The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

Post by chii » Sat, Feb 11, 2017, 4:52 AM UTC

robryan wrote: post #26

rspeer wrote: post #10

So does this mean Google is going to stop indexing the text of WSJ articles?

Google should absolutely not index, at least not under the current organic and news search. Why should they send traffic to articles that people can't freely view? I would support some kind of premium news offering from Google where they do index these and you are allowed access through a revenue share subscription made via Google.

Post by wfunction » Sat, Feb 11, 2017, 5:05 AM UTC

ikeboy wrote: post #30

ctrl_freak wrote: post #28

If anyone's looking for another workaround, the article actually hints at the solution: Facebook's l.php redirect that it uses when you click on a link shared through the platform. It functions similarly to the Google redirect, and you don't even need a Facebook account for it to work. E.g. https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.wsj.com/article...

I would give you HN gold if it existed (now we just need a bookmarklet/extension to automate this). Do we know that this will still work on Monday? Maybe this will also be closed and you'll need a special link?

  javascript:window.location="https://m.facebook.com/l.php?u="+encodeURIComponent(window.location.href);

  javascript:window.location="https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&url="+encodeURIComponent(window.location.href);

Post by harryjo » Sat, Feb 11, 2017, 5:24 AM UTC

jay_kyburz wrote: post #7

pascalxus wrote: post #4

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 i…

I would consider perhaps $5-$10 a month if the WSJ was going to be my only source of news. If I could trust it to provide me with all I need every morning while I eat my breakfast. Unfortunately I live in Australia so most stuff in WSJ I don't care about. (And we have the ABC)

Post by colordrops » Sat, Feb 11, 2017, 5:27 AM UTC

Animats wrote: post #20

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.

Post by harryjo » Sat, Feb 11, 2017, 5:28 AM UTC

grzm wrote: post #14

freehunter wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love to see the NYT completely ad-free. I subscribed for a few months thinking my subscription fee would remove the ads, but that wasn't the case. I want a good source of news, ad-free, and I'm willing to pay for it. Unfortunately it seems like I'm in the extreme minority.

I'd like that, too. However, subscriptions alone—unless raised significantly—won't cover the costs for the NYT (or other paper). Note that the physical paper always carries ads and each paper is paid for—either the cover price or through a subscription. Hopefully subscriptions will encourage better quality ads, headlines, and stories. Subscriptions do allow for less click bait.