

Google to limit free news access - intranation
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8389896.stm

======
dagw
I know I'm probably the odd one out here, but I think this is a good thing.
Newspapers have been arguing that they aren't getting paid enough for the
service they provide and a lot of internet users are arguing that the service
they provide have too little value to be worth paying for. Anything that can
help bring these warring factions to some sort of actual confrontation can
only be a good thing in the long run.

We've seen too much hand wringing and rhetoric and not enough action. Big
media, you say internet users have been freeloading for too long, here are the
tools to stop them, now use them. Internet users, you say you can do without
access to major newspaper content, they've now limited your free access, so go
do without.

I honestly don't know how it will play out in the end, but I'm pretty sure
we'll see the future of news media rise from the ashes of the conflict, and
I'm genuinely excited to see what it looks like.

------
motters
Really all this is going to achieve is to drive readers away from conventional
news sources to less conventional ones. Google doesn't control ads on most
Murdoch media sites, but it does control ads on many blogs. Potentially Google
could make more money by having people spending time reading news related
blogs and less time on other news sites.

~~~
qeorge
This thread is a dupe of this one:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=971331>

In that thread I've explained what First Click Free really is (its not new),
because the BBC article is quite misleading. This is a small policy change to
throw a bone to top-tier publishers like NYTimes, and is unlikely to have the
impact you've described.

More here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=971414>

------
shawndrost
This is not a very informative news article, but I did some research and
here's what I think is happening: Google has always required that indexed
sites show the indexed content to visitors that come through Google (to
prevent bait-and-switch tactics). They're now allowing indexed sites to use
bait-and-switch tactics after the fifth visit in one day.

This actually seems like it will have some noticeable (unintended) effects:
won't it apply equally to Experts Exchange and their ilk?

(It's not clear what this all has to do with "First Click Free", which is an
old program that seems to offer a smaller loophole in the "no bait-and-switch"
rules. It's easiest to explain by example: If you go to a WSJ story via
google, then click a link to another story, WSJ may ask you to register
without being penalized by Google, even if that link didn't lead to a
registration wall to the googlebot.)

~~~
pavs
I think Google is working with a handful of news publishers on this as opposed
having this as a default option for everyone. So if you are not one of the few
pre-approved sites you can't do this.

That would make more sense.

~~~
alecco
No.
[http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/12/changes-i...](http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/12/changes-
in-first-click-free.html)
[http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/12/new-
user-...](http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/12/new-user-agent-
for-news.html)

------
GBKS
Is this another case where Google of the Chrome frame for IE6, where Google
realizes that things won't change until they intervene? Really, the news sites
should be the ones to add a cookie on their sites and redirect users after
visiting x pages in a day - a very simple thing to build.

I don't understand why Google has to be involved, unless they want to push
things forward or be on good terms with Fox and co. A very hacky solution,
IMHO, and an approach that won't lead news sites to profitability.

~~~
stcredzero
_A very hacky solution, IMHO, and an approach that won't lead news sites to
profitability._

But if they do it right, they'll make the news sites happy as they are going
out of business. The news sites will blame the users. Also, if they do it
right, the users will be blaming the news sites and not Google.

I think Google is out to call Rupert Murdoch's bluff.

------
decklin
I would have trouble explaining this to my parents, or anyone not familiar
with how cookies or "cloaking" work. I just heard the BBC world report (radio)
summarize this coverage a few minutes ago; it made it sound like

\- Google copies and stores news articles and serves them to users

\- Google decides when users have to sign in upon visiting third-party news
site.

These misconceptions are great if you're Rupert Murdoch. In reality, the
change in Google's policy is minor:

\- You are permitted to serve different content than the bot got (i.e. make
them sign in) _if_ the cookie on the other end has already requested 5 (or
whatever) articles

\- You could do that before, of course, but you would have gotten delisted for
cloaking, just as with Google's web index. This is a new exception to that
rule.

Laypersons have enough trouble understanding that news sites are not obligated
to serve their content to Google. Making the issue more complicated (even if
this isn't very complicated to us) may not be a good PR move.

------
Maro
"Some readers have discovered they can avoid paying subscription fees to
newspaper websites by calling up their pages via Google."

This is absurd on so many levels. People find the article with Google, but
it's the newspaper who puts it up for free. Yes, there is a question here, but
this article is confused. The question is simple: newspapers produce content,
Google indexes it, how do they split the ad revenues? I would think that both
parties are free to put up ads on their pages, and they do, but newspapers are
trying to cut into Google's ad revenue. I'm sure they're also willing to chip
in to help pay for Google's cost of maintaining their index, after all, it's
driving traffic to them...

