3 ms·
Okay, that makes a lot more sense. The author's conclusion, supported by the statement's context, is that viewers referred by search engines will get a paragra
by branden 17y ago
Okay, that makes a lot more sense.
The author's conclusion, supported by the statement's context, is that viewers referred by search engines will get a paragraph and a subscription nag. It's certainly more reasonable than removing his sites from search indexes entirely.
- eli 17y agoSo that means Google is only going to index the first paragraph of the story? (Otherwise it would violate Google's rule against showing different content to the GoogleBot versus visitors)
- jrockway 17y agoI doubt Google's rules apply to News Corp.
- KirinDave 17y agoI think that depends on if Google feels that they need News Corp. If they decide to play hardball with News Corp, then they'll call it cloaking (and it is). I wonder what backup plan they have in that case? I suspect that Bing.com won't have any problems accommodating these demands... I wonder if that's the backup plan?
- eli 17y agoWhy do you say that? I'm pretty confident Google News would still be the #1 news site, even if they completely delisted all news corp sites.
- ajb 17y agoGoogle already makes quite a few exceptions from this rule: journal articles, for example, show up in search results, but you get to a paywall if you click on them.
- amalcon 17y agoAlso, people could circumvent the restriction by just using the Google cache.
- eli 17y agoOT: but you can disable google cache with a META tag