6 ms·

The “Why?” section of the home page is rather disingenuous, since the Economist is not “SEO optimized garbage”, nor does it want you to “sign up for some newsle

by wrs 5y ago

The “Why?” section of the home page is rather disingenuous, since the Economist is not “SEO optimized garbage”, nor does it want you to “sign up for some newsletter”. It’s just an excellent newspaper that needs to pay the staff that writes all those articles. Just like 12ft.io needs to pay its hosting provider.

Day1 5y ago
Meh, to each their own. I’m inclined to agree with 12ft.io on that front
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
It's disingenuous to tease content that is behind a paywall.
- mdoms 5y ago
  Someone better tell every movie studio on Earth that's it's disingenuous to make movie trailers.
  - spiderice 5y ago
    Surely you don’t need someone to point out to you that those aren’t the same things.
    - mdoms 5y ago
      You're right. One of them is professionally produced content, advertised with a preview to whet your appetite, where you're expected to pay for the right to consume it fully. While the other is.... uhh.... the same thing.
      - morelish 5y ago
        Guess that’s the thing. When it shows up in your search result, we do expect it to be ready to read without paying for it. This is partly Google’s fault for not making it easier to exclude paywalled content. Would paywalled content-providers like Google implementing that feature? I doubt it. But also we can use something like 12ft.io.
      - WithinReason 5y ago
        When you click a click to a trailer, you know it's not the whole movie. When you click a click in Google, you don't know if it's paywalled. How can you not see the difference? It's basic.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    Frequently movie trailers are very disingenuous. They include scenes not in movies. They emphasize minor scenes cut to present a different view of the movie to different audiences, often to the point of completely misleading at least one population as to what the movie is about.
jsmeaton 5y ago
Then search engine crawlers should get paywalled too. The motivation is correct. You run a search on google and get mostly paywalled content. I'm fine with news sites requiring subscriptions to view their articles but they shouldn't also get the benefit of being listed at the top of search results for key terms. Alternatively, the search list should show if content is paywalled or give you search options to remove paywalled content.
- mdoms 5y ago
  I'm not following your logic here. The Economist wants to charge readers because they produce high quality content that's worth paying for (in their estimation). This seems entirely orthogonal to whether they blacklist a web crawler - a crawler they didn't even ask for, which would be all over their website whether they want it or not. I think you're confused because the crawler and the browser both use the same channel and the same protocols to access the information (the website over HTTP). But that's just a detail. Google could send them a hand written form for them to fill out with details of each of their articles and some thumbnail images to be manually entered into a Google database for all we care.
  - IanCal 5y ago
    And surely we'd want high quality content returned from a search engine. If Google never returned results where the company wanted me to buy something it'd be pretty sparse
    - mdoms 5y ago
      Seems like you should take that up with Google? Why should The Economist be obligated to serve no content to a crawler just because they want to charge readers a fair price for their content?
      - md224 5y ago
        I think the person you're replying to is agreeing with you.
rhinoceraptor 5y ago
I'd be fine with that if they didn't let search engines crawl their content. If they want to be on the web, they have to play by the rules of the web. Instead what they want is to reap the benefits of the web while refusing to participate in the open web.
- wrs 5y ago
  What the heck are the “rules of the web”? Only valueless information is allowed to be indexed? Are you offended that when you search for a book on Amazon you have to pay to read the whole thing?
  - dfee 5y ago
    > Are you offended that when you search for a book on Amazon you have to pay to read the whole thing? You don’t. ;) And, those are the rules of the web.
    - dfee 5y ago
      Don’t understand the downvotes. There are legal ways to read books (https://www.overdrive.com/apps/libby/ https://www.overdrive.com/apps/libby/) and the ability to straight up not read the books but read summaries instead. The internet has provided this free flow of ideas and repackaging of thoughts. There are also ways to read books that circumvent copyright, but in the spirit of this discussion, that’s not necessary to dive into.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - rhinoceraptor 5y ago
    It's a bait and switch. They give the search engines full text to crawl, and then nothing when a user clicks that link from their search. They got the tangible monetary benefits of having a high Google search ranking, without giving access to the actual content, which is how the web is supposed to work. It's not my fault that news websites have continually debased their users with horrible advertising and tracking, to the point where ad-supported news is pretty much no longer viable. There are plenty of examples of smaller content offerings like podcasts which do quite well being ad-supported, because they have the trust of their audience, and they only accept quality advertisers so they can charge a premium for their ad space. Books are different, they are not the web. I find things like Google Books very helpful, even for things like when I'm reading a physical book and want to look up which page I read something, even though I can't read the full book through it.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
quickthrower2 5y ago
I can see Google offering “private indexing” to big publications for a fee in the future. Keeping 12ft ladder out of the loop effectively.
xanth 5y ago
1. I pay for The Economist, I want to share articles with my family & friends without them having to jump through the login hoop, until quite recently there wasn't an intention method to do this[1] 2. My partner is an annalist, her work is often quoted and republished in part or in full behind paywalls, going through correct channels to read what they published can take days to weeks & they need to know Pronto! Edit: Clearly because I'm paying for The Economist I believe they should be remunerated for their journalism, but a hard policy of "no access unless you've verify-ably paid" would be a worse status quo [1] https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://myaccount.economist.com/s/article/What-is-article-gifting https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://myaccount.economist.co...
postingawayonhn 5y ago
I'd be happy to pay The Economist but I won't buy an expensive subscription because I don't read enough of their articles to make it worthwhile. I'd like a browser based wallet which I could use to pay per article with one click.
- pseingatl 5y ago
  This would work with true micropayments, i.e., payout in mills, not cents. You wouldn't even notice it, but like streaming, magnified by 1000's, eventually it's real money for the content provider.
- rdbell 5y ago
  I like the model that Yalls.org implements: https://yalls.org/articles/97d67df1-d721-417d-a6c0-11d793739be9:0965AC5E-56CD-4870-9041-E69616660E6F/6a7bdfb0-72ca-4f19-84c3-1629d45323dd https://yalls.org/articles/97d67df1-d721-417d-a6c0-11d793739... "Continue Reading: $0.06 USD"

