Re:I've removed all ad network code from my blog
by tokenizerrr on Thursday January 05, 2017 @12:06PM
(#13328902)
If a site wishes to implement a paywall that is their right. If they wish to implement a bypass, that is also just fine. They choose to implement this bypass because they wish to be indexed by Google. So why shouldn't we make use of that intentionally implement bypass?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:I've removed all ad network code from my blog
by arjie on Thursday January 05, 2017 @12:15PM
(#13329016)
Do whatever you find ethical. I'm just here to ensure that people are well informed about the fact that paywall vs. ads is actually paywall with no search engine access vs. paywall which people won't pay for vs. ads.
I'm all right with the paywall idea succeeding or failing in a well informed marketplace of ideas.
Re:I've removed all ad network code from my blog
by tokenizerrr on Thursday January 05, 2017 @12:21PM
(#13329097)
Some people pay for the paywall. Especially when these people regularly consume your content. People stumbling in from social media (such as HN) are not regular consumers. Big difference, there.
Re:I've removed all ad network code from my blog
by Spivak on Thursday January 05, 2017 @03:53PM
(#13331282)
I've got a subscription to LWN, I don't think they really care about being indexed by search engines.
The ability to send interesting articles to non-subscribers with a special link is pretty nice but I understand that it probably wouldn't work as a model for large websites.
Re:I've removed all ad network code from my blog
by nradov on Thursday January 05, 2017 @08:54PM
(#13333283)
It works for WSJ.com, which is a large website.