3 ms·
It's worse than that. The article is loaded in full and then is truncated via js. You'd guess that's EXACTLY the kind of shitty behavior that google claims to
by bsdubernerd 7y ago
It's worse than that. The article is loaded in full and then is truncated via js.
You'd guess that's EXACTLY the kind of shitty behavior that google claims to flag/penalize the website.. but.. here's a google-golf hit for the article:
https://www.google.com/search?q=the+search+for+extraterrestrial+intelligence+moves https://www.google.com/search?q=the+search+for+extraterrestr...
Surely.. only the "excerpt" is served to google right?
Nope... click though the cached copy. The article is indexed in full.
Right.
I have nothing against linking paywalled resources, but that's scummy behavior.
Skipped.
- ianai 7y agoWhat’d scummy about being easy to defeat? Or do you mean google?
- bsdubernerd 7y agoIt's not about being easy to defeat. It's scummy on the economist's side from a SEO perspective which I absolutely hate in all media outlets that do this. If the full article is allowed to be indexed by a search engine, the expectation is to be able to get the _same_ result as the search engine is seeing when you click through. This is clearly a cheap way to rank higher in search results. If you don't want non-paying users to read, then the same excerpt should be shown to the search engine.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- narag 7y agoIt's indexed because, as you say, it's transmited completely. So maybe just disabling js it's readable. I have economist.com disabled in uBlock Origin (it works), but I guess that disabling all js would work too? Because of that, I think not taking measures against this behaviour is the lesser evil. (edit: small potatoes)