7 ms·
>Someone please explain to me again how this arrangement is evil? Well, if they let you know ahead of time that you needed to sign up to access the content, th
by hnnewguy 12y ago
>Someone please explain to me again how this arrangement is evil?
Well, if they let you know ahead of time that you needed to sign up to access the content, that'd be no big deal. And, of course, I wouldn't bother to ever visit the site.
Instead, through Google, they make it appear like the information is accessible, then nag you to sign up to see it.
From the article and the look of this thread, it appears quite a few people think that it's a crappy way to do business; so who is "biased"?
- Zak 12y agoI had the impression that Google penalizes websites for giving its crawler substantially different information than a visitor would receive, and that it has done so for quite some time. I wonder why Quora is not penalized in to irrelevance.
- codezero 12y agoBecause what they serve to Google is the same, the first answer. The issue is that people want more than the first answer or they don't know how to dismiss the sign up modal. More than anything, people who have issues with this feel entitled to have unfettered access to content because Wikipedia and other sites have been world changing and useful resources without a barrier to entry for reading content. There was a time when using an anonymous remailer was considered bad taste, but now an email address isn't sacred, things change a lot on the internet over time and it has more to do with how the general public uses it and perceives it than to do with how highly technical people think it ought to be.
- gergles 12y agoBecause they abuse rel=canonical instead of outright showing different content. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6301280 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6301280.