11 ms·

I'm taking a page from Experts Exchange: The comment that originally occupied this space is now behind a paywall (or, if you want to get technical, it's buried

by jawns 15y ago

I'm taking a page from Experts Exchange: The comment that originally occupied this space is now behind a paywall (or, if you want to get technical, it's buried down further in the thread, and you now have to scroll through a bunch of other stuff to find it). It begins with "Experts Exchange currently displays ..." That's right, I've capitalized on the Hacker News "comment juice" my original comment received and the above-the-fold real estate it garnered, effectively "cloaking" my original answer. Annoying, isn't it?

robin_reala 15y ago
Stack Overflow is also a business and also trying to make money doing the same thing, but it does it in a way that’s much better for the site user. I’m not surprised that it’s doing better than EE in the search results these days.
dpcan 15y ago
That's not really fair. At one time, cloaking data was a good way to get found and still put up a pay wall. They built a business around being able to do this. Shady folks turned this practice into a method of deception. Experts exchange was only hiding from view REAL data that they were selling access to, and to let us know they had the data we needed, they found a way to show it to google. At least they didn't fill pages with bogus questions without answers and a ton of keywords. The only part of EE I don't care for is that they want us to pay for data they didn't create, however, the experts are probably aware they will not get paid when answering.
- jawns 15y ago
  "At one time, cloaking data was a good way to get found and still put up a pay wall." It was good for the business maybe, but never -- not then and not now -- good for the user.
  - dpcan 15y ago
    Nobody EVER said it had to be. They had data. It was GOOD data, and they wanted to be paid for it, but they had to tell Google they had it so people could find it. It's how advertising works. Look what we have! Come buy it.
    - mrgoldenbrown 15y ago
      Advertising is saying "free ice cream this weekend at EE's ice cream shop". What EE does though is say "free ice cream" in their ad on tv, and then inform customers at the cash register that the ice cream is only free if you purchase a $50 plastic spoon as well.
      - qeorge 15y ago
        Not exactly. I don't recall Experts Exchange ever implying their data was free. It was more like: "You know that flavor you desperately need? We've got it, and we'll show you the box, but if you want to taste it you'll have to pay." Don't get me wrong - I hated EE and I'm glad to see them gone from Google, but I don't think they implied their content was free.
        zem 15y ago
        yes, but to extend the metaphor, it's as though they offered a reporter free icecream and tricked him into writing a piece about it in the paper, rather than purchasing an ad.
        mrgoldenbrown 15y ago
        When they show the content to free for google, that implies to me that the content is not behind a paywall. Showing different things to Google and to me is deceptive. It would be like a manufacturer someone finding out where Consumer Reports buys their test cars, and sending special high quality cars there, while selling the rest of us normal crappy cars.
    - InclinedPlane 15y ago
      Uh. No. If they wanted advertising they could have bought google adwords and pointed it to the appropriate landing pages to buy the answers. If they want free advertising, well TANSTAAFL.
- georgemcbay 15y ago
  I strongly disagree that cloaking behind-paywall pages is ever "good". If I'm searching for a specific term, I want to see pages that are relevant to that term when I click the links, not pages that ask for my credit card and that may or may not (probably not) show me a relevant page after I've been charged. Experts Exchange was a fairly decent site very long ago, but it sucks horribly now and has for years and has nobody to blame for their downfall but their own deceptive practices and lack of vision in terms of alternate revenue models. I'm glad Stack Overflow is totally eating their lunch. Good riddance.
  - dpcan 15y ago
    I totally agree. Stack Overflow is awesome and a great alternative to EE. When I searched for a programming answer and EE came up, most times the questions and answers were relevant. I never opted to pay for the service, and I stopped clicking the links to EE because I didn't want to pay. However, that didn't mean they didn't have the relevant answer, and I just had to pay for it if I wanted it. I don't find this deceptive, just a form of advertising.
- joebadmo 15y ago
  That's still deception. Seems obvious to me that the reason search engines would penalize sites that put up real data behind firewalls is because users don't want to see them in their search results. To show search engines different data to circumvent this is deceptive.
