5 ms·
Why can't WSJ provide full indexing access to Google crawler robot but keep it paid for users? That way at least the scam problem will be solved?
by seshagiric 9y ago
Why can't WSJ provide full indexing access to Google crawler robot but keep it paid for users? That way at least the scam problem will be solved?
- CobrastanJorji 9y agoThey'd probably be happy to do that, but my understanding is that Google generally frowns strongly upon sites that display different content (or no content) to users when they tell Google those pages have content. I could imagine Google adding some sort of "content is locked behind a paywall" indicator on search results, but if I'm searching for something on the web, a link to blocked content is not very helpful most of the time.
- yomly 9y agoYep - imagine a world where most the top search results are subscription only. That's a terrible UX for a Google searcher to have to go past page 1 to actually have content. Google definitely doesn't want that, and its also anti-open web
- dqv 9y agoI actually would find it useful if Google had an indicator like 3 pay-walled results omitted, show them? At least being able to know it exists can help consumers decide if they should pay for an article/subscription.
- sqeaky 9y agoGoogle could charge paywalled sites to make such a feature, but as a user I never want to see that.
- tripzilch 9y agoif Google is going to accommodate pay-walled results like that, you can expect this indicator won't just show/hide 3 high quality pay-walled results, but also 30 shitty ones that will want to get in on the potential pay-wall business.
- bachmeier 9y ago> a link to blocked content is not very helpful most of the time That's called advertising, but the WSJ will have to buy ads like everyone else.
- draw_down 9y agoWhy would Google know who is and who isn't a WSJ subscriber? Would WSJ subscribers want Google to know that information?