Page is a not externally linkable
StoutFiles - 5:44 pm on Nov 11, 2009 (gmt 0)
2) The Internet and search engines existed long before Mr. Murdoch's Web sites existed. When his company chose to published on the open Web, they made a conscious decision to expose their stories to the unwashed masses AND to search-engine crawlers. 3) If Mr. Murdoch has changed his mind about having his content indexed, he can place that content behind a firewall or block Google's crawler with a couple of lines in robots.txt. There's no need for public posturing, blustering, and bluffing. 1) Indexing a link isn't. Indexing words from the article is being debated currently on what is fair (I think the AP says more than 11 words is theft?). Caching is definitely theft. 2) We can't all get things for free forever...and just because things have been in place doesn't mean we should all have to agree. I don't think Murdoch ever made a decision to have Google take all the info and show enough that the link doesn't need to be followed. Search engines have evolved and Google News is not a search engine, it's a content scraper. I would be sued if I created my own Google News, so why should Google get to get away with it? 3) The robots.txt has been changed. However, naturally he wants Google to change some of their practices and everyone to notice that Google has become the supreme overlord of the internet, which it has. Which is all fine and dandy, except that it's not "Google's snippet", it's Murdoch's snippet. Google is showing enough of the article that people don't click the link and that's the problem...how much of an article can you show before it's theft? Useful for us but horrible for the scrapped site. If Google wants to be a "critic", they need to do it in their own words. [edited by: StoutFiles at 5:53 pm (utc) on Nov. 11, 2009]
1) Indexing isn't theft.
The Newspaper's dirty little secret here is that the information conveyed by Google's snippet is not "the informative essence of my carefully-crafted article is bla bla bla"; the information conveyed by Google's snippet is "you really don't want to waste your time reading this article."