Slashdot Mirror
Google Will Prioritize Stories for Paying News Subscribers (bloomberg.com)
Google users who subscribe to newspapers will find articles from those publications appearing higher in their search results, part of the tech giant's efforts to help media companies find and retain paying readers, Bloomberg reports, citing people familiar with the matter. From the report: The Alphabet unit will also begin sharing search data that show who's most likely to buy a subscription, said the people, who asked to be anonymous because they weren't authorized to speak publicly. Google executives plan to disclose specific details at an event in New York on March 20, according to the people. Google declined to comment. The moves could help publishers better target potential digital subscribers and keep the ones they've already got by highlighting stories from the outlets they're paying for. The initiative marks the latest olive branch from Silicon Valley in its evolving relationship with media companies.
I canceled my last magazine and newspaper subscriptions 10 years ago, and I will never again, as long as I live, pay $1 for for any of it. Ever.
...Google users who subscribe to newspapers ...
Do I have to tell google, or does google just sift through their data and surmise?
but only once. I am not going to pay for multiple newspaper subscriptions. I want a netflix type subscription where I pay one party and I have access to all the news out there.
The paywalled articles are getting annoying, even slashdot had posted a few articles you couldn't even read.
Google is directing the narrative by what links it pushes when you search a topic, its getting crazy when you search for an article from 2012 on tariffs, and google is pushing trending news links ahead of the real search results.
I started using duckduckgo for searches, but they are getting over ran by people gaming the results for topic snow. Guess thats what happens when you start getting popular.
And for a paywall workaround, if they are referred by facebook the article is free. Post to facebook and read, or use an addon to change your refer.
Boiling the frog.
Rick B.
They should down-rate paywalled and teaser "click here to continue reading after the first few dozen words" results.
It's fascinating to see media companies' customers all working against each other.
Some of us advocate against bundling because we only want to pay for what we like and stop funding whatever we consider shit. (Of course it's all subjective, but that's why voting is a thing.)
And others advocate for bundling because minimizing the number of transactions is more important than getting the media they want and abstaining from funding those who bore them.
No media company can serve us both. It's going to be one way or the other, so every time one of us spends money, we are fucking things up for the other people.
Who will win? I hope my people beat your people, you fucking bundlers! ;-) But seriously, you're undoing all the progress we've won .. but your success says there's more of you people than I thought. I wonder what things will look like 20 ... no, even 10 years from now.
My big worry is that since you're more focused on keeping the number of transactions down, you probably pay more money, and ultimately, that's going to cause you people (who apparently care about neither money nor quality (even quality from your own subjective viewpoint!!!)) to win. I feel like I'm bidding against unthinking, rich monsters.
Do I have to tell google
Are you kidding? The answer is always "Yes google knows already".
They knew you were subscribing before the paper did.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Drudge more or less does this already by virtue of including stories on his site.
The Irony is that the Likes of Google bitch and moan about it all the time and some of the retards at the FEC want to regulate Drudge so badly they can taste it.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
From the article: "Several publishers, including the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and the Washington Post, are focusing on getting readers to pay for their content as it becomes more difficult to support newsrooms with advertising revenue." Why aren't media/news companies looking at making their product more appealing? Buying google search space, subscribers to online content and huge amounts of content blocking ads are all going to fail. Why do so many companies insist on figuring out ways to squeeze pennies from dying products rather than focusing on making the product more appealing? I block washingtonpost.com in my hosts file because of how annoying they have become. If it happens to come up higher in a search engine I'm still not going to view it.
Sent from my TARDIS
I have to say, having Google news search prioritize sources that I subscribe to sounds like a great idea to me. I would want to learn first what the sources I've already paid for have to say.
And the SJWs bitch and moan about his site all the time.
Some of the FEC retards are still agitating to regulate Drudge. I bet they won't try and regulate Google for this because Google will show the stories they approve of.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
And they should put up non pay-walled links for the rest of us, right?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
People have made a big deal about pay-for-play in the transmission of data on the internet and claimed Net Neutrality is needed to curb abuses, yet apparently it's okie-dokie for information gatekeepers like Google/Facebook/et al to make money by prioritizing things. If NN is needed in the one area, I'd think it would be needed everywhere.
Then perhaps they should make the product worth paying for.
When most media outlets have the same stories from the same perspective and usually from the same source, it's really hard to justify paying for it.
Now, if they'd actually go about investigating things and holding the powerful accountable, I might consider paying for news. But, as it is, I see no reason to pay to be exposed to rightwing propaganda.