5 ms·

That happens if you visit the article first from your browser and then use the google-hack to try to get around it. If you really visit the site fresh from Goog

That happens if you visit the article first from your browser and then use the google-hack to try to get around it. If you really visit the site fresh from Google, you get the article. I just tested. I know I'm over my WaPo limit, but I could pull up the article from Google, since I hadn't gone to it before.

downandout 10y ago
That's more targeted cloaking, but cloaking nonetheless. I mean of course I can get around it by clearing WaPo cookies but that isn't the point. I just hate that these large sites think they can do whatever they want - and for the most part they get away with it.
- aioprisan 10y ago
  They can get away with whatever they want? It's a company with employees that need to be paid, it's not just a free service for anyone to use.
  - downandout 10y ago
    They're flagrantly violating Google's rules. That's their choice, but the penalty is deindexing. Additionally, HN has a rule against posting links to sites that use paywalls without workarounds.
    - tedunangst 10y ago
      Do Google's rules really say that you must be able to read an article you've already found by clicking an index result? Or only that if you first find an article via Google you must be able to read it?
      - downandout 10y ago
        The rules say that they can't show Google one thing and users something else. If the content they showed to Google for this page was "subscribe today!" that would be fine, but that of course isn't what they showed to Google because a search result for this headline comes back with a link to the fully described article. That's the very definition of cloaking.
        aioprisan 10y ago
        Technically, users are seeing the same thing if they actually come from Google. Paying for things that have value is a good thing, because otherwise those companies creating that content wouldn't exist. Plenty of other companies too if you'd rather get free content.

downandout 10y ago

That's more targeted cloaking, but cloaking nonetheless. I mean of course I can get around it by clearing WaPo cookies but that isn't the point. I just hate that these large sites think they can do whatever they want - and for the most part they get away with it.

aioprisan 10y ago
They can get away with whatever they want? It's a company with employees that need to be paid, it's not just a free service for anyone to use.
- downandout 10y ago
  They're flagrantly violating Google's rules. That's their choice, but the penalty is deindexing. Additionally, HN has a rule against posting links to sites that use paywalls without workarounds.
  - tedunangst 10y ago
    Do Google's rules really say that you must be able to read an article you've already found by clicking an index result? Or only that if you first find an article via Google you must be able to read it?
    - downandout 10y ago
      The rules say that they can't show Google one thing and users something else. If the content they showed to Google for this page was "subscribe today!" that would be fine, but that of course isn't what they showed to Google because a search result for this headline comes back with a link to the fully described article. That's the very definition of cloaking.
      - aioprisan 10y ago
        Technically, users are seeing the same thing if they actually come from Google. Paying for things that have value is a good thing, because otherwise those companies creating that content wouldn't exist. Plenty of other companies too if you'd rather get free content.