Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google News

Google Will Prioritize Stories for Paying News Subscribers (bloomberg.com) 36

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Will Prioritize Stories for Paying News Subscribers

Comments Filter:
  • by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @12:16PM (#56259639)

    ...Google users who subscribe to newspapers ...

    Do I have to tell google, or does google just sift through their data and surmise?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Do I have to tell google, or does google just sift through their data and surmise?

      Probably . . . neither.

      Google will probably expect the media companies to provide them with subscriber lists . . .

      . . . which Google will promptly resell.

      • by stephanruby ( 542433 ) on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @02:00PM (#56260493)

        . . . which Google will promptly resell.

        Google doesn't resell information. Reselling such information and you can only resell it once.

        However, selling targeted advertisements, you can do that an infinite amount of times.

        In other words, the original post should have said

        Google will probably expect the media companies to provide them with subscriber lists . . .

        . . . which Google will promptly use to sell more expensive ads (including ads purchased by the newspapers own competitors).

      • ...Google will probably expect the media companies to provide them with subscriber lists . . . ...

        OK, let me take a different approach... How does google know how to attach my search results to any lists provided by media companies?

        • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

          How about taking the worst approach. So Google will basically cook your search results to ensure that you do not see better quality news articles, in order to lock you in with corporate main stream propaganda and making it look like they are doing you a favour, what a pack of cunts, this hidden behind but you are already a subscriber and already addicted to that brand of coolaid, why would you want to read more open and honest news.

          Every time you turn around you find google prying over you shoulder, ready

    • Pretty simple: using one of their countless javascript trackers, or through Chrome browser or Android.

      Google has countless trackers all over the web, from doubleclick, analytics, captcha, to ad services, and tag manager, etc. Google is a serial tracker. [softpedia.com]

      And if you know any amount of js, you'll realise how easy it is to fingerprint users [eff.org] using modern browsers, and the power a simple js script has over a page, including anything a user does from mouse movements, to keystrokes, etc.

      It's quite interesting that c

    • 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.

    • Well, the New York Times at least has Google as one of its login options (Along with Facebook and Username/Email). So presumably that's the obvious and easiest way for Google to know. I try to avoid using Google/Facebook for logins when I can. I figure, the few things that can be compromised if one password gets loose, the better. But a lot of people do use those options for ease of use. I would also guess that Google could also just read the NYTimes cookie that keeps you logged in.

      NYTimes in the only

      • 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.
  • I'm willing to pay (Score:4, Interesting)

    by layabout ( 1576461 ) on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @12:17PM (#56259653)
    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.
    • 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.

      Same. Give me an industry standard aggregator that I can query without adverts or tracking mechanisms. Stop giving me fucking blogs in my news feed. This isn't news, its AMPed up garbage chock full of more garbage, likely generated by something like the POMO generator. (http://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/)

      Imagine a news feed any real journalist could submit to, just send their JSON object and the aggregator with standard interface. It's like reddit but with journalistic integrity 100% of the time and

    • by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Wednesday March 14, 2018 @12:27PM (#56259731)
      It seems as though most of what's actually news comes via the Associated Press, so what you're asking for doesn't seem unreasonable. What you get from a magazine or paper just seems to be local stories or editorial content.
      • It seems as though most of what's actually news comes via the Associated Press, so what you're asking for doesn't seem unreasonable. What you get from a magazine or paper just seems to be local stories or editorial content.

        Definitely a fan of the AP. Not a fan of news monetization past the point of paying for journalists. The capitalistic ethics of "fuck the world lets make this quarter the best quarter yet" just seem wrong to me when you're talking about information who's value is built upon trust. If you're going to make a boatload of money from the "news," how am I to trust you to tell me the truth rather than what I want to hear? I would be looking for fact-based non-editorial news. Something like the first 15 minutes of

    • by Burdell ( 228580 )

      I want a netflix type subscription

      You mean a subscription where you start out with a bunch of widely-sourced news, but over time, the subscription site drops more and more sources and replaces them with their own "exciting new" content?

    • 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.

      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 transacti

      • But seriously, you're undoing all the progress we've won

        Netflix has the lowest streaming selection it's had in a very long time. CBS pulled lots of their stuff because All Access, Disney is pulling their stuff next year, HBO has always marched to their own drum; Amazon, Hulu, and Youtube Red have their own exclusives as well. Even if a particular individual were willing to subscribe to all of these services, or a preferred subset, it's impossible to do an aggregate search and play a piece of content from whoever owns it. Moreover, while Netflix has a client on b

  • 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

    • 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've come to notice this search result trend as well. Google returns 'current news' over plain facts regarding certain topics. I'm not sure why a news article posted today would achieve highest ranking on the search result, but that's what they're doing.

      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.

      Tried this route myself as well, but I find Duckduckgo just simply doesn't give me as many meaningful results as Google. Even if it means going a few pages deep on the results from Google, I still get what I'm looking for, usually. But as it's always bee

    • 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.

  • Boiling the frog.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    They should down-rate paywalled and teaser "click here to continue reading after the first few dozen words" results.

  • 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 squee
  • And they should put up non pay-walled links for the rest of us, right?

  • 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.

God help those who do not help themselves. -- Wilson Mizner

Working...