This sounds like a whole lot of unnecessary worry to me.

If publishers are concerned about it, they can write a text page that allows the spiders to search their pages without cacheing them, but allowing the spiders to cache free "abstract" pages.

For a site like Google, it could actually represent an opportunity — whoah, I know people have a problem with facing opportunities, but I don't think Google would.

A user could register with Google, and put their paid sites in their profile. Paid sites could be included or excluded as the user chooses.

This could make the Google user even more loyal than they currently are...

Possibilities abound, gang.

Posted by: Frank on January 27, 2003 10:34 PM

---

 

Frank, I agree. This is a real business opportunity.

Posted by: John S. Rhodes on January 27, 2003 10:43 PM

---

 

Firstly, as an expat Scot, I like the ability keep up with news at home. I would be willing pay a little extra for it.

Some thoughts: The subscription-to-view model prevents a voyeuristic look at other newspapers: learning about other towns, regions, countries or points of view—this was in part a reason for my initial excitement of having access to the web. There is also the inability to read a single article, share links, sample article quality. Then there is the argument regarding exposure and availability vs. moderate income.

Perhaps there is enough competition that Google News as-is may force newspapers to rethink. Is partial or full subscription the only way to go?

Posted by: Chris on January 29, 2003 08:46 AM

---

 

I actually think we might have been closer to a solution when web usage was just starting: initially (here in the US), usage plans for a service like CompuServe were that you were charged a flat rate for up to a certain number of hours, and then an hourly rate thereafter. In that pricing scheme, and ISP could then redistirbute a portion of its revenues to websites according to usage (although this would require the tallying of statistics, and even if only done in aggregate, some users might object).

For a web site like my Samuel Johnson site (or the site of French manhole covers as another exmaple), this is ideal. It allows users to be butterflies and doesn't require user loyalty for the content provider to get some recompense.

To your point, it would also allow users to experiement more fluidly.

Posted by: Frank on January 29, 2003 08:34 PM

---