4 ms·

It would be very interesting if Search could differentiate between the three users: - WSJ subscriber, where WSJ results should be present and maybe even get a

It would be very interesting if Search could differentiate between the three users: - WSJ subscriber, where WSJ results should be present and maybe even get a ranking boost. - User happy with paywall results, these results could be surfaced, with UI treatment indicating paywall. - User uninterested in paywall results, where these results would be essentially removed. The ranking between the latter 2 of these users could be a bit of a sliding scale too, rather than two distinct groups.

ryandrake 9y ago
They could apply a subtle background (like they do for sponsored results) to results that are behind a paywall, behind a registration-wall, or otherwise inaccessible.
- pfooti 9y ago
  Alternatively, wsj could sponsor those results, and jump to the top with their paywalled content.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Or they could just demote them, since inaccessible by any of those means less likely to be useful to a searcher.
kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
Why is it Google's responsibility to administer all this? They have a published algorithm that is intended to maximize fair play on the web. If you don't like that algorithm find a way to buy off the other search engines for paid placement.
- untangle 9y ago
  >> Why is it Google's responsibility to administer all this? Setting "don't be evil" aside, Google's only responsibility is to Google. But here's the rub. Google's product is its users' attention. If they bias their search results enough, (maybe) they lose product inventory. How much is "enough"? Probably much more than filtering WSJ. But IMO bias in a search engine – a presumed oracle of truth – is evil. So there's that.
  - sgift 9y ago
    If you think that bias is a bad idea than Googles current approach seems okay. They don't bias against WSJ, but they don't bias for WSJ either - The Google bot has less material to work with, so their is less content compared to other sources, so it has a worse ranking. No bias.
ukyrgf 9y ago
There are no more unique WSJ results if they're all a paywall.

ryandrake 9y ago

They could apply a subtle background (like they do for sponsored results) to results that are behind a paywall, behind a registration-wall, or otherwise inaccessible.

pfooti 9y ago
Alternatively, wsj could sponsor those results, and jump to the top with their paywalled content.
dragonwriter 9y ago
Or they could just demote them, since inaccessible by any of those means less likely to be useful to a searcher.

kevin_thibedeau 9y ago

Why is it Google's responsibility to administer all this? They have a published algorithm that is intended to maximize fair play on the web. If you don't like that algorithm find a way to buy off the other search engines for paid placement.

untangle 9y ago
>> Why is it Google's responsibility to administer all this? Setting "don't be evil" aside, Google's only responsibility is to Google. But here's the rub. Google's product is its users' attention. If they bias their search results enough, (maybe) they lose product inventory. How much is "enough"? Probably much more than filtering WSJ. But IMO bias in a search engine – a presumed oracle of truth – is evil. So there's that.
- sgift 9y ago
  If you think that bias is a bad idea than Googles current approach seems okay. They don't bias against WSJ, but they don't bias for WSJ either - The Google bot has less material to work with, so their is less content compared to other sources, so it has a worse ranking. No bias.

ukyrgf 9y ago

There are no more unique WSJ results if they're all a paywall.