|
There are valid reasons for wanting to have a site, and not wanting to have portions of that site monetized and served up out of a 3rd party's server.
I don't understand your library/photo/house analogy, so can't really respond.
I won't address competitive rankings, SEO, and monetization schemes as they are part of the very "Google economy" that currently rules the web and which I find so objectionable, which is what I think you mean by the 20% who "want to be right up the rankings".
As I suggested upstream in the thread, I understand the need for search engines, and the technology involved. The mechanism isn't the issue - the business practice is the issue.
As a search engine user, I would be willing to pay for my searches, and as a web site owner/operator, I would be willing to pay to have indexed those sites/pages I wanted to appear in search results. A search engine could indeed make revenue by selling me an indexer program to run on my own server. There are several technological approaches besides swamping my site with automated content scrapers, mass copying my site to their server, and indexing it for key words to drive advertisements.
I'm not here to convince everyone that Google is evil. But I find it interesting that they operate exactly like the "darknet e-book pirates", with many of the same justifications. They take content because they can, serve it up to all comers, and in fact have found a way to make money doing so. Those of you who, rightly, would never download a pirated book, ask yourselves what you're doing when you "View cached copy" on a