The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely(digiday.com)
digiday.com
The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely
http://digiday.com/publishers/wall-street-journal-close-google-loophole-entirely/
324 comments
Tangent: I'm not sure I can think of recent money I've spent better than a year-long Washington Post subscription.
Not because I want to support journalism (though I do), but because having a whole newspaper to flip through every day is so much more productive and efficient than getting dribs and drabs through Twitter and free news sites --- many of which are ultimately sourcing through the journalism that organizations like WaPo do anyways.
Realizing in retrospect how trifling the amount of money we're talking about for a subscription is (it's a tiny fraction of my monthly information services bill [cable/Internet, Netflix, &c]), I feel kind of embarrassed for not having done this a long time ago.
I like WaPo but you might prefer something else, like NYT or WSJ. I'm sure all the major papers are solid choices. Most of you are younger than me. Don't be like me! Subscribe to a damn newspaper already.
Not because I want to support journalism (though I do), but because having a whole newspaper to flip through every day is so much more productive and efficient than getting dribs and drabs through Twitter and free news sites --- many of which are ultimately sourcing through the journalism that organizations like WaPo do anyways.
Realizing in retrospect how trifling the amount of money we're talking about for a subscription is (it's a tiny fraction of my monthly information services bill [cable/Internet, Netflix, &c]), I feel kind of embarrassed for not having done this a long time ago.
I like WaPo but you might prefer something else, like NYT or WSJ. I'm sure all the major papers are solid choices. Most of you are younger than me. Don't be like me! Subscribe to a damn newspaper already.
The larger problem here is that unless they plan to have their Google search results all say "click here to pay" or similar, this entire scheme violates Google's cloaking policy and should result in their being deindexed. This has traditionally been the entire reason that sites offered this workaround - it wasn't out of the goodness of their hearts.
Here's hoping Google actually enforces their policy.
Here's hoping Google actually enforces their policy.
First of all, I think it's great that journalists can get compensated for their work.
but, strictly speaking as a consumer, I must say their paywall is completely out of touch with the way I want to pay for news consumption. I don't mind paying 5c or even 10c per article, but I'm certainly not going to sign up to pay 120$ for 6 months, if I'm only going to read 1 or 2 articles here and there. but since they've done it this way, I can only conclude that most consumers prefer it that way.
but, strictly speaking as a consumer, I must say their paywall is completely out of touch with the way I want to pay for news consumption. I don't mind paying 5c or even 10c per article, but I'm certainly not going to sign up to pay 120$ for 6 months, if I'm only going to read 1 or 2 articles here and there. but since they've done it this way, I can only conclude that most consumers prefer it that way.
https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/40543?hl=en...
According to this, it will need to mark WSJ links differently in Google News.
Interestingly, I tested it and links from Google news still had a "First Click Free", contrary to OP. To test:
1. Go to https://news.google.com/ from a computer that hasn't visited any WSJ articles that day
2. Click on a WSJ link (mine was https://www.wsj.com/articles/daniel-tarullo-federal-reserve-...)
3. See if the whole article is displayed. For me, it was, but when I tried again it only showed a snippet. So it seems like they're only showing the very first click, which does not comply with Google's guidelines above (which require 3 articles a day to be viewable). Anyone else want to offer data points?
Edit: oh, OP says it's only starting Monday.
(Of course, WSJ may be exempt because of direct communication with Google, which I'd expect anyway at their size and at the fact that they weren't banned when they started testing this. But Google should really note any exceptions in their policy.)
According to this, it will need to mark WSJ links differently in Google News.
Interestingly, I tested it and links from Google news still had a "First Click Free", contrary to OP. To test:
1. Go to https://news.google.com/ from a computer that hasn't visited any WSJ articles that day
2. Click on a WSJ link (mine was https://www.wsj.com/articles/daniel-tarullo-federal-reserve-...)
3. See if the whole article is displayed. For me, it was, but when I tried again it only showed a snippet. So it seems like they're only showing the very first click, which does not comply with Google's guidelines above (which require 3 articles a day to be viewable). Anyone else want to offer data points?
Edit: oh, OP says it's only starting Monday.
(Of course, WSJ may be exempt because of direct communication with Google, which I'd expect anyway at their size and at the fact that they weren't banned when they started testing this. But Google should really note any exceptions in their policy.)
I see in the comments there are still some workarounds to this paywall. Good to know. Cheers.
Just a reminder another workaround to the paywall is to you know actually subscribe to the newspaper. That is an option they offer. Obviously not possible for everyone. But if you have the money and want to read and support journalism... WSJ is really far from perfect but it's not the worst newspaper one could be subscribed to.
Also I think their discounted corporate plans program is huge, so depending where you work you may get a discount or it could be free, never hurts to ask.
Also, maybe YC could negotiate some sort of group WSJ discount for Hacker News users above a certain karma count? Just an idea...
Just a reminder another workaround to the paywall is to you know actually subscribe to the newspaper. That is an option they offer. Obviously not possible for everyone. But if you have the money and want to read and support journalism... WSJ is really far from perfect but it's not the worst newspaper one could be subscribed to.
Also I think their discounted corporate plans program is huge, so depending where you work you may get a discount or it could be free, never hurts to ask.
Also, maybe YC could negotiate some sort of group WSJ discount for Hacker News users above a certain karma count? Just an idea...
Out of curiosity I searched for the Wall Street Journal subscription page. I selected my country (UK) and then clicked on the subscription offer. I was then taken to a Hong Kong page with no obvious way of changing it back to the UK.