If we're talking about a subscription article, then Google shouldn't (can't?)
index it anyways?

~~~
ThinkWriteMute
Yep, they can. Know why? Because Agents with the Google codename get free
access to subscription services. Why would this happen? Because Newspapers
want to get fucking indexed and search traffic.

In fact there's a ff plugin out there that lets you change your user agent id
to that of google's bot. Lets you see free articles, porn, etc. But mostly
porn.

------
pavs
Seriously who reads more than 5 pages of news from the same source a day? I
assume 99.99% will not get affected by this. People who are dumb enough to pay
for online news will pay for online news, regardless of the changes.

Advertisement is the only way of revenue for news publishers, subscription is
silly and short-sighted.

~~~
NikkiA
I usually read about 10-20 pages from the BBC and from my local newspapers'
sites.

Of course, the latter will change, as the company that owned them has
announced plans to make their entire newspaper constellation (several hundred
local newspapers across the UK) paywalled, and both local newspapers for me
are owned by the same company.

~~~
pavs
I rather pay for BBC than any US based News source. I want news not a liberal
or conservative or neutral interpretation of the source, let me be the judge
of what I want to conclude from the news. Just give me the facts.

BBC seems to do that more often than others.

~~~
cabalamat
If the Tories win the next UK election (they probably will), it's been
suggested that as part of a deal they've done with Rupert Murdoch, they may
destroy the BBC new website, or at least castrate it severely, so Murdoch can
make more profits.

~~~
NikkiA
They can try, anything like that would have to get past the lords, and I doubt
they'd be willing to castrate the BBC like that, certainly not to line a
foreigner's pockets some more.

~~~
cabalamat
The present government are quite happy to throw away the people's historic
rights such as the rihght to a fail trial and no collective punishment, in
their Digital Economy Bill, in order to line foreigners' pockets (the RIAA and
MPAA).

And the Tories' response to this? They think the DE Bill is basically sound,
but doesn't go far enough.

I think we can take it as read that both the Labour and Conservative parties,
when faced with a choice between the British people, and lining foregners'
pockets, will choose the latter, esepcially when they are big donors.

------
fiaz
When the "Miracle on the Hudson" happened, where did it hit first? Twitter, by
somebody on the plane. This was hours before any print media even knew what
was happening. On all levels that first post showed just how obsolete
traditional media is becoming because it satisfied the major requirements of
news: speed and credibility. What is being posted on Twitter is information,
and news is a special case of information that has a sense of urgency
associated with it. As blogging becomes more mainstream, traditional media
will disappear, and this latest development from Google is intended (I
believe) to push things in that direction.

------
clicks
I'm extremely happy to see this. This is a great day for
<http://en.wikinews.org/>

Oh, and guys -- you perhaps ought to consider writing for it. :) The HN crowd
is very educated, so many of you are the ideal candidates to be writing the
news, as you witness it.

~~~
NikkiA
It really needs a way to support local and regional news for areas around the
world. Johnson Press announced on monday plans (and a trial scheme of 3 local
news areas) to paywall all of their local newspaper sites in the UK - this
will be a huge loss to the internet, as JP effectively has a monopoly on UK
local news - they are the only local news provider for about 80% of the UK.

As an example, my local newspaper and regional newspaper are both JP papers,
and they are my primary source of local news online, as well as in print.

------
ntoshev
So, Google gives publishers finer-grained control over how their readers can
access their content via Google's services. They do it because the newspapers
are getting desperate in their quest to find a working revenue model and seem
likely to try drastic measures, like unlisting themselves from Google (which
any site can do using robots.txt).

------
ig1
Doesn't the FT already do this ? - I'm failing to see what Google has to do
with this. Some newspapers already send you a cookie and only let you see a
certain number of articles before giving you a paywall.

~~~
nfnaaron
I've noticed this recently about FT. My reaction is that when I notice a link
is to FT I don't bother clicking it, because it's annoying to get the
"register first" page, and that because I'm only going to close the page
rather than register.

It's not a rebellious, "they're taking my free Internet" reaction, it's just
an annoyance that I swat away, like a fly and with about as much thought. This
post is orders of magnitude more thought than I've given it to date.

I wonder how many other people are going to react that way to FT and other
sites?

------
davecardwell
They’ve also added a new news-specific user agent for their GoogleBot:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=972412>

------
nex3
Here's hoping Google News gets an easy way of ignoring articles behind
paywalls...

------
stef25
Is this out of fear of or caving in to pressure from Rupert Murdoch?

------
JCThoughtscream
Suddenly, downloads of BugMeNot's add-on skyrockets...

------
tybris
Another victory for Murdoch I guess.

------
c1sc0
What was this don't be evil thing again? So who will build a news-only search
engine with deep links, maybe a distributed effort?

