Slashdot Mirror
Web Caching: Google vs. The New York Times
An anonymous reader writes "The Google cache is a popular feature among karma fetishists. Many stories with links to the NY Times attract comments pointing to Google's copy of the article. This gives readers access to the content without registering. C|Net reports that Google is in talks with the NY Times to close this backdoor. The article raises some general concerns regarding the caching of webcontent. Shouldn't the NY Times simply tell Google not to cache their site?"
Apart from giving the NYT your e-mail addy for spam purposes, what real point is there to free registration?
User tracking. While cookies can do this loosely, requiring a login does this much more effectively. I know I login with my same username each time I visit the site (if it's not cached). There's very little reason not to. This gives the NYT a much better indication of how many active and repeat members they have visitting their site. They can then target ads to users much more effectively, and market their userbase to advertisers much more solidly than they could with more rudimentary user tracking methods.
There may be other purposes, but this seems like a large part of it.
Actually, registration is not required to protect a work. Creating a work automatically protects it under copyright law -- no need for registration, user fees, or that little (c) thingy. At least in countries respecting the Berne Convention.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
well cant they just use meta tags to prevent archving of their pages
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="noarchive">
from
http://www.google.co m/bot.html"