3 ms·
None 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
by rfrank 9y ago
None 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.