5 ms·
Here's a much more mature analysis of what's going on. http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091014-711422.html http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091014-71
by tshtf 17y ago
Here's a much more mature analysis of what's going on.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091014-711422.html http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091014-711422.html
Posted article is fairly shallow, and this deserves some better analysis.
- tshtf 17y agoApologies for the link - requires a subscription if you don't hit it from a Google search for "Wal-Mart Expands Cheap No-Contract Wireless Plan". Thanks Rupert.
- peoplerock 17y agoYou mean: "thanks", Rupert. But a sincere thanks to you for explaining to get there via a google search. Which raises questions (besides the 'why am i out of loop'?): • How did you know about the "via google" phenomenon for this article? • Is that true for all/many wsj articles? • Why does Rupert love Google referrals?
- bm98 17y agoSilly newspapers. They want to charge for content but can't bear the thought of losing traffic. So they keep the door open to non-subscribers through Google, and hope subscribers (or potential subscribers) won't find out.
- wmf 17y ago"Cloaking" is a naughty SEO tactic of showing one thing (like an article) to search engines and a different thing (like a login screen) to humans. Google bans cloaking; their punishment is de-indexing. But there is a loophole: showing the same thing to Googlebot and regular browsers with a Google referer isn't considered cloaking. The NY Times also uses this technique. I can't tell you why you're out of the loop, though.