31–40 of 246 posts
Really? With a Google™ in the name, too? What do you think is going to happen in the next two hours? 1) They'll take down your extension because you're violating their ToS and their trademark 2) The extension will already piss off their "partners", but they can't really say that's the reason they're taking it down, so good thing you provided them with option 1)! I have nothing against the extension itself. I search f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you give more information on how do some websites react to a google referer?
The design intent is almost certainly using Google's "first click free" policy, which primarily applies to newspapers like the NYT or WSJ. Google back in the day struck a deal with the print media: they would remain in Google's index if and only if clicking from a Google search to their articles circumvented their paywall on the first click. If they put only partial content or a full paywall, they'd be delisted. It w…
I would love if I could pay $20 to $30 per month to some aggregator that lets me read articles from Al Jazeera, NY Times, WSJ, BBC, and a selection of other diverse sources.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you give more information on how do some websites react to a google referer?
The design intent is almost certainly using Google's "first click free" policy, which primarily applies to newspapers like the NYT or WSJ. Google back in the day struck a deal with the print media: they would remain in Google's index if and only if clicking from a Google search to their articles circumvented their paywall on the first click. If they put only partial content or a full paywall, they'd be delisted. It w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you give more information on how do some websites react to a google referer?
The design intent is almost certainly using Google's "first click free" policy, which primarily applies to newspapers like the NYT or WSJ. Google back in the day struck a deal with the print media: they would remain in Google's index if and only if clicking from a Google search to their articles circumvented their paywall on the first click. If they put only partial content or a full paywall, they'd be delisted. It w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The design intent is almost certainly using Google's "first click free" policy, which primarily applies to newspapers like the NYT or WSJ. Google back in the day struck a deal with the print media: they would remain in Google's index if and only if clicking from a Google search to their articles circumvented their paywall on the first click. If they put only partial content or a full paywall, they'd be delisted. It w…
Weren't they the same publishers that were suing google for linking directly to their articles?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The design intent is almost certainly using Google's "first click free" policy, which primarily applies to newspapers like the NYT or WSJ. Google back in the day struck a deal with the print media: they would remain in Google's index if and only if clicking from a Google search to their articles circumvented their paywall on the first click. If they put only partial content or a full paywall, they'd be delisted. It w…
So it's not so much that they intended to have a "first click free" policy in the first place but that they are forced to do an exception in order to remain in Google's index. That's interesting, I always wondered why didn't they apply the same policy to being linked in Reddit or HN.
Its fair for many here to complain about some of the online advertising practices of publishers.
However the viable alternative it to pivot to some form of subscription model. Its a hard transition and many orgs are making risky changes to do better.
Extensions like these are a step backwards.
If you value the work you should support it.
See bio for usual disclaimers
This is gonna mess up some major web analytics stats about referrers :)
I guess you have to assume such a small percentage of people will actually be using this, so the numbers won't be too bad??
Disappointed in you Jeremy. Its fair for many here to complain about some of the online advertising practices of publishers. However the viable alternative it to pivot to some form of subscription model. Its a hard transition and many orgs are making risky changes to do better. Extensions like these are a step backwards. If you value the work you should support it. See bio for usual disclaimers
Have you ever considered doing cross-promotions through other channels, such as the ability to round-up my Starbucks purchases and have the excess go toward a subscription?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The design intent is almost certainly using Google's "first click free" policy, which primarily applies to newspapers like the NYT or WSJ. Google back in the day struck a deal with the print media: they would remain in Google's index if and only if clicking from a Google search to their articles circumvented their paywall on the first click. If they put only partial content or a full paywall, they'd be delisted. It w…
One issue with the subscriptions, at least with the NYT, is that their pricing is a little crazy. The phone version is $15, the tablet version is $20, and both together are $30. It seems... excessive. WSJ at least (used to?) offer a single subscription that gives you access on all devices.