  - dpcan 15y ago
    But the data IS there. That is not deceptive. Are you saying that if your content is in Google's database it's required to be free? As a site owner, I have the right to decide whether or not my data is available for free, but it is there, and you should know it's there, so I have to somehow get found in search engines. Think of it this way. You search for an image in Google - you are presented with sites that sell licenses to stock photos. Is this any different?
    - joebadmo 15y ago
      Showing different things to search engines and users is deceptive. You're misrepresenting yourself to the search engine. I want search engines to penalize sites that put content behind firewalls, because those sites are less relevant to me. If the site is good enough to overcome that penalty because the content is so good that it gets enough google juice anyway, awesome. But they should still be penalized for hiding stuff behind the paywall. It's not a moral judgment on paywalling content, it's a practical one. As a search engine user, I don't want Google to show me paywall stuff unless it's really, really good. So Google is making the appropriate ranking by penalizing paywalled content. But if you trick Google by showing googlebot something that you don't show users, that's obviously deceptive. Which I will make a moral judgment on.
- ams6110 15y ago
  The only part of EE I don't care for is that they want us to pay for data they didn't create In theory they provide a service that has value, that is a platform where questions can get answered. Just because they didn't pay the "experts" doesn't mean their overall concept is not worth paying for. Now, I'm not saying that their implementation is worth paying for, I just don't buy the idea that because they didn't pay for their data it's wrong for them to charge for their service.
a_m0d 15y ago
Part of the problem, though, is that they don't always show you the same results as the search engine sees. I've just started using the SSL version of Google search, and now I no longer see any answers on the EE pages, where I did before. It looks like they only display the answers in the bare minimum number of case necessary to still get search rankings, rather than displaying them for all google referrers.
- cobbal 15y ago
  If you're going from an HTTPS site to a HTTP site, then your browser doesn't send a referer header, so they can't really know you came from google.
  - a_m0d 15y ago
    True, but it still does break google's requirement that the page Google sees must be the same as the one Google's user sees (which was the original reason they did this anyway).
jawns 15y ago
Experts Exchange currently displays its answers for free at the very bottom of its pages, but it misleads visitors into thinking that they have to pay for access. Unless you scroll through about eight pages' worth of filler, you would never know that the answers are there. And EE would love for them not to be there, but search engines won't index them otherwise. That's actually an improvement from some of their earlier tactics, which involved cloaking (serving one version of the site -- with the answers -- to search engines and a different version to everyone else). The only reason they're not still cloaking is because search engines have gotten wise to their methods and won't tolerate it. In short, Experts Exchange is willing to mislead people and search engines in any way that it can get away with. So, at least in EE's case, the fact that Google has tightened the screws is great. (I should mention that I understand EE is a business and is trying to make a profit -- but profiting from deception is what really riles me.)
- Too 15y ago
  > Experts Exchange currently displays its answers for free at the very bottom of its pages, but it misleads visitors into thinking that they have to pay for access. Only if you reach the site with a google.com referrer. Without referrer there's no answers at the bottom.
  - astrodust 15y ago
    So basically "boo hoo" that they're not getting any rank. Stack Overflow is a business too, but it's one worth supporting.
  - adgar 15y ago
    I just checked this, and it's true. Googled "experts exchange fix mod_rewrite," tried a resulting question as referred and in an incognito window. Only the former had the results at the bottom. Notably, even if you're using secure google search because you're logged in, the referrer still gets sent - so it still works. I know some people were concerned referrers didn't get passed from the new "secure if logged in" option - this seems a decent confirmation they do.
- deleted 15y ago
dpcan 15y ago
You NEVER said "annoying". You used the terms "mislead" and "deception". THIS is annoying.

