Comments on: Google News Hypocrisy: Walled Off Content

By: Milly

Milly — Thu, 21 May 2009 00:28:21 +0000

Could you help me. When we ask for advice, we are usually looking for an accomplice. Help me! Please help find sites for: Wall clock. I found only this – http://turbo-tax.biz/. Appliedseo is my outlet to discuss, vent and just plain talk about search engine optimization and the seo industry as a whole. This free tool will help you climb to the top of. Thanks . Milly from Western.

By: JohnnyGreen

JohnnyGreen — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 05:00:36 +0000

Since Google has been giving money to MoveOn.org all you see is all good news for Obama about 90% of the time. Look at all the other news outlets and you will see the lopsidedness of Google news. There are alot of other search engines out there that can do the job. Good Luck.

By: GestapOOGLE » Blog Archive » Again Hypocrisy at it’s GestapOOGLE best!

Sat, 05 Apr 2008 19:40:55 +0000

[...] Google News Hypocrisy: Walled Off Content [...]

By: Why Google is walling off its news garden | Just the top news

Why Google is walling off its news garden | Just the top news — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 19:59:53 +0000

[...] Mike Arrington notes that Google is walling off its news garden and keeping other services from spidering it. [...]

By: roxy web design

roxy web design — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 15:54:26 +0000

Google is the only for getting maximum traffic and getting the advantage of sales through this search engines…I prefers others too…!!

By: Nicola Mattina

Nicola Mattina — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:33:27 +0000

I do not understand why do you need a crowler, when you can subscribe to the rss feed and grab the content from there!

By: GoogleBot

GoogleBot — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 07:09:04 +0000

Hypocrisy? Of course it is, and it’s just one more example in a long list of examples. Refunding only 60% of money spent on “purchased” google videos is the most recent one. Refunding that via “google checkout” credits is just a slap in the user’s face.

This isn’t a issue, Dave Winer, of telling people to “calm down” and ending it with a cute smiley face. This is an issue of calling the spade a spade.

Me, I’m more old-school with my complaints: I still can’t get over why no one is on a rant that GoogleBot can’t even read an XML document and the web is stuck publishing in HTML. Seriously, being constrained by a search engine’s ability to parse is limiting all of us.

Letting browsers do transforms makes development much faster and easier, but we have to make workarounds for the self-proclaimed organizer of the world’s information because 4000 Phd’s can’t even follow links in an XML page. (??!) Maybe powerset will step up.

By: Mark Madsen

Mark Madsen — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 03:48:53 +0000

11 posts to Godwin’s law. Bravo!

By: Mauro Lupi's blog

Mauro Lupi's blog — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 09:26:30 +0000

Tracce umane ovunque / parte prima…

Da qualche giorno Google permette di commentare le notizie pubblicate su Google News (per ora solo negli Stati Uniti), ma solo se si è parte in causa della notizia.Ad esempio, l’articolo sulla ricercache rileva come i ragazzi preferiscano hamburger e…

By: iMarketingGuru (Search Marketing Wiki)

iMarketingGuru (Search Marketing Wiki) — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 05:48:47 +0000

The aggregation of content on the web is the key to successfully monetizing on the content and optimizing the content for users. The duplicate content issue is a big thing and I pride Google for keeping this walled off…

Option #1: Just scrape and then spin the content for maximum performance

Option #2: Forget the rules and just scrape the content for Google is just hypocritical sometimes

Option #3: Report on the content and try to become the Reader’s Digest of Google News.

Option #4: I really just can’t think of any other ideas, anyone have anything to add?

By: Gaurav

Gaurav — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 01:53:06 +0000

#6 “I think Google has special agreements with some of the sites they crawl , simply they pay for that content.

My guess is they are not allowed to open that content and offer it to any body.”

This is not the case. They do not pay the sites they crawl news from.

By: discreet_chaos

discreet_chaos — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 22:55:10 +0000

It appears that everyone is focused on the robots.txt part of this post, but the TOS portion says that Google owns the rights to the comment. So, somebody could respond to a NYTimes story which Google scraped from their site, but the NYTimes would be forbidden from printing the response or possibly even quote it in a story.

By: Rostislav Siryk

Rostislav Siryk — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:22:10 +0000

I think this is just the matter of time while Google will open their news to others.

Probably they just have to define the format of the outgoing rss. If theye’re “Googlize” it like they do with everything they touch, I suggest this content has better presentation as it used to have in the Google’s sources. I think they jus don’t want to make their work done for other’s who just aggregate it w/out the elegance of Google’s approach of making everything.

