I agree it may be enough for some types of site in the short term (before they go bust, or realise their mistake ;) ), but the aim of FCF is to make premium content freely available, and if it becomes widespread (which I can't see happening in this form - for anything other than non-profit sites - or sites that don't really need signups anyway), awareness and tools will develop to automate this for users. I'd have to place little value on signups/payments on the content to use a system like this.
I'm suggesting that the entire model of allowing access based on referer is flawed, and suggesting a model by which IMO a better result could be achieved.
FCF is based on the idea that users want to be able to access stuff fully when they click on it (From Google, and by extension from any search engine or directory - why stop there?). I fundamentally don't think that this model is sustainable or securable.
I'm suggesting that it would be a better outcome for everyone if searchers were simply able to distinguish between these results, and choose to filter based on whether they would tolerate signup or pay-for links.
Someone has to pay for the web, and not all content is freely available. I think people will be much more understanding about this (and hence links will convert better to customers) if it's clear to them that the information will cost or require signup before they click on the link.
الاشتراك في:
تعليقات الرسالة (Atom)
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق