6 ms·

How is it a bait and switch? If the content is relevant, it's relevant. If you clicked through to something that said it was about NBA basketball and it was ins

How is it a bait and switch? If the content is relevant, it's relevant. If you clicked through to something that said it was about NBA basketball and it was instead about knitting, _that_ would be a bait and switch.

zajio1am 5y ago
First, if i get paywall page instead of the article then it is not relevant, because it is about paying and not about the original query. Second, it does not make sense - if i use a public search engine, i expect publicly available information. If i have subscription to specific newspaper i would use search dialog in that newspaper. If a public search engine returns me paywall for a specific newspaper, it is minimal chance that it is the same newspaper i am already subscribed to.
- joegahona 5y ago
  So if a user subscribes to the paywall site, that article is "about paying"? The article's content is distinct from the method by which the publication chooses to earn revenue. A paywall article is "about paying" as much as an ad-ridden article is "about belly-fat ads." They're both designed to make money, only one shifts the cost to the end user. I'm all for putting a lock icon next to it in Google searches, or doing whatever's necessary to signal that it's paywalled, I guess, but don't blame the search engine for attempting to organize the world's information.
PeterisP 5y ago
I'm searching for publicly available content published on the internet. You're telling Google that there is certain public content available at this URL - that's the "bait" part. Afterwards you're telling me that no, this content is not actually available to the public - that's the "switch" part. I mean, there's nothing wrong with paywalls, but you have to be honest and explicit about what you're offering. If the page says "Latest NBA game - pay $1 to find out who won", that's fine, but then that's what you should provide to my search engine; and if you want my search engine to index "It was close but no cigar for the Nets as they fell 111-107 to the Chicago Bulls this past Saturday." , then this should the actual content that I get when I go to that page.
- joegahona 5y ago
  When I search "30 Rock," four of the top results are pay services to consume this content. (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and NBC.) Do you view those as bait and switch? I.e. should those shows either be free, or Google should banish these from search? I see your point, but I'm not sure Google ever made the promise that what appears in its search engine was free to consume. Perhaps the expectation is there, I get it.
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    No, that's the exact equivalent to what I said above "if the page says "Latest NBA game - pay $1 to find out who won", that's fine, but then that's what you should provide to my search engine." - that's delivering searches based on the publicly available data, that page is about "30 Rock" and that's what I'm searching for. This dissonance is not really applicable to video or audio, it's a problem specific to text content, because for video we don't have widespread search for actual content like we do for text, we're searching just on the metadata so the availability of the actual content does not affect searches. For text content, if I search for a keyword and a phrase, it gets (or should get) searched on the actual content that's available. My beef is if the site wants google to index the actually unavailable content - for example, if you're selling a book and you're making just the title and abstract available to the public without buying that book, then searches should be based on this metadata. But if you tell google "here's also the content of page 313 with an interesting factoid about 30 Rock (which is the only place in our book which mentions 30 Rock), please index that so that searchers find our book not only when searching for its title but also when searching for 30 Rock" then I would consider it acceptable if and only if that page 313 with that 30 Rock related content is actually available to public; and if you want to keep that text hidden, then that's your prerogative but in that case you don't get to use that text as "advertising" to draw in searchers.
    - joegahona 5y ago
      > This dissonance is not really applicable to video or audio, it's a problem specific to text content, because for video we don't have widespread search for actual content like we do for text Youtube? Also transcripts can inform SEO. > if I search for a keyword and a phrase, it gets (or should get) searched on the actual content that's available. The content is available. It exists on that web page. To consume that content, you might have to pay. Has google ever declared to only index free or ad-supported content? Maybe they have? Allegedly Google considers factors such as bounce rate when ranking content, so if those pages don't perform well, they should sink in results and it should work itself out. I'll also point out that there aren't as many "hard paywall" content sites -- most are on a meter, so for _someone_, that article is available without paying out of pocket. (WSJ and FT being clear exceptions.) It's not Google's fault if you've exhausted your meter.

zajio1am 5y ago

First, if i get paywall page instead of the article then it is not relevant, because it is about paying and not about the original query. Second, it does not make sense - if i use a public search engine, i expect publicly available information. If i have subscription to specific newspaper i would use search dialog in that newspaper. If a public search engine returns me paywall for a specific newspaper, it is minimal chance that it is the same newspaper i am already subscribed to.

joegahona 5y ago
So if a user subscribes to the paywall site, that article is "about paying"? The article's content is distinct from the method by which the publication chooses to earn revenue. A paywall article is "about paying" as much as an ad-ridden article is "about belly-fat ads." They're both designed to make money, only one shifts the cost to the end user. I'm all for putting a lock icon next to it in Google searches, or doing whatever's necessary to signal that it's paywalled, I guess, but don't blame the search engine for attempting to organize the world's information.

PeterisP 5y ago

I'm searching for publicly available content published on the internet. You're telling Google that there is certain public content available at this URL - that's the "bait" part. Afterwards you're telling me that no, this content is not actually available to the public - that's the "switch" part. I mean, there's nothing wrong with paywalls, but you have to be honest and explicit about what you're offering. If the page says "Latest NBA game - pay $1 to find out who won", that's fine, but then that's what you should provide to my search engine; and if you want my search engine to index "It was close but no cigar for the Nets as they fell 111-107 to the Chicago Bulls this past Saturday." , then this should the actual content that I get when I go to that page.

joegahona 5y ago
When I search "30 Rock," four of the top results are pay services to consume this content. (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and NBC.) Do you view those as bait and switch? I.e. should those shows either be free, or Google should banish these from search? I see your point, but I'm not sure Google ever made the promise that what appears in its search engine was free to consume. Perhaps the expectation is there, I get it.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  No, that's the exact equivalent to what I said above "if the page says "Latest NBA game - pay $1 to find out who won", that's fine, but then that's what you should provide to my search engine." - that's delivering searches based on the publicly available data, that page is about "30 Rock" and that's what I'm searching for. This dissonance is not really applicable to video or audio, it's a problem specific to text content, because for video we don't have widespread search for actual content like we do for text, we're searching just on the metadata so the availability of the actual content does not affect searches. For text content, if I search for a keyword and a phrase, it gets (or should get) searched on the actual content that's available. My beef is if the site wants google to index the actually unavailable content - for example, if you're selling a book and you're making just the title and abstract available to the public without buying that book, then searches should be based on this metadata. But if you tell google "here's also the content of page 313 with an interesting factoid about 30 Rock (which is the only place in our book which mentions 30 Rock), please index that so that searchers find our book not only when searching for its title but also when searching for 30 Rock" then I would consider it acceptable if and only if that page 313 with that 30 Rock related content is actually available to public; and if you want to keep that text hidden, then that's your prerogative but in that case you don't get to use that text as "advertising" to draw in searchers.
  - joegahona 5y ago
    > This dissonance is not really applicable to video or audio, it's a problem specific to text content, because for video we don't have widespread search for actual content like we do for text Youtube? Also transcripts can inform SEO. > if I search for a keyword and a phrase, it gets (or should get) searched on the actual content that's available. The content is available. It exists on that web page. To consume that content, you might have to pay. Has google ever declared to only index free or ad-supported content? Maybe they have? Allegedly Google considers factors such as bounce rate when ranking content, so if those pages don't perform well, they should sink in results and it should work itself out. I'll also point out that there aren't as many "hard paywall" content sites -- most are on a meter, so for _someone_, that article is available without paying out of pocket. (WSJ and FT being clear exceptions.) It's not Google's fault if you've exhausted your meter.