4 ms·
That's WSJ's job to figure out, not search providers. From google's perspective, a search which leads users to a page that doesn't load, which the user immediat
by rfrank 9y ago
That's WSJ's job to figure out, not search providers. From google's perspective, a search which leads users to a page that doesn't load, which the user immediately abandons, is a bad result. WSJ isn't entitle to traffic because they're an old organization.
- omegaworks 9y agoIt's not about "entitlement" it's about the structural incentives put in place by the online media playing field. To go out in the streets and talk to people, dig deep into obfuscated government archives, and actually make sense of the world takes real work. It's often work that results in content that isn't always just what their readers want to see.
- rfrank 9y agoNone of that influences the way Google's spiders see their site, bad results are bad results. WSJ could leave their content freely available and sell banner ads, vs. locking themselves into the subscription model they're familiar with. It's not Google's fault WSJ doesn't want to change.
- dragonwriter 9y agoOr they could seek patronage without a paywall, like the Guardian. If they want subscriber exclusivity, they shouldn't be surprised that search engines serving people that are mostly not WSJ subscribers rank their content based on what is visible to non-subscribers.
- CamperBob2 9y agoIt's entitled to traffic because it puts in work. That's not how it works. That's not how anything in life works.