by wrs 5y ago

Day1 5y ago

Meh, to each their own. I’m inclined to agree with 12ft.io on that front

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

It's disingenuous to tease content that is behind a paywall.

mdoms 5y ago
Someone better tell every movie studio on Earth that's it's disingenuous to make movie trailers.
- spiderice 5y ago
  Surely you don’t need someone to point out to you that those aren’t the same things.
  - mdoms 5y ago
    You're right. One of them is professionally produced content, advertised with a preview to whet your appetite, where you're expected to pay for the right to consume it fully. While the other is.... uhh.... the same thing.
    - morelish 5y ago
      Guess that’s the thing. When it shows up in your search result, we do expect it to be ready to read without paying for it. This is partly Google’s fault for not making it easier to exclude paywalled content. Would paywalled content-providers like Google implementing that feature? I doubt it. But also we can use something like 12ft.io.
    - WithinReason 5y ago
      When you click a click to a trailer, you know it's not the whole movie. When you click a click in Google, you don't know if it's paywalled. How can you not see the difference? It's basic.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  Frequently movie trailers are very disingenuous. They include scenes not in movies. They emphasize minor scenes cut to present a different view of the movie to different audiences, often to the point of completely misleading at least one population as to what the movie is about.

jsmeaton 5y ago

Then search engine crawlers should get paywalled too. The motivation is correct. You run a search on google and get mostly paywalled content. I'm fine with news sites requiring subscriptions to view their articles but they shouldn't also get the benefit of being listed at the top of search results for key terms. Alternatively, the search list should show if content is paywalled or give you search options to remove paywalled content.

