Adam Penenberg asks a very good question:
Posted by DeLong at July 14, 2004 05:31 PM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this postWired News: Searching for The New York Times: By Adam L. Penenberg | Story location: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,64110,00.html | 02:00 AM Jul. 14, 2004 PT
How can the mighty New York Times, which considers itself America's paper of record, be the paper of record in cyberspace when its articles barely show up on Google? This has to be more than just a slight irritation to the Times, because search engines play a key role: They collate information, and on the Internet there's a whole lot of that, often too much. (Hence the term data smog.) In essence, they act as informational portals. So if you're trying to get the dope on your favorite author, hip-hop MC or representative, or learn more about an important issue dominating the news, your first stop may very well be Google.
But recently, when I googled the terms "Iraq torture prison Abu Ghraib" -- certainly one of the most intensively covered news stories of the year -- the first New York Times article was the 295th search result, trailing the New Yorker, Guardian, ABC and CBS News, New York Post, MSNBC, Slate, CNN, Sydney Morning Herald, Denver Post, USA Today, Bill O'Reilly on FoxNews and a host of others news sites....
Two years ago, Martin Nisenholtz, chief executive of New York Times Digital, bet $1,000 that nytimes.com would outrank all blogs on Google by 2007, based on a search of five keywords on a topical news issue. Unless Google and the Times work on their relationship -- Nisenholtz says they're talking, although they haven't come up with any answers yet -- there may be a day when The New York Times doesn't show up at all....
Perhaps an even more impenetrable barrier is the Times' paid archive. Because it stows material more than a week old behind an archive wall, you have to cough up $3 per article. Since few are willing to pay for content they can get free elsewhere, search engines, which often base results on relevancy (read: popularity), will continue to dis the Times -- as well as other media sites that make you register or pay for old news (The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal). It's not like the Times reaps a whole lot from its Web archive. The archive accounts for only 2 to 3 percent of the profit for its digital division (which includes both the Times and Boston Globe websites, as well as all its electronic database lease deals)....
So it's no surprise that Times management has no plans to completely open up its archive. "There isn't a compelling business argument today that would suggest that giving away our content is a good idea," Nisenholtz said.... "The Web isn't just a sales outlet, it's much more akin to a vast public library," said Aaron Swartz, who coded the Times' link generato...
And would it be such a terrible thing if the NYT lost its mindshare?
I don't pay that much attention to it, not because it's "liberal" but because it's on the East Coast, and I live on the West Coast. And honestly, I've never understood the obsession with it.
Posted by: Jay on July 14, 2004 05:49 PMI am sure The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk) has raised its stature worldwide because of its excellent web site. I see more quotations from it than from any other UK newspaper (totally impressionistic, I admit) here in Canada, and I am convinced that is the reason.
I have heard rumours that The Guardian is edging towards closing off content. Its face would be well spited.
Posted by: Tom Slee on July 14, 2004 06:08 PMOne key difference between the NYT and the WaPo is that, once you've got a working link to a WaPo article, you can access it forever. What moves behind a wall after two weeks is one's ability to locate the link in the first place. But I've got all sorts of ancient links to WaPo articles that I grabbed while they were hot, so to speak, and they continue to work just fine.
Posted by: RT on July 14, 2004 06:22 PMBrad, you might want to remind everyone of the temporary workaround to generate permanent links to NY Time articles (I believe Kevin Drum mentioned it a while back, but I can't find his post):
http://nytimes.blogspace.com/genlink
It also has a javascript version you can bookmark to automatically apply to any NY Times page you're on.
You can't use it to generate a permalink for a page that's already in their archives, though.
Posted by: fling93 on July 14, 2004 07:54 PMIt's not only the New York Times, it's New York City, New York. There are a few patches of clarity, but its high point of brains may have been the early 1960's.
Posted by: Lee A. on July 14, 2004 08:36 PMThe NY Times is a treasure and I am sorely distressed that they are so foolish as to hide their articles in a week. An absurd mistake.
Posted by: Anne on July 15, 2004 09:30 AM"Because it stows material more than a week old behind an archive wall, you have to cough up $3 per article."
No, you don't. I explained how to get around that for free here: http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/2004/05/how-to-get-to-old-ny-times-articles.html
I e-mailed you that at the time, but either you didn't think it worth posting, or you missed it in your e-mail, or other. Ignoring Fafnir's comments on it! ("Gary Farber you are a genius of mad scientist proportions. I will bet there are like huge brains growin in jars all over your house.")
Truly you are no true Fafnarian, but a false Farnarike, and I denounce you to Giblets!
Posted by: Gary Farber on July 15, 2004 02:43 PM"The archive accounts for only 2 to 3 percent of the profit for its digital division ... So it's no surprise that Times management has no plans to completely open up its archive."
No surprise? Because no one is surprised when management anywhere is stupid? Not that I disagree, just not used to seeing it put so blatantly.
Posted by: tatere on July 16, 2004 11:26 AMI'd argue the biggest barrier is that the NYTimes requires you to log in, period. I can get AP or Reuters stories (for what they're worth) from the Seattle P-I, which doesn't require me to create an account or send personal information. And I get it without Wen Ho Lee witch hunts, Whitewater hype and Iraq war propaganda. The P-I isn't humble, but they lack the smug indignation of the NYTimes or Boston Globe. Why on earth would I waste my time giving my privacy or money to the NYTimes for an inferior product?
Google is just a symptom. The NYTimes is grumpy because web readers aren't as gullible as they'd prefer.
Posted by: Dragonchild on July 18, 2004 11:36 PMThe day after this hit the press I googled the words "Iraq" and "torture" and found no US sources until way down the list. If the word "mistreatment" was entered US sources came much higher.
Posted by: Malcolm C on August 3, 2004 03:10 PMThe day after this hit the press I googled the words "Iraq" and "torture" and found no US sources until way down the list. If the word "mistreatment" was entered US sources came much higher.
Posted by: Malcolm C on August 3, 2004 03:11 PMThe day after this hit the press I googled the words "Iraq" and "torture" and found no US sources until way down the list. If the word "mistreatment" was entered US sources came much higher.
Posted by: Malcolm C on August 3, 2004 03:12 PMThe day after this hit the press I googled the words "Iraq" and "torture" and found no US sources until way down the list. If the word "mistreatment" was entered US sources came much higher.
Posted by: Malcolm C on August 3, 2004 03:13 PM4279 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com
Posted by: Viagra on August 7, 2004 04:52 PM6090 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?
http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com
4386 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com
Posted by: online poker on August 10, 2004 03:13 PM16 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com
Posted by: poker on August 15, 2004 10:51 PM9 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com
Posted by: blackjack on August 17, 2004 06:18 AM