3 ms·

Wait, what? Is content shadowing now ok with Google? I always thought that content presented to Google bot should be very very close to what user see when they

Wait, what? Is content shadowing now ok with Google? I always thought that content presented to Google bot should be very very close to what user see when they click link. And if not, Google penalize website hard. Has that changed? I mean, if rule still stands, than news websites will show up in search results with keywords "subscription" and "article". Instead of "USA" and "brexit". If content shadowing is ok now, that gives spammers a free ride.

jacquesm 7y ago
This hasn't been the case for years if you're a big name. Small fry lives by different rules than the Washington Post or the San Francisco Chronicle.
lysp 7y ago
It is a constant annoyance to me when my mobile google app suggests "interesting stories" to me which end up being paywall locked.
- a3n 7y ago
  Google's just trying to help their customers succeed.
- ssss11 7y ago
  Maybe google doesn’t like their search market dominance
akersten 7y ago
> Wait, what? Is content shadowing now ok with Google? It goes by a different name, but yes - the policy ended according to the article: > Google’s ending of first-click free now means that subscription publishers can still appear in Google search results without offering access. Kind of a shame. I remember my frustrations in the mid-2000's of search results riddled with this dark pattern in the form of ExpertsExchange and Quora results.
- kranner 7y ago
  Kind of an aside, but on ExpertsExchange you simply had to scroll down past the blurred div to see the full content.
  - naner 7y ago
    That was their adaptation to Google's rules. Initially answers were behind a paywall.
luckylion 7y ago
Springer (the science publisher, not the German trash media company) has done that since at least 10 years. They'd send the full text PDF to Google and the abstract & buy option as HTML to users. Google doesn't care.
sfifs 7y ago
I think you need to think through objectives and motivations rather than approach policies as if they were if-then-else conditions. Objective of Google is to maximize their search revenue. The biggest driver of revenue is users. More users use Google search more often if it shows them relevant high quality content more often and they're satisfied after clicking through and reading. Big name famous publishers usually produce high quality content. Try want traffic and they also want to monetize via subscriptions. So naturally there's a win win for Google to show high quality results in spite of paywall and find a way to work together.
- Nextgrid 7y ago
  I’m not sure it’s a win-win though. Most users don’t want to pay for anything. If they get used to not being able to access major news search results they’ll simply stop searching for news or at least not click on the publishers they remember having a paywall.

jacquesm 7y ago

This hasn't been the case for years if you're a big name. Small fry lives by different rules than the Washington Post or the San Francisco Chronicle.

lysp 7y ago

It is a constant annoyance to me when my mobile google app suggests "interesting stories" to me which end up being paywall locked.

a3n 7y ago
Google's just trying to help their customers succeed.
ssss11 7y ago
Maybe google doesn’t like their search market dominance

akersten 7y ago

> Wait, what? Is content shadowing now ok with Google? It goes by a different name, but yes - the policy ended according to the article: > Google’s ending of first-click free now means that subscription publishers can still appear in Google search results without offering access. Kind of a shame. I remember my frustrations in the mid-2000's of search results riddled with this dark pattern in the form of ExpertsExchange and Quora results.

kranner 7y ago
Kind of an aside, but on ExpertsExchange you simply had to scroll down past the blurred div to see the full content.
- naner 7y ago
  That was their adaptation to Google's rules. Initially answers were behind a paywall.

luckylion 7y ago

Springer (the science publisher, not the German trash media company) has done that since at least 10 years. They'd send the full text PDF to Google and the abstract & buy option as HTML to users. Google doesn't care.

sfifs 7y ago

I think you need to think through objectives and motivations rather than approach policies as if they were if-then-else conditions. Objective of Google is to maximize their search revenue. The biggest driver of revenue is users. More users use Google search more often if it shows them relevant high quality content more often and they're satisfied after clicking through and reading. Big name famous publishers usually produce high quality content. Try want traffic and they also want to monetize via subscriptions. So naturally there's a win win for Google to show high quality results in spite of paywall and find a way to work together.

Nextgrid 7y ago
I’m not sure it’s a win-win though. Most users don’t want to pay for anything. If they get used to not being able to access major news search results they’ll simply stop searching for news or at least not click on the publishers they remember having a paywall.