4 ms·

"Google is now pledging to index all subscription news outlets in search, let publishers determine how many articles to provide free through the search engine,

"Google is now pledging to index all subscription news outlets in search, let publishers determine how many articles to provide free through the search engine, and will not demote them in results if they have little or no free content." Very useful, indexing inaccessible content.

veidr 9y ago
I almost agreed with your comment, then I re-read it and decided you are being sarcastic. But it is very useful, in contexts in which you are searching for things that are important to you and in which you want to have a fuller sense of what information is available, even if it may cost money. It might not improve the casual news-reading experience, but if it's something important like learning about your child's illness, researching a prospective new employer, or something like that... it's a lot better to know what articles and stories exist on the topic, even if they might cost money to read, rather than having no idea those pieces relevant to your search even exist.
- arkades 9y ago
  These aren't mutually exclusive. PubMed solved this ages ago: if it was freely available, it was tagged accordingly, and you could filter your search results that way. If this were meant to benefit users, it would be an optional filter at the discretion of the user, not a built-in "feature" of the algo.
  - veidr 9y ago
    I agree. That would be awesome, but probably beyond what we can expect an ad company to do as part of its mission to sell ads. But they might do it if they thought doing so would cause more people to use their their search engine more, thereby generating more ad clicks. I know I probably would, but otoh I’m probably not their target demo (since I only click about 7 ads per year, usually after coming home drunk from some event).
    - B1FF_PSUVM 9y ago
      "Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." (https://www.google.com/intl/en/about/ https://www.google.com/intl/en/about/ according to Google search today, although I can't see that text in the throng of large images.) Needs tweaked, that 'universally' is now melting away. Must be the water heating up, as the frog didn't say. Croak.
arrrg 9y ago
It’s not inaccessible, it’s just not free.
- dazc 9y ago
  I subscribed to The times in the UK for a trial period. On the website I experienced the same level of AdSense type ads as I did with most other free alternatives. I was under the impression, before signing up, that I was paying to avoid this? And, as for cancelling, let's just say they don't make it easy. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that traditional publishers will continue to commit suicide no matter what Google do.
  - diminish 9y ago
    Actually most people assume they'll avoid being tracked or being spammed with ads after they pay for a subscription. They underestimate the desire for more revenues.
  - Angostura 9y ago
    I believe the Times is behind a soft paywall - you only have access to a limited number of articles, free.

veidr 9y ago

I almost agreed with your comment, then I re-read it and decided you are being sarcastic. But it is very useful, in contexts in which you are searching for things that are important to you and in which you want to have a fuller sense of what information is available, even if it may cost money. It might not improve the casual news-reading experience, but if it's something important like learning about your child's illness, researching a prospective new employer, or something like that... it's a lot better to know what articles and stories exist on the topic, even if they might cost money to read, rather than having no idea those pieces relevant to your search even exist.

arkades 9y ago
These aren't mutually exclusive. PubMed solved this ages ago: if it was freely available, it was tagged accordingly, and you could filter your search results that way. If this were meant to benefit users, it would be an optional filter at the discretion of the user, not a built-in "feature" of the algo.
- veidr 9y ago
  I agree. That would be awesome, but probably beyond what we can expect an ad company to do as part of its mission to sell ads. But they might do it if they thought doing so would cause more people to use their their search engine more, thereby generating more ad clicks. I know I probably would, but otoh I’m probably not their target demo (since I only click about 7 ads per year, usually after coming home drunk from some event).
  - B1FF_PSUVM 9y ago
    "Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." (https://www.google.com/intl/en/about/ https://www.google.com/intl/en/about/ according to Google search today, although I can't see that text in the throng of large images.) Needs tweaked, that 'universally' is now melting away. Must be the water heating up, as the frog didn't say. Croak.

arrrg 9y ago

It’s not inaccessible, it’s just not free.

dazc 9y ago
I subscribed to The times in the UK for a trial period. On the website I experienced the same level of AdSense type ads as I did with most other free alternatives. I was under the impression, before signing up, that I was paying to avoid this? And, as for cancelling, let's just say they don't make it easy. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that traditional publishers will continue to commit suicide no matter what Google do.
- diminish 9y ago
  Actually most people assume they'll avoid being tracked or being spammed with ads after they pay for a subscription. They underestimate the desire for more revenues.
- Angostura 9y ago
  I believe the Times is behind a soft paywall - you only have access to a limited number of articles, free.