mdoms 5y ago
I'm not following your logic here. The Economist wants to charge readers because they produce high quality content that's worth paying for (in their estimation). This seems entirely orthogonal to whether they blacklist a web crawler - a crawler they didn't even ask for, which would be all over their website whether they want it or not. I think you're confused because the crawler and the browser both use the same channel and the same protocols to access the information (the website over HTTP). But that's just a detail. Google could send them a hand written form for them to fill out with details of each of their articles and some thumbnail images to be manually entered into a Google database for all we care.
- IanCal 5y ago
  And surely we'd want high quality content returned from a search engine. If Google never returned results where the company wanted me to buy something it'd be pretty sparse
  - mdoms 5y ago
    Seems like you should take that up with Google? Why should The Economist be obligated to serve no content to a crawler just because they want to charge readers a fair price for their content?
    - md224 5y ago
      I think the person you're replying to is agreeing with you.

rhinoceraptor 5y ago

I'd be fine with that if they didn't let search engines crawl their content. If they want to be on the web, they have to play by the rules of the web. Instead what they want is to reap the benefits of the web while refusing to participate in the open web.

wrs 5y ago
What the heck are the “rules of the web”? Only valueless information is allowed to be indexed? Are you offended that when you search for a book on Amazon you have to pay to read the whole thing?
- dfee 5y ago
  > Are you offended that when you search for a book on Amazon you have to pay to read the whole thing? You don’t. ;) And, those are the rules of the web.
  - dfee 5y ago
    Don’t understand the downvotes. There are legal ways to read books (https://www.overdrive.com/apps/libby/ https://www.overdrive.com/apps/libby/) and the ability to straight up not read the books but read summaries instead. The internet has provided this free flow of ideas and repackaging of thoughts. There are also ways to read books that circumvent copyright, but in the spirit of this discussion, that’s not necessary to dive into.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- rhinoceraptor 5y ago
  It's a bait and switch. They give the search engines full text to crawl, and then nothing when a user clicks that link from their search. They got the tangible monetary benefits of having a high Google search ranking, without giving access to the actual content, which is how the web is supposed to work. It's not my fault that news websites have continually debased their users with horrible advertising and tracking, to the point where ad-supported news is pretty much no longer viable. There are plenty of examples of smaller content offerings like podcasts which do quite well being ad-supported, because they have the trust of their audience, and they only accept quality advertisers so they can charge a premium for their ad space. Books are different, they are not the web. I find things like Google Books very helpful, even for things like when I'm reading a physical book and want to look up which page I read something, even though I can't read the full book through it.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

quickthrower2 5y ago

I can see Google offering “private indexing” to big publications for a fee in the future. Keeping 12ft ladder out of the loop effectively.

xanth 5y ago

1. I pay for The Economist, I want to share articles with my family & friends without them having to jump through the login hoop, until quite recently there wasn't an intention method to do this[1] 2. My partner is an annalist, her work is often quoted and republished in part or in full behind paywalls, going through correct channels to read what they published can take days to weeks & they need to know Pronto! Edit: Clearly because I'm paying for The Economist I believe they should be remunerated for their journalism, but a hard policy of "no access unless you've verify-ably paid" would be a worse status quo [1] https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://myaccount.economist.com/s/article/What-is-article-gifting https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://myaccount.economist.co...

postingawayonhn 5y ago

I'd be happy to pay The Economist but I won't buy an expensive subscription because I don't read enough of their articles to make it worthwhile. I'd like a browser based wallet which I could use to pay per article with one click.

pseingatl 5y ago
This would work with true micropayments, i.e., payout in mills, not cents. You wouldn't even notice it, but like streaming, magnified by 1000's, eventually it's real money for the content provider.
rdbell 5y ago
I like the model that Yalls.org implements: https://yalls.org/articles/97d67df1-d721-417d-a6c0-11d793739be9:0965AC5E-56CD-4870-9041-E69616660E6F/6a7bdfb0-72ca-4f19-84c3-1629d45323dd https://yalls.org/articles/97d67df1-d721-417d-a6c0-11d793739... "Continue Reading: $0.06 USD"