs them. One of these things is going to happen: (1) They end this "experiment." (2) They stop serving Google the full content. (And see their rankings drop accordingly.) (3) They get delisted for cloaking.
CM30 11y ago
Yes, and I suspect that's what going to get them to change it back again. After a ban from Google and the traffic drop it'll likely bring, that paywall is likely coming right back down. An awful lot of media companies made similar mistakes before, and it's always ended with them quickly removing their 'work arounds'.
- Implicated 11y ago
  Yea, except they're not going to get that ban.

by slig 11y ago

elaineo 11y ago

Google is not okay with cloaking, but they will whitelist publishers if the publisher specifically includes a parameter that declares if the site requires registration or subscription. This is done in the sitemap. https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/74288?hl=en https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/74288?hl=en

slig 11y ago
I didn't know that, thanks. But reading, it seems that option is about Google News, not the main Google Search. > News-specific tag definitions > Yes, if access is not open, else should be omitted > Possible values include "Subscription" or "Registration", describing the accessibility of the article. If the article is accessible to Google News readers without a registration or subscription, this tag should be omitted.
ikeboy 11y ago
https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/40543?hl=en https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/40543?hl=en seems to specifically ban this. WSJ is in violation, not fitting any of the categories there.
pacquiao882 11y ago
WSJ is big enough to negotiate their own terms with Google Search.
- morgante 11y ago
  They're really not. They need Google a lot more than Google needs them. One of these things is going to happen: (1) They end this "experiment." (2) They stop serving Google the full content. (And see their rankings drop accordingly.) (3) They get delisted for cloaking.

CM30 11y ago

Yes, and I suspect that's what going to get them to change it back again. After a ban from Google and the traffic drop it'll likely bring, that paywall is likely coming right back down. An awful lot of media companies made similar mistakes before, and it's always ended with them quickly removing their 'work arounds'.

Implicated 11y ago
Yea, except they're not going to get that ban.