Enter a search term such as “mobile analytics” or browse our content using the filters above.
That’s not only a poor Scrabble score but we also couldn’t find any results matching
Check your spelling or try broadening your search.
Sorry about this, there is a problem with our search at the moment.
Please try again later.
The biggest load of old rubbish ever has been written about the changes to Google's first click free program. Here's a round up of who understands what they are talking about (and might survive with a paywall) and who hasn't got a clue ...
How first-click free works
First, a reminder of how first-click free works. If you have a paywall (ie you require registration or subscription to access content), Google has a problem. It wants to index your pages. But it doesn't want its users to have a rubbish user experience - and people would stop using Google if every time they clicked a result, all they saw a was a 'sign up now' message.
The solution was the first-click-free compromise:
- Publishers allow Google behind their paywall.
- Google indexes their content and shows it in its results - on condition that searchers can also see it if they come via Google.
- If seachers click a link in Google, the publisher lets them read that page of content.
- If searchers click any other links on the publisher's site, the publisher shows them a sign-up now message.
The drawback ...
It is easy to circumvent First Click Free if you can be bothered. If you want to read a second story on a first-click-free site, you copy and paste the URL into google and then click the result. So go direct to this page and you can't see it. Click the first result here and you can.
The change that Google has announced means publishers can limit to five a day the number of pages a user can see when they come via Google:
While we're happy to see that a number of publishers are already using First Click Free, we've found that some who might try it are worried about people abusing the spirit of First Click Free to access almost all of their content. As most users are generally happy to be able to access just a few pages from these premium content providers, we've decided to allow publishers to limit the number of accesses under the First Click Free policy to five free accesses per user each day.
All of this is TOTALLY in the publishers' control. All Google is saying is that, if you want to be in Google's index, you have to let users see the content when it appears in Google's results. If you don't want to do this, don't join first click free and don't let Google beyond your paywall.
Which news organisations don't understand?
Got it? Let's see who hasn't ... (to be fair, some of them explain it properly under the hopelessly wrong headlines ...)
Sky News: wrong
These are all wrong. Google is not doing the limiting. It's allowing publishers, who set the rules on what people to see, to limit access yet still remain in first-click free. Publishers do the limiting.
Press Association: wrong
There's the same number of free pages on Google. There's just a limit on how many you can read if you click through to a publisher's site.
BBC: wrong again
No, a paywall keeps Google out unless the publisher decides to let it in and chooses to join first click free. Google respects paywalls, unless the publisher asks Google to index its content and voluntarily implements first-click free.
And who has got it right ...
These headlines are all accurate. Well done, you might be able to get people to pay for your information as it is at least correct...