Murdoch's Times goes back to Google: please index us, just a little!

Discuss

18 Responses to “Murdoch's Times goes back to Google: please index us, just a little!”

  1. niktemadur says:

    Don’t do it, let it die.  Just desserts, good riddance to bad rubbish.

  2. James says:

    This’d be sweet if it wasn’t so sad.

  3. cfuse says:

    If Google is going to continue providing relevant search results, then I’d be annoyed if non-content from the Times showed up anywhere on the first page. Two sentences isn’t a legitimate result.

    • fuzzyfuzzyfungus says:

      It will be interesting to see what they do: as much as I’d like to see Murdoch’s rag simply fall off the internet, having search engines delist people they dislike is not a good direction.

      However, as you note, ’2 sentences -> paywall’ is a minimally valuable search result unless there simply aren’t any alternatives not so crippled, so it would seem entirely reasonable for Google to massively ding the pagerank of material that their customers probably won’t be able to access vs. material that they probably will.

    • Steve Bosman says:

      It is easy to tell google that you don’t want to see results from a site, so this shouldn’t really be that much trouble.

  4. howaboutthisdangit says:

    That’s just great. Now I’ll have to filter the Times out of my search results along with other linkbait SEO sites.

  5. Ipo says:

    I think Murdoch is going about it the right way.  They should certainly continue.  

  6. Florian Bösch says:

    Google didn’t do anything to get The Times unindexed. The times just set everything in their robots.txt as unindexable.

    Google doesn’t need to do anything to get The Times re-indexed. There are known mechanisms (robots.txt, siteindex, etc.) to deliver indexable content to the googlebot and prevent it from indexing content. They can just use that.

    Googles pagerank is based on many, many factors. Among other things, it’s based on content or lack thereof. If The Times thinks that they will show up anywhere in the search with two sentence text bodies, good luck, that won’t happen. But they’re certainly entirely free to submit their two sentences per article to the googlebot.

    The Times hasn’t been getting any extra-special treatment from Google, and I’d imagine they’re not going to get any extra-special treatment from them now.

    Google does offer paid search results which show up on top of the searches, The Times can just buy those if they want to show up for some keywords. Again, Google already offers all the required functionality, no need for extra-special treatment.

    TL;DR The Times has no clue how Google works.

  7. Chris Bair says:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/04/08/new_winnt_2k_xp_security/

    * –All right, I’m only going to say this once: ‘He’ is the singular indefinite pronoun in English (“if a person drinks too much, he will likely experience a hangover”). ‘He’ also happens to be the masculine personal pronoun.

    ‘She’ is the singular pronoun of personification in English (“if England fails to advance America’s foreign-policy ambitions, she will suffer terrible consequences”). ‘She’ also happens to be the feminine personal pronoun.

    Confusing the two exhibits not a warm-and-fuzzy concern for the inclusion of women so much as a writer’s or speaker’s ignorance. Using the feminine personal pronoun as an indefinite article is as moronic as using the masculine personal pronoun for personification. Thus the captain greets us: “Welcome to my ship. Isn’t he splendid?”

    Give it up, people. It’s not thoughtful; it’s just illiterate.

Leave a Reply