By: New Google right to reply feature sparks controversy « point being:

New Google right to reply feature sparks controversy « point being: — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:07:43 +0000

[...] also see the move as the first step towards Google’s creating its own news content. And TechCrunch alleges hypocrisy because Google is not allowing other news organizations to crawl that content or republish it, even [...]

By: David Dalka - Creating Revenue and Retention - Chicago GSB MBA

David Dalka - Creating Revenue and Retention - Chicago GSB MBA — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:06:39 +0000

Google News Hypocrisy: Walled Off Content…

Techcrunch has an post that outlines an well thought out viewpoint on an issue regarding Google News.
Michael, as I posted the other day in my interview with Barry Schwartz on splogs, Google can wall it all it wants, the top portions are available vi…

By: Rover

Rover — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:00:30 +0000

One could say Google is innovating here – it is creating a new product using

a) Indexed content from other sites
b) User-generated content
c) Business “know-how”

Then, it simply moves to protect this product from being used as item a) in somebody else’s “content recipe”.

The issue that some people see here is that this kind of innovation has little to do with Google’s original raison d’être – i.e. being a damn good search engine. One could even argue that they’re trying to build another business on the backs of other people’s content.

But a bigger question is – why can’t newspapers create a joint organization responsible for collecting comments on the member newspapers’ articles? Is it that difficult?

By: Dan Penny

Dan Penny — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:48:17 +0000

Google’s apparent hypocrisy is a bigger nuisance for Science, Technical and Medical publishers, who can provide links for their readers to go directly into searching Google Scholar, but are prevented from scraping Scholar’s citation results and display them on their site – which would provide scientists with useful information all on one screen, and would not even be commercialised.

Perhaps even worse is that Google often DOESN’T EVEN REPLY to publisher requests to crawl it. It’s not exactly evil, but it strikes me as arrogance and opportunism – and will last until everyone wakes up to what is going on.

By: James Bridle

James Bridle — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:17:50 +0000

I’m one of the very, very few traditional book publishers who’s always supported what Google has been doing with books – until I realised they were locking all that data away.

At least with Search and News the content is still out there elsewhere on the web for others to index; with Google Books they’re building a massive databank of previously print-only information, which no one else can search or index.

By: Howto Monster

Howto Monster — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:00:02 +0000

This seems like a step in the wrong direction.
C’mon Google, what are you up to.

I have recently seen other restrictions coming from Google such as certain searches returning.

“We’re sorry…

… but your query looks similar to automated requests from a computer virus or spyware application. To protect our users, we can’t process your request right now. ”

- I’m not a fan of filters!

By: Michael Arrington

Michael Arrington — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 13:41:07 +0000

bdb – not even close.

By: Meir

Meir — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 12:39:52 +0000

The only thing I don’t agree with is their use of “Do no evil”.
If you can’t stand behind what you preach, stop preaching it!
I say, the users will be the judges.

By: D-Lister

D-Lister — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 12:01:20 +0000

Google News with comments – Even worse than Letters to the Editor…

Google News Blog: Perspectives about the news from people in the news
Starting this week, well be displaying reader comments on stories in Google News, but with a bit of a twist…
Well be trying out a mechanism for publishing comments from a speci…

By: Tish Grier

Tish Grier — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:26:53 +0000

Well, *this* is mighty interesting! (although I have to agree with Dave W….) but does anyone actually read Google News’ original content? Going to the site, all I find are the aggregated articles. As I said previously, the whole thing seems a ploy to get some free content–and now it looks like it’s also a ploy to get people to read their original content. Which, I might add, is nowhere to be found on their main news page. Where might they be hiding it? Does anyone care?

By: sputnick

sputnick — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:24:19 +0000

Google didn’t actually “rely on the willingness of those news sites to get distribution on Google.” Google didn’t give a damn about whether those news sites wanted their stuff used or not. I recall Agence-France Press had to sue Google because they, in fact, didn’t want Google republishing their stories for free.

Not that I belong in the anti-Google camp. Unlike Microsoft, Google are good at what they do. Google has done wonders for me and my business. Research which used to take days takes hours, and of course the revenue from Adsense has changed our bottom line dramatically. I love you Google. Mwah! Keep up the good work!

By: Rushi Vishavadia

Rushi Vishavadia — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 08:05:47 +0000

I noticed three key lines in their robots.txt file:

Disallow: /news?output=xhtml&
Allow: /news?output=xhtml
Disallow: /news

A bit tricky isn’t it? If they want to disallow crawlers why post the second line in the robots.txt file?