If they want subscribers, they're going to have to do a better job than that.
If they want subscribers, they're going to have to do a better job than that.
The problem is that newspapers believe the myth that they were really efficient at reporting on and delivering news, when really their core competency was their ability to deliver print advertising to every doorstep in a given market on a daily basis. This is similar to the music industry, whose core competency was not developing talent or setting the standards of taste, but rather delivering precisely molded disks of vinyl to far-flung stores every Tuesday.
Oh internet, what myths do you believe about yourself? That you are the harbinger of universal enlightenment and democracy?
Oh internet, what myths do you believe about yourself? That you are the harbinger of universal enlightenment and democracy?
Has any publisher tried out a paywall along the lines of the following?
"Hey, you've spent 29 hours so far this year reading 119 articles. Suggested donation: $62"
"Hey, you've spent 29 hours so far this year reading 119 articles. Suggested donation: $62"
Hmmmm. In the FAQ, under the question "Are paywalls ok?", there's this:
>It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.
If this loophole is closed, will there be any workarounds? If that's the case, then I wonder if it'll still be OK to post WSJ links to HN.
>It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.
If this loophole is closed, will there be any workarounds? If that's the case, then I wonder if it'll still be OK to post WSJ links to HN.
Sadly for most newspapers, WSJ is in a special position. It has the highest circulation of any paper in the US, and it has a target audience that really doesn't mind paying.
A paywall wouldn't work out well for many others.
A paywall wouldn't work out well for many others.
Paywalls have been tightening up recently. The Washington Post now has stronger anti-ad-blocking. So do the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times. The New York Times is still accessible.
It's a concern that the newspapers which have actual reporters in the field are disappearing behind paywalls.
It's a concern that the newspapers which have actual reporters in the field are disappearing behind paywalls.
So does this mean Google is going to stop indexing the text of WSJ articles?
The WSJ is a fantastic source of information. I no longer subscribe since I no longer live in the US but I easily made more money from the information in the paper than I paid in.
It was also very informative.
If you can't derive value from it, I understand all the trouble people go through to bypass it. It's just that I see that people's stated aims and revealed preferences are in contradiction. Everyone wants high quality news. No one seems to want to pay what it costs.
It was also very informative.
If you can't derive value from it, I understand all the trouble people go through to bypass it. It's just that I see that people's stated aims and revealed preferences are in contradiction. Everyone wants high quality news. No one seems to want to pay what it costs.
So... is this good reason to stop posting WSJ on HN yet?
I prefer Reuters. They seem to have less bias, their articles are free and many stories at other news outlets are bought from Reuters anyway.
With every single news outlet taking polical position lately - it became intolerable to read or find somewhat objective news source.
I don't mind paying <$10 / mo for clean no BS objective and detailed coverage.
I don't mind paying <$10 / mo for clean no BS objective and detailed coverage.
I think this is great news. I'd love to see WSJ ad free and funded with subscriptions.
I'm not sure I would subscribe, but I want to live in a world where it's possible.
I'm not sure I would subscribe, but I want to live in a world where it's possible.
It's easier to not read Rupert Murdoch owned content.
Another way to get around many paywalls is to change your browser's user agent string to 'Googlebot'. I've got a subscription to the Financial Times, but if there's a one-off article somewhere else that I want to read, that's my go-to method for getting through a paywall. I wonder if their fix will close it off too.
They are 'striving' to hit 3M subscribers? Sounds like they are trying very hard to go right out of business anyway.
This article makes no sense.
The Google loophole only works half the time at best.
All articles posted on HN invariably end up with the same discussion:
1) "Behind a paywall. Can't read it."
2) "You need to use the google link"
3) "The google link also gives a paywall."
4) "It worked for me."
5) "Doesn't work for me."
The Google loophole only works half the time at best.
All articles posted on HN invariably end up with the same discussion:
1) "Behind a paywall. Can't read it."
2) "You need to use the google link"
3) "The google link also gives a paywall."
4) "It worked for me."
5) "Doesn't work for me."
I welcome this move. It will stop their articles being posted here and in other forums, we simply can't read them. While WSJ does have good content, I will not pay for it and this will make sure it doesn't trick me into clicking links and have to close browser.
On other hand, for their business to continue to grow, they need to come up with way to show us that content somehow, maybe not the one they charge for but something that can display excellence.
Good examples would be ArsTechnica and Nautilus.
On other hand, for their business to continue to grow, they need to come up with way to show us that content somehow, maybe not the one they charge for but something that can display excellence.
Good examples would be ArsTechnica and Nautilus.
Something people don't appreciate about the culture wars: as left-facing publications paywall, they yield ground to free right-facing ones.
So the best offer the WSJ can provide is "All Access Digital" for $198 over 12 months, after which the price is doubled to $396 for the same length of time. That means, eventually, you'll be spending about $33 a month just to read what are mostly AP stories without even the guarantee of an ad-free experience.
How is this attractive?
How is this attractive?
This is why google needs to get into social search. WSJ is basically moving discovery from traditional search to social search. how many searches across social platforms is google completely missing out on? I know for certain topics, i run to twitter to search as opposed to google. buy google already
I am just wondering if sites can have affiliated material subscriptions like with hn have free clickthrough for 2$ a month or 5$ a month to all sites from where the articles originate from.
My pain at the loss of the Google loophole is tempered by the realization that the WSJ has largely become a propaganda organ of the GOP.
[deleted]
I would pay if I don't fear them. They constantly trying to push a propogenda, and you have to pay for it is indigestible
E.g. https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.wsj.com/article...