3 ms·
>I personally do not derive any benefits from them Any article is plastered all over the internet in hundreds of websites. Same topic, different headline. >I
by deadalus 5y ago
>I personally do not derive any benefits from them
Any article is plastered all over the internet in hundreds of websites. Same topic, different headline.
>I want to be able to read them
I want to be able to read ANY of those "free non-paywalled" articles instead of the one that's paywalled. I have no loyalty to NYT, USA Today or The Blaze.
- CubsFan1060 5y agoSo you want the news, and you don't want anyone to earn any money from spending the time to produce that news?
- deadalus 5y agoI will prefer reading the same news from a website that does not paywall content. Websites pay-walling content is not the issue here. The issue is Google ranking paywalled sites higher even though the same content is available elsewhere for free. Those non pay-walled websites must also survive.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> issue is Google ranking paywalled sites higher even though the same content is available elsewhere for free It's almost like it's not the same content. Something breaking on the Times and then being summarized elsewhere are not interchangeable, which is why Google ranks its results as it does.
- deadalus 5y agoI agree that if something breaks on the Times, it should be ranked higher. But 99% of the time, the news didn't break on Times or some other paywalled site. Still, Google will rank it higher - and I have to waste my time : opening it, closing it because its paywalled, open the next result and hope that it's not paywalled.