Posted December 2, 2009 Google to allow publishers to limit free news access Google is to allow publishers of paid for content to limit the amount of free access internet users have to their websites from Google News. The move, announced by the Google senior business product manager Josh Cohen late yesterday, comes after mounting criticism of the search engine giant from newspaper publishers, not least the News Corporation chairman and chief executive, Rupert Murdoch. Just yesterday, Murdoch accused online aggregators such as Google News of "theft" of content, speaking at a US media regulators' workshop on the future of journalism in the internet age in Washington. Murdoch plans to put News Corp content, including from UK newspapers such as the Sun and the Times, behind a paywall and has threatened to remove it from Google's search index and Google News. However, Cohen said publishers would be able to charge for their content and still make it available via Google following the changes announced yesterday. "The two aren't mutually exclusive," he added, on a Google News blog. Cohen said Google had achieved this by updating its First Click Free programme, so that publishers can limit Google News users to looking at no more than five pages of content a day without registering or subscribing. "If you're a Google user, this means that you may start to see a registration page after you've clicked through to more than five articles on the website of a publisher using First Click Free in a day ... while allowing publishers to focus on potential subscribers who are accessing a lot of their content on a regular basis," he added. Cohen said that Google will also begin crawling, indexing and treating as "free" any preview pages – usually the headline and first few paragraphs of a story – from subscription websites. "We will then label such stories as 'subscription" in Google News. The ranking of these articles will be subject to the same criteria as all sites in Google, whether paid or free," he added. "Paid content may not do as well as free options, but that is not a decision we make based on whether or not it's free. It's simply based on the popularity of the content with users and other sites that link to it." "These are two of the ways we allow publishers to make their subscription content discoverable, and we're going to keep talking with publishers to refine these methods. After all, whether you're offering your content for free or selling it, it's crucial that people find it. Google can help with that." It remains to be seen whether this will placate Murdoch, who told the US Federal Trade Commission workshop yesterday: "Producing journalism is expensive. We invest tremendous resources in our project from technology to our salaries. To aggregate stories is not fair use. To be impolite, it is theft. "Without us, the aggregators would have blank slides. Right now content producers have all the costs, and the aggregators enjoy [the benefits]. But the principle is clear. To paraphrase a great economist, [there is] no such thing as a free news story." http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/dec/02/google-online-news-rupert-murdoch So what's everyone's thoughts on paid for news? My initial reaction was no way in Hell would I pay for news on the internet... And that's what I still think. Can anyone see this working? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 2, 2009 So what's everyone's thoughts on paid for news? My initial reaction was no way in Hell would I pay for news on the internet... And that's what I still think. Can anyone see this working? It's not going to work - those that care about only reading specific papers have a subscription to it, and have read it stories already in print. Everyone else will go elsewhere on the internet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 2, 2009 Someone had a point that a lot of people might want to read someone like that utter c*nt Jeremy Clarckson and the only way to do that would be through subscription. The whole thing seems a lot more realistic with these Kindle like devices. I'm sure in a couple years having one of those will be the norm. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 2, 2009 It won't work for long. Not for the average person anyway. People will go else-where unless they are subscribed to a particular news page already. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 3, 2009 Someone had a point that a lot of people might want to read someone like that utter c*nt Jeremy Clarckson and the only way to do that would be through subscription. The whole thing seems a lot more realistic with these Kindle like devices. I'm sure in a couple years having one of those will be the norm. I would probably pay to read jezza. I agree with most of the stuff in his coloum. At least he knows the facts even if he chooses to ignore them. I had the misfortune of reading the express the other day and judy from richard and judy was gobbing off about how the navy let those 2 people on a yaught get kidnapped. Event hough she had no idea on the actual facts. Like it wasnt even an actual navy ship, and is crewed by civilians. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 3, 2009 I would probably pay to read jezza. I agree with most of the stuff in his coloum. At least he knows the facts even if he chooses to ignore them. I already pay to read Clarkson stuff. His books are darn good. And his columns in The Times are excellent. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 3, 2009 i'll just wait for dante or EEVIL to post it in gen chit chat... no? O-o Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 3, 2009 (edited) This seems to be that Google are just adapting their search engine so that they don't rob words from news sites that charge, and so that searches mention that you'll have to pay to read the article. Edit: After having a proper read (I was on a mobile before) I believe the following will clarify: - Some news websites have had a subscription for ages. - It has been possible to see some of the content through Google News - This annoyed subscription-based sites. - It was also annoying for searchers to click a link only to have the site tell them that they need to pay - Google have now made a deal with these sites, giving people x amount of free article views. - Google will also now point out which articles will need paying for. Edited December 3, 2009 by Cube Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 3, 2009 This is now The Big Deal in media. I've had a whole series of guest lectures from a number of big hitters in the field lately and it's all they want to talk about! Personally, I think micro payments can more or less gargle my balls. It's a bullshit concept that's already proven to fail (the NYT tried it ten years ago and failed miserably) and Murdoch will never make me pay for anything. but...advertising doesn't fund online news. It's that simple. I'm not sure what the solution is, though. If I did, I wouldn't be heading for £2,000 in debt and living with my parents. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 3, 2009 i'll just wait for dante or EEVIL to post it in gen chit chat... no? O-o Fucking right love. We do the work, so you don't have to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 4, 2009 cool, if this is true,i will try it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 4, 2009 I could have bet that danny would like 'Jezza'. He's quite funny but his opinions are utter crap and he is generally quite ignorant. It's like the village idiot escaped and got himself a national platform. Generally I don't think people will pay to read news on the internet, Murdoch's plan will likely fail. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 4, 2009 Generally I don't think people will pay to read news on the internet, Murdoch's plan will likely fail. Generally, no. But enough people will, do and have been doing for year for them to sustain a profitable site. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 4, 2009 I can't believe some online newspapers still charge subscriptions. I'd never pay for news, considering how many free news sites there are. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 5, 2009 I think its bollocks and especially pissed off that in the times they admitted that they are likely to be doing it. I'm annoyed because I read the times online quite a bit... What makes news sites any different to other sites? why should they charge subscriptions when no body else does....I think its just them coming up with a business model that suits them and balls to the consumer...the worrying thing is if it works and every forms of websites start adopting it...thank god for the rise of the blog! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 7, 2009 I could have bet that danny would like 'Jezza'. He's quite funny but his opinions are utter crap and he is generally quite ignorant. It's like the village idiot escaped and got himself a national platform. As someone said to me on this forum how can an opinion be utter crap? Its an opinion. Lol at you for in one sentance saying someone opinions are utter crap and then in the next calling someone ignorant, pot, kettle, black. He got himself a national platform because people agree with the things he says. As i said yes sometimes he does ignore the facts and rant on a bit. But in general he has the views of the average working man. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted December 7, 2009 What's the big deal, again? This article essentially states that Google was broken before (allowing guests to view members-only info, if you like), and now it's fixed (because of a threatened law-suit). BBC.co.uk is the only news website I've ever actually gone to in order to be 'up-to-date' with the world, and that's free. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