by jawns 15y ago

robin_reala 15y ago

Stack Overflow is also a business and also trying to make money doing the same thing, but it does it in a way that’s much better for the site user. I’m not surprised that it’s doing better than EE in the search results these days.

dpcan 15y ago

That's not really fair. At one time, cloaking data was a good way to get found and still put up a pay wall. They built a business around being able to do this. Shady folks turned this practice into a method of deception. Experts exchange was only hiding from view REAL data that they were selling access to, and to let us know they had the data we needed, they found a way to show it to google. At least they didn't fill pages with bogus questions without answers and a ton of keywords. The only part of EE I don't care for is that they want us to pay for data they didn't create, however, the experts are probably aware they will not get paid when answering.

jawns 15y ago
"At one time, cloaking data was a good way to get found and still put up a pay wall." It was good for the business maybe, but never -- not then and not now -- good for the user.
- dpcan 15y ago
  Nobody EVER said it had to be. They had data. It was GOOD data, and they wanted to be paid for it, but they had to tell Google they had it so people could find it. It's how advertising works. Look what we have! Come buy it.
  - mrgoldenbrown 15y ago
    Advertising is saying "free ice cream this weekend at EE's ice cream shop". What EE does though is say "free ice cream" in their ad on tv, and then inform customers at the cash register that the ice cream is only free if you purchase a $50 plastic spoon as well.
    - qeorge 15y ago
      Not exactly. I don't recall Experts Exchange ever implying their data was free. It was more like: "You know that flavor you desperately need? We've got it, and we'll show you the box, but if you want to taste it you'll have to pay." Don't get me wrong - I hated EE and I'm glad to see them gone from Google, but I don't think they implied their content was free.
      - zem 15y ago
        yes, but to extend the metaphor, it's as though they offered a reporter free icecream and tricked him into writing a piece about it in the paper, rather than purchasing an ad.
      - mrgoldenbrown 15y ago
        When they show the content to free for google, that implies to me that the content is not behind a paywall. Showing different things to Google and to me is deceptive. It would be like a manufacturer someone finding out where Consumer Reports buys their test cars, and sending special high quality cars there, while selling the rest of us normal crappy cars.
  - InclinedPlane 15y ago
    Uh. No. If they wanted advertising they could have bought google adwords and pointed it to the appropriate landing pages to buy the answers. If they want free advertising, well TANSTAAFL.
georgemcbay 15y ago
I strongly disagree that cloaking behind-paywall pages is ever "good". If I'm searching for a specific term, I want to see pages that are relevant to that term when I click the links, not pages that ask for my credit card and that may or may not (probably not) show me a relevant page after I've been charged. Experts Exchange was a fairly decent site very long ago, but it sucks horribly now and has for years and has nobody to blame for their downfall but their own deceptive practices and lack of vision in terms of alternate revenue models. I'm glad Stack Overflow is totally eating their lunch. Good riddance.
- dpcan 15y ago
  I totally agree. Stack Overflow is awesome and a great alternative to EE. When I searched for a programming answer and EE came up, most times the questions and answers were relevant. I never opted to pay for the service, and I stopped clicking the links to EE because I didn't want to pay. However, that didn't mean they didn't have the relevant answer, and I just had to pay for it if I wanted it. I don't find this deceptive, just a form of advertising.
joebadmo 15y ago
That's still deception. Seems obvious to me that the reason search engines would penalize sites that put up real data behind firewalls is because users don't want to see them in their search results. To show search engines different data to circumvent this is deceptive.
- dpcan 15y ago
  But the data IS there. That is not deceptive. Are you saying that if your content is in Google's database it's required to be free? As a site owner, I have the right to decide whether or not my data is available for free, but it is there, and you should know it's there, so I have to somehow get found in search engines. Think of it this way. You search for an image in Google - you are presented with sites that sell licenses to stock photos. Is this any different?
  - joebadmo 15y ago
    Showing different things to search engines and users is deceptive. You're misrepresenting yourself to the search engine. I want search engines to penalize sites that put content behind firewalls, because those sites are less relevant to me. If the site is good enough to overcome that penalty because the content is so good that it gets enough google juice anyway, awesome. But they should still be penalized for hiding stuff behind the paywall. It's not a moral judgment on paywalling content, it's a practical one. As a search engine user, I don't want Google to show me paywall stuff unless it's really, really good. So Google is making the appropriate ranking by penalizing paywalled content. But if you trick Google by showing googlebot something that you don't show users, that's obviously deceptive. Which I will make a moral judgment on.
ams6110 15y ago
The only part of EE I don't care for is that they want us to pay for data they didn't create In theory they provide a service that has value, that is a platform where questions can get answered. Just because they didn't pay the "experts" doesn't mean their overall concept is not worth paying for. Now, I'm not saying that their implementation is worth paying for, I just don't buy the idea that because they didn't pay for their data it's wrong for them to charge for their service.

a_m0d 15y ago

Part of the problem, though, is that they don't always show you the same results as the search engine sees. I've just started using the SSL version of Google search, and now I no longer see any answers on the EE pages, where I did before. It looks like they only display the answers in the bare minimum number of case necessary to still get search rankings, rather than displaying them for all google referrers.

cobbal 15y ago
If you're going from an HTTPS site to a HTTP site, then your browser doesn't send a referer header, so they can't really know you came from google.
- a_m0d 15y ago
  True, but it still does break google's requirement that the page Google sees must be the same as the one Google's user sees (which was the original reason they did this anyway).

jawns 15y ago

Experts Exchange currently displays its answers for free at the very bottom of its pages, but it misleads visitors into thinking that they have to pay for access. Unless you scroll through about eight pages' worth of filler, you would never know that the answers are there. And EE would love for them not to be there, but search engines won't index them otherwise. That's actually an improvement from some of their earlier tactics, which involved cloaking (serving one version of the site -- with the answers -- to search engines and a different version to everyone else). The only reason they're not still cloaking is because search engines have gotten wise to their methods and won't tolerate it. In short, Experts Exchange is willing to mislead people and search engines in any way that it can get away with. So, at least in EE's case, the fact that Google has tightened the screws is great. (I should mention that I understand EE is a business and is trying to make a profit -- but profiting from deception is what really riles me.)

Too 15y ago
> Experts Exchange currently displays its answers for free at the very bottom of its pages, but it misleads visitors into thinking that they have to pay for access. Only if you reach the site with a google.com referrer. Without referrer there's no answers at the bottom.
- astrodust 15y ago
  So basically "boo hoo" that they're not getting any rank. Stack Overflow is a business too, but it's one worth supporting.
- adgar 15y ago
  I just checked this, and it's true. Googled "experts exchange fix mod_rewrite," tried a resulting question as referred and in an incognito window. Only the former had the results at the bottom. Notably, even if you're using secure google search because you're logged in, the referrer still gets sent - so it still works. I know some people were concerned referrers didn't get passed from the new "secure if logged in" option - this seems a decent confirmation they do.
deleted 15y ago

dpcan 15y ago

You NEVER said "annoying". You used the terms "mislead" and "deception". THIS is annoying.