Rupert Murdoch to remove News Corp's content from Google 'in months'

Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by GoCubsGo, Nov 25, 2009.

  1. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #1
    This is BS. The Wall Street Journal has been one of my favored business papers for over 10 years. I lusted after a silly subscription for years before I could even live out on my own. Then I start reading about this ...

    Now I understand the WSJ is not the only paper, but this applies to all News Corp content. Microsoft seems to be somewhat behind this effort.

    Article Link

    Microsoft and News Corp. are pursuing yesterday's solution to today's challenges
     
  2. Melrose Suspended

    Melrose

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2007
    #2
    I don't blame them at all for taking this step. If Google didn't just go and index whatever they want it wouldn't have happened.

    I'd love to see more and more companies remove themselves. People are all like "Oh, [product] is great cause the competition makes Apple try harder. Yay us!" Google's not exempt just because they offer it free. It pushes the end product to be better, and the same is true for Google, whether it's direct competition or not. Money was spent putting those publications together, so I see no reason why people that want to read it shouldn't pay for it.

    It would be great if the Google monopoly would collapse.
     
  3. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #3
    The removal of the dirty diggers stories from search engines can only be a good thing all round.(NewsCorp and Bing are welcome to bog off and do their own thing)
     
  4. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #4
    So Murdoch's sites lose an arse load of traffic. boohoo.
     
  5. splitpea macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Location:
    Among the starlings
    #5
    I don't think you understand how web indexing works -- Google only provides links to the WSJ's pages, with tiny teasers that make the user more likely to click the link. Everyone who clicks a link to get form google to the WSJ earns the WSJ money -- most content providers *want* to be indexed by google.

    If Murdoch doesn't want Google to cache full versions of his pages, all he has to do is either add no-cache headers to each page, or edit a single robots.txt file to tell Google not to cache any of its pages. Not all spiders always obey these directives, but Google's do.
     
  6. Melrose Suspended

    Melrose

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2007
    #6
    ^^ I know. I phrased that wrong. I didn't mean they were caching information that wasn't available. My point was, in a nutshell, the people that publish something have every right to dictate how it is made available.
     
  7. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #7
    If you publish something on the internet, for the world to see, you should expect that search engine spiders will pick it up. In fact, I bet 99% of website owners want spiders to pick up as much content from their site as they can. If Rupert doesn't want Google searching his content, don't put it on the internet. Simple as that.
     
  8. Melrose Suspended

    Melrose

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2007
    #8
    That's not true at all. It makes perfect sense to published subscription-only content online, the first of which being convenience. Readers who pay for a subscription may want to read the daily the same time they check CNN, or their email. It makes sense to publish it online, whether it's commercial or not.

    To insist the internet is solely for free-speech and communal sharing doesn't make sense. It's not some grandiose, free spirit nirvana. It's a form of media, and as such publishers have the right control content they publish.
     
  9. notjustjay macrumors 603

    notjustjay

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Location:
    Canada, eh?
    #9
    The two concepts aren't mutually exclusive. If people want to produce subscription-only content, that's certainly their right to do so.

    If, somehow, somewhere, content is made freely and publicly available on the web, expect Google to find it and index it. There's nothing wrong with that.

    I think the problem may be that according to Google's "first click free" policy, people who do Google searches are able to circumvent the subscription policy and see the content for free. Simple solution: "first click free" is a voluntary policy, if you don't want to participate, configure your website accordingly and you're done.

    As everyone keeps saying, the correct solution is to have article teasers and summaries that are freely available, without a subscription, and that get indexed into Google. People will search for those, find it, and then be sent to a page that says "please subscribe if you want to see the rest of the story". Removing yourself entirely from Google would work, too, but that's more of a "cut off nose to spite face" scenario.

    But the real problem I have with this story is Microsoft's involvement. Microsoft paying someone to remove all their search results from Google seems a bit underhanded (though not particularly surprising). I feel it's a slippery slope, and of course it undermines the entire purpose of search engines.
     
  10. abijnk macrumors 68040

    abijnk

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
  11. localoid macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #11
    Murdoch's News Corp. and much of the old mainstream media are crusty old dinosaurs unable to adapt to a changing world. In the 90s, most of the print media was refusing to print ads that contained a URL to the advertiser's Web site. That practice began to change by the beginning of the 21st Century, when most of the old media had established their own Web sites and were attempting to monetize their sites via advertising. But most of the publishers and advertisers were clueless about how to market to the online community, and yet most were reluctant to partner with companies that specialized in Internet marketing because the "old" media was used to keeping 100% of their ad revenue.

    The "old" media has been digging their own graves for over a decade now. Now it's time to evolve, or die. Unfortunately, they are still completely ignorant of how the Internet and search engines work. And as a result, they just keep digging the same old hole a little deeper...
     

Share This Page