3 ms·

Only if there is relevant traffic from Google to begin with, which is highly unlikely for a site like this. A high percentage of results in almost every Google

Only if there is relevant traffic from Google to begin with, which is highly unlikely for a site like this. A high percentage of results in almost every Google search comes from the closed circle of the same top 10,000 sites or so. This is the beauty of a protest like this, because this site does have valuable content, and if enough sites like this joined the protest it could actually hurt the relevancy of the Google index, that by the time Google figures out is valuable, would not be allowed to index anymore.

jefftk 5y ago
I don't think that's so unlikely: on my blog ~30% of visitors come from searches
- freediver 5y ago
  Sorry my statement was both generalized and specific at the same time, and that did not turn out well. How many visits does your blog have daily? And what would it take you to remove your site from Google index?
  - jefftk 5y ago
    > How many visits does your blog have daily? ~200k sessions in the past year, so ~550/d. Breakdown: * ~30% search * ~30% no referer * ~25% HN * ~7% Twitter/FB/etc * ~8% other > what would it take you to remove your site from Google index? I don't see why I would want to exclude my site from any index? Being in indexes helps people find my writing, which I like!
    - indigochill 5y ago
      > I don't see why I would want to exclude my site from any index? Being in indexes helps people find my writing, which I like! It's essentially a form of boycott. If one believes Google is a problematic entity (too many fingers in too many aspects of our lives), it's a way to sever connections with them at some personal cost. At least, if you care about search traffic - one might argue the assumption that Google-like search is the default way to navigate the web is one worth reconsidering and encouraging alternatives to anyway.
      - jefftk 5y ago
        So, first, I don't think Google search is harmful, so I'm not especially interested in boycotting, but I'm happy to grant this for the discussion. There's already an interesting question about when boycotting is it worthwhile tactic, but in this situation, there's the additional complexity of there being two ends at which one could boycott a search engine: * Producer: don't allow the search engine to include your stuff * Consumer: use a different search engine This is not the only place you find this dynamic. For example, if I thought Chrome was harmful, I could choose: * Producer: make my site incompatible with Chrome and suggest people switch * Consumer: use a different browser Or, with email: * Producer: don't email people with @gmail.com addresses * Consumer: use a different email provider Thinking through these cases and similar ones, if you think Gmail / Chrome / Search is harmful then the "consumer" side makes sense: the alternatives are nearly as good so you're not giving up much, and you're helping increase diversity. On the other hand, the "producer" side ones are much less attractive, because they're a much larger sacrifice and the benefit doesn't seem that big. (Disclosure: I work at Google, but not on Search, Chrome, or Gmail)
        aspenmayer 5y ago
        > (Disclosure: I work at Google, but not on Search, Chrome, or Gmail) I appreciate that you mention in your bio that you do work in Ads at Google, which seems directly relevant to OP’s point about boycotting Google by blocking indexing. If Google can’t or otherwise doesn’t index your content, Google can’t profit from selling ads that it otherwise show alongside search results for it. If Google de-indexing became popular among a group of content creators, other search engines may not be similarly blocked, and other alternatives to find said content would be found or created, all to the detriment of Google Ads placement, which is a profitable - and inseparable - component of Google Search.
        jefftk 5y ago
        I don't work on that kind of ad: I work in display ads. If you go to a newspaper or other publisher and see ads alongside the content, there's a good chance that my team owns the JS that handles requesting those ads and putting the responses on the screen.

jefftk 5y ago

I don't think that's so unlikely: on my blog ~30% of visitors come from searches

freediver 5y ago
Sorry my statement was both generalized and specific at the same time, and that did not turn out well. How many visits does your blog have daily? And what would it take you to remove your site from Google index?
- jefftk 5y ago
  > How many visits does your blog have daily? ~200k sessions in the past year, so ~550/d. Breakdown: * ~30% search * ~30% no referer * ~25% HN * ~7% Twitter/FB/etc * ~8% other > what would it take you to remove your site from Google index? I don't see why I would want to exclude my site from any index? Being in indexes helps people find my writing, which I like!
  - indigochill 5y ago
    > I don't see why I would want to exclude my site from any index? Being in indexes helps people find my writing, which I like! It's essentially a form of boycott. If one believes Google is a problematic entity (too many fingers in too many aspects of our lives), it's a way to sever connections with them at some personal cost. At least, if you care about search traffic - one might argue the assumption that Google-like search is the default way to navigate the web is one worth reconsidering and encouraging alternatives to anyway.
    - jefftk 5y ago
      So, first, I don't think Google search is harmful, so I'm not especially interested in boycotting, but I'm happy to grant this for the discussion. There's already an interesting question about when boycotting is it worthwhile tactic, but in this situation, there's the additional complexity of there being two ends at which one could boycott a search engine: * Producer: don't allow the search engine to include your stuff * Consumer: use a different search engine This is not the only place you find this dynamic. For example, if I thought Chrome was harmful, I could choose: * Producer: make my site incompatible with Chrome and suggest people switch * Consumer: use a different browser Or, with email: * Producer: don't email people with @gmail.com addresses * Consumer: use a different email provider Thinking through these cases and similar ones, if you think Gmail / Chrome / Search is harmful then the "consumer" side makes sense: the alternatives are nearly as good so you're not giving up much, and you're helping increase diversity. On the other hand, the "producer" side ones are much less attractive, because they're a much larger sacrifice and the benefit doesn't seem that big. (Disclosure: I work at Google, but not on Search, Chrome, or Gmail)
      - aspenmayer 5y ago
        > (Disclosure: I work at Google, but not on Search, Chrome, or Gmail) I appreciate that you mention in your bio that you do work in Ads at Google, which seems directly relevant to OP’s point about boycotting Google by blocking indexing. If Google can’t or otherwise doesn’t index your content, Google can’t profit from selling ads that it otherwise show alongside search results for it. If Google de-indexing became popular among a group of content creators, other search engines may not be similarly blocked, and other alternatives to find said content would be found or created, all to the detriment of Google Ads placement, which is a profitable - and inseparable - component of Google Search.
        jefftk 5y ago
        I don't work on that kind of ad: I work in display ads. If you go to a newspaper or other publisher and see ads alongside the content, there's a good chance that my team owns the JS that handles requesting those ads and putting the responses on the screen.