By-pass WSJ Pay-wall

RonBoyd

Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
6,267
Location
Denver, Colorado
This article is on a off-topic (although interesting) subject but it does have this insight into Google/Client relationships:

https://proteinpower.com/drmike/201...tionblog+(The+Blog+of+Michael+R.+Eades,+M.D.)

Interestingly, I knew this but didn't understand how to accomplish it.

Before we get into the fat of the editorial, so to speak, let me take a little side trip to show you a way you can skirt the paywall of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and read anything written without having to pay for it. The WSJ, like many online news sources, makes money from advertising. The paper also makes money from subscriptions. In order to maximize its ad revenue, the WSJ articles have to rank high in Google, but if an article resides behind a firewall Google can’t breach, then Google doesn’t know it exists and isn’t able to use it to calculate the ranking of the paper. Which suspends the WSJ on the horns of a dilemma. Do they give the articles away free, get a higher Google rating, and lose the subscription fees, or do they keep the subscription income and suffer in their Google rankings, which means less ad money? The way the WSJ has solved the problem is by making the all the articles available to the Google search engines while at the same time making them unavailable to anyone who is on the WSJ site and tries to read the full article.

Which gives you the ability to read anything you want in the WSJ by simply Googling the Wall Street Journal and the exact name of the article you want to read.
For example, if you wanted to read the editorial above, you would simply go to Google and enter these words into the search window: wall street journal trans fats transphobia

If you go that, you’ll be taken to the full text version. Give it a try. Then try going through the WSJ site linked here. When you do, you’ll get a message telling you you need to subscribe to read the rest of the article.

And this additional tidbit (I used to love using this but got so much flack I had to stop):

I’ve gone ahead and Googled it for you using the Let Me Google That For You function, which I use when I’m feeling particularly smart assed and someone has asked me a question he/she could just as easily Googled. It’s a great little way to harmlessly annoy friends and family or anyone else who asks you to spend your time Googling something they themselves could have done. Makes the point.

I’m not doing this to annoy you, however, it just makes it an easy way for me to link to the editorial above. It will be the first one on the list that comes up when the LMGTFY function does its work. And here is a little video showing how to use the LMGTFY function should you decide you want to use it yourself.
 
Thanks, I've done that a few times, and always feel guilty (and have not done it because of that a few times). But it seems that the WSJ is essentially condoning/accepting this, so I won't let it bother me.

Is there a less snarky version of the LMGTFY? I love it, but there are times where it would be better to drop the "Was that so hard?" line. But it is funny, and some people really deserve it.

-ERD50
 
I have a feeling the WSJ will eliminate this loophole before too much longer.

It's not an issue for me, because I subscribe. The first two things I do nearly every morning, after getting a cup of coffee, is to read first the local newspaper, then the WSJ on my iPad. I've been reading it every day for over 40 years, so it's an important part of my life.
 
I think I stumbled onto this myself before and learned to search for the article title.
 
WSJ, NYT and every online/pay newspaper that I'm aware of opens articles to Google search, but usually just for that single article. The NYT allows a small number of free visits to the site each month which it monitors with a cookie count. Our local newspapers work the same way... though the strange thing is... even though I am paying for the print version, I have to pay more, for direct access online.

When I see a headline I'm interested in, I usually highlight it, right click and "Search Google for *****".

As a poor news junkie, I just can't afford to subscribe to the dozens and dozens of online news sites, when I may only visit them once or twice a year. Foreign country papers usually offer different viewpoints of news, so access to them is especially appreciated.

I believe the OP is correct... that the pay websites cannot afford to lose the exposure that's available through Google search. They certainly have the ability to block ALL access, if they wanted to do that.

Just my opinion.
 
The NYT allows a small number of free visits to the site each month which it monitors with a cookie count. Our local newspapers work the same way....

Incognito windows are generally valuable in these circumstances.
 
I believe the OP is correct... that the pay websites cannot afford to lose the exposure that's available through Google search. They certainly have the ability to block ALL access, if they wanted to do that.
Their ideal would be for Google to agree to connect to their server using provided credentials.
 
This works because of Google's "First Click Free" program. If a news source wants to appear in Google search results without a "subscription" tag, then they have to let Googlebot index their entire text, and they also have to allow users coming from Google to read at least 5 articles per day without displaying a pay wall. Google does not offer sites like the WSJ an option to pay for indexing.

It is possible to limit the number of free articles that a Google News reader can access via First Click Free. A user coming from the domain [*.google.*] must be able to see a minimum of 5 articles per day. This practice is described as “metering” the user: when the user has clicked on too many of a publisher’s articles from Google News, the meter for freely accessible articles on that site is exhausted. If your site meters access on a weekly or monthly basis, you are still responsible for showing a minimum of five articles per day to Google users. Otherwise, your site will be treated as a subscription site.

https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/40543?hl=en
 
This works because of Google's "First Click Free" program. If a news source wants to appear in Google search results without a "subscription" tag, then they have to let Googlebot index their entire text, and they also have to allow users coming from Google to read at least 5 articles per day without displaying a pay wall. Google does not offer sites like the WSJ an option to pay for indexing.



https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/40543?hl=en
Does this still work for everyone? It didn't work for me, but I had a few hits on wsj.com before I allowed scripting to run.
 
Hmmm... I tried searching for the Wall Street Journal Trans Fat Phobia article on Google. When I clicked on the article though it said I had to be a subscriber to read it. I don't think I've read anything else on WSJ this month.
 
Does this still work for everyone? It didn't work for me, but I had a few hits on wsj.com before I allowed scripting to run.
In the past couple of weeks I read that the WSJ was going to stop allowing this. Can't find any reference to this now, though, so it may have been a senior moment. :)
 
Does this still work for everyone? It didn't work for me, but I had a few hits on wsj.com before I allowed scripting to run.

Yes, it still works for me. Go to news.google.com and search for the known title of a WSJ article. Click through gives me the full text. (I had not read 5 articles today though.)
 
I would never do this, but the way NYT tracks your "free" articles is by stopping access after you have accumulated 7 cookies.
If you go to your settings for "cookies" and searched NYT, then deleted those cookies, you're back to square 1.

But that's not a nice thing to do... :(
 
In the past couple of weeks I read that the WSJ was going to stop allowing this. Can't find any reference to this now, though, so it may have been a senior moment. :)
Nope, I think your grey cells are functioning properly.

Before, I had not google searched "news" (I just used a standard "all" search). Today, I went to "news.google.com" and put in "hottest ideas in finance capital controls are good", but did not get a hit on the actual article. If I clicked "all" instead of limiting myself to "news", the article was the first link (not logged into google at the time, no wsj cookies). When I clicked the link in the "all" results, I hit the paywall.

Theory: Maybe articles that are older let you sneak through, but fresh ones are not indexed in the "news" section by google?

I would never do this, but the way NYT tracks your "free" articles is by stopping access after you have accumulated 7 cookies.
If you go to your settings for "cookies" and searched NYT, then deleted those cookies, you're back to square 1.
I have my browser to configured to delete all cookies when I close the browser (unless I've white listed the domain). I also have the same thing with flash cookies using "Better Privacy" plug-in. So when I log on, only my regular banking sites, regular shopping sites, and the like have any history.
 
I would never do this, but the way NYT tracks your "free" articles is by stopping access after you have accumulated 7 cookies.
If you go to your settings for "cookies" and searched NYT, then deleted those cookies, you're back to square 1.

But that's not a nice thing to do... :(

Even easier . . . open all the articles in "incognito mode." :cool: No cookies no cry.
 
Back
Top Bottom