News Corp Sites May Be Removed From Google
4:57pm UK, Monday November 09, 2009
Adam Arnold, Sky News Online
News Corp chairman Rupert Murdoch has suggested the company's online newspaper pages will be invisible to Google users when it launches its new paid content .
He claimed that readers who randomly reach a page via an internet search hold little value to advertisers.
When asked by Sky News Australia's political editor David Speers why News Corp has not stopped Google from finding its content, Mr Murdoch replied: "I think we will."
He cited the Wall Street Journal as an example of where only the first paragraph comes up on search engines and is free. Anything after that is subscription-based.
He is planning to make newspapers like The Times and Sunday Times chargeable online.
Using the robots.txt protocol on a site indicates to automated web spiders such as Google's not to index that particular page or to serve up links to it in users' search results.
continues:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/News-Corp-Boss-Rupert-Murdoch-Says-Online-Newspaper-Pages-Will-Be-Invisible-To-Google-Users/Article/200911215446006?lpos=Business_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_7&lid=ARTICLE_15446006_News_Corp_Boss_Rupert_Murdoch_Says_Online_Newspaper_Pages_Will_Be_Invisible_To_Google_Users. . . an your point? C'mon whatcha think?
Well I guess it has been a long time coming. Big business is going to try to make money off of the internet in some way. I am really surprised that they have not started to charge for email yet. You know like they talked about one time charging for every message like a stamped letter. I don't like it but I guess they have a right to it. It will redirect searching to free sites and if more business charges to view content then the possiblity that many will do the same and that will either funnel the majority of content to free sites or more free sites will open. And then what if people who pay for the content just copy it to free sites? It certainly opens up a lot of discussion anytime people take away something that use to be free and starts to charge for it.
You know like they talked about one time charging for every message like a stamped letter. I don't like it but I guess they have a right to it.
That would totally suck!
And then what if people who pay for the content just copy it to free sites?
Uh, copyright infringement?
Segregated paid internet content for subscribers has been tried again and again and again. It's almost always a loser.
Segregated paid internet content for subscribers has been tried again and again and again. It's almost always a loser.
You mean that long ago there was a white internet and a black internet? Did the black people have to sit in the back of the internet?
only thing like that I pay for is my Consumer Reports. converted my mag subscription to online, and it's worth it, for me. I think specialty mags and newspapers are the best application of this. save the trees!
Yea, I admit I pay for the Economist and the Atlantic. But I still get both in the mail and like getting them, but those give me online access.
I think it's important to note that NewsCorp isn't blocking Google, they are merely submitting to the blocking policy that Google has had in effect for a long time. Google does not index sites that require registration; it is Google that would be blocking NewsCorp.
Murdock can say he's not interested in the extra search traffic, but he'd be the only one. The New York Times, for example, requires a subscription--but they also host a second version of the page just for search engines. So say someone sends you a link to a NYT article you want to read, but then you get that annoying login page and you can't read it... just do a Google search for the title of the article, and the free version will come up. They wouldn't bother to do that unless they were interested in the traffic Google sends their way.
You know like they talked about one time charging for every message like a stamped letter. I don't like it but I guess they have a right to it.
That would totally suck!
Yeah, but it would put spammers straight out of business! The idea is still floated from time to time, often with the 0.1 cent per email going to some charity or something.
Worth thinking about, I say.
Depends if the charge against the sender or recipient.:eyebrow:
True, the charge has to be on the sender.
The New York Times, for example, requires a subscription--but they also host a second version of the page just for search engines. So say someone sends you a link to a NYT article you want to read, but then you get that annoying login page and you can't read it... just do a Google search for the title of the article, and the free version will come up. They wouldn't bother to do that unless they were interested in the traffic Google sends their way.
Excellent info. I had no idea this was going on.
This is great news. Now when people do a search for news, their results will actually be reputable news sources and not some dishonest propaganda and opinion site like Fox News. Murdoch is a douchebag of the highest order. I'm sure some of the raving lunatics and douchebags who watch and/or read his garbage will subscribe. Most won't.
I pity the fool that blocks google
me?