7 ms·

Why? Google derives value from news site's content. Advertisers pay google for clicks,if google treated news sites the same as any other site there would be no

Why? Google derives value from news site's content. Advertisers pay google for clicks,if google treated news sites the same as any other site there would be no problem but google is adding additional value to their own product at the expense of news sites without additonal compensation. You seem to think it is a priviledge to be listed on google, I disagree, it is a priviledge for google to be allowed to conduct business, one that comes with a long list of conditions including fair business practice,paying taxes, hiring fairly,etc...

izacus 7y ago
> Why? Google derives value from news site's content. Advertisers pay google for clicks,if google treated news sites the same as any other site there would be no problem but google is adding additional value to their own product at the expense of news sites without additonal compensation. Hmm, sorry, this makes no sense - in this context the only possible advertisers are the news companies themselves (this is how you add your Ad to Google) and they want to be paid for this listing, not the other way around. Can you explain more how does Google derive value from these news articles?
- dilyevsky 7y ago
  You and me googling for news sites and presumably clicking on ads (which I’m not really sure are even shown for news queries). In reality I think news sites benefit a lot more from being featured in that feed but i guess we’ll find out soon enough if that’s true
  - creato 7y ago
    According to other posts in this thread, there are no ads on Google news.
  - dopidop 7y ago
    It’s not the ad, it’s your profile. Even if you surf anonymously. Anonymous data will be aggregated. Not as cool as a logged-in user, but okay.
- badrabbit 7y ago
  People use more of Google because it does a good job of aggregating news and displaying summary content of news sites. Since people search more on Google as a result that means more revenue for Google. Similar to how Google derives value from Chrome.
- dopidop 7y ago
  Google profit from listing those news site and presenting them in a synthetic way because it’s the whole feature of google news. Google news is part of the google user experience, that will retains users in time and agregate a detailed profil of the user. That detail profile include the news search habit. It does not sound very popular here but I see the leech as being the search engine here, not the company actually producing the content in naturals language and dispatching journalists to work on it.
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
Who benefits whom? Does Google gain more from listing the sites, or do the sites gain more from being listed? (They're selling ads to make money, too, you know.) I would guess that a news site makes more out of having an article listed than Google does from listing the article. It seems a bit unreasonable to make Google also pay. Why not have the news site pay to be listed? They're making money from it, too...
- badrabbit 7y ago
  I think you are only looking at the most obvious at the expense of everything else. Ig google is my go to place for news, I would also use them to search for either news related or unrelated terms. If all news sites were unlisted from Google but remained on Bing, Bing's search revenue would increase and Google's will decrease. I don't know who makes more money out of the relationship, that is not the problem here. Even if news sites make more moneyz they did not sign a contract with Google accepting this financial relationship. If google treats any sites in a special way to increase their own popularity or brand value, even if that site is already benefiting from the relationship Google must either get all the sites consent or negotiate payment. If a person goes to a news site, the news site makes more moneu but that's a big if. The special treatment means people will glance at headlines and outlines extracted from the news sites and only click on a few sites. This special treatment means less ad clicks for news sites as compared to normal google listings
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    > Even if news sites make more moneyz they did not sign a contract with Google accepting this financial relationship. No, and it also didn't sign a contract with Google where Google accepted responsibility to promote access to the news site's pages, either. So, in the absence of a contract, what determines the way that the relationship between them should be? robots.txt, that's what. If French news sites want to be on the web but not indexed, that's the existing mechanism to control how Google handles the content. But demanding a contract so that Google can legitimately benefit, but not demanding one so that the news site can legitimately benefit, seems rather one-sided to me.
  - 7y ago
michaelmrose 7y ago
They aren't owed any compensation for driving business to the sites. The basis of commerse is the ability to contract with another party to act in such a way as to create mutual benefit. The fact that someone derives benefit from your actions does not create an obligation unless you have the ability to do otherwise. This is an attempt to create in law an obligation for a private company to provide a benefit to another private entity for nonsensical justification. If a few students can create Google a few Frenchmen can create a competitor. They just cannot necessarily convince most to use it. Such a corporation probably wouldn't pay French news sites either nor would there be any incentive to charge them for it without a pile of other nations money on the line.

izacus 7y ago

> Why? Google derives value from news site's content. Advertisers pay google for clicks,if google treated news sites the same as any other site there would be no problem but google is adding additional value to their own product at the expense of news sites without additonal compensation. Hmm, sorry, this makes no sense - in this context the only possible advertisers are the news companies themselves (this is how you add your Ad to Google) and they want to be paid for this listing, not the other way around. Can you explain more how does Google derive value from these news articles?

dilyevsky 7y ago
You and me googling for news sites and presumably clicking on ads (which I’m not really sure are even shown for news queries). In reality I think news sites benefit a lot more from being featured in that feed but i guess we’ll find out soon enough if that’s true
- creato 7y ago
  According to other posts in this thread, there are no ads on Google news.
- dopidop 7y ago
  It’s not the ad, it’s your profile. Even if you surf anonymously. Anonymous data will be aggregated. Not as cool as a logged-in user, but okay.
badrabbit 7y ago
People use more of Google because it does a good job of aggregating news and displaying summary content of news sites. Since people search more on Google as a result that means more revenue for Google. Similar to how Google derives value from Chrome.
dopidop 7y ago
Google profit from listing those news site and presenting them in a synthetic way because it’s the whole feature of google news. Google news is part of the google user experience, that will retains users in time and agregate a detailed profil of the user. That detail profile include the news search habit. It does not sound very popular here but I see the leech as being the search engine here, not the company actually producing the content in naturals language and dispatching journalists to work on it.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

Who benefits whom? Does Google gain more from listing the sites, or do the sites gain more from being listed? (They're selling ads to make money, too, you know.) I would guess that a news site makes more out of having an article listed than Google does from listing the article. It seems a bit unreasonable to make Google also pay. Why not have the news site pay to be listed? They're making money from it, too...

badrabbit 7y ago
I think you are only looking at the most obvious at the expense of everything else. Ig google is my go to place for news, I would also use them to search for either news related or unrelated terms. If all news sites were unlisted from Google but remained on Bing, Bing's search revenue would increase and Google's will decrease. I don't know who makes more money out of the relationship, that is not the problem here. Even if news sites make more moneyz they did not sign a contract with Google accepting this financial relationship. If google treats any sites in a special way to increase their own popularity or brand value, even if that site is already benefiting from the relationship Google must either get all the sites consent or negotiate payment. If a person goes to a news site, the news site makes more moneu but that's a big if. The special treatment means people will glance at headlines and outlines extracted from the news sites and only click on a few sites. This special treatment means less ad clicks for news sites as compared to normal google listings
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  > Even if news sites make more moneyz they did not sign a contract with Google accepting this financial relationship. No, and it also didn't sign a contract with Google where Google accepted responsibility to promote access to the news site's pages, either. So, in the absence of a contract, what determines the way that the relationship between them should be? robots.txt, that's what. If French news sites want to be on the web but not indexed, that's the existing mechanism to control how Google handles the content. But demanding a contract so that Google can legitimately benefit, but not demanding one so that the news site can legitimately benefit, seems rather one-sided to me.
- 7y ago

michaelmrose 7y ago

They aren't owed any compensation for driving business to the sites. The basis of commerse is the ability to contract with another party to act in such a way as to create mutual benefit. The fact that someone derives benefit from your actions does not create an obligation unless you have the ability to do otherwise. This is an attempt to create in law an obligation for a private company to provide a benefit to another private entity for nonsensical justification. If a few students can create Google a few Frenchmen can create a competitor. They just cannot necessarily convince most to use it. Such a corporation probably wouldn't pay French news sites either nor would there be any incentive to charge them for it without a pile of other nations money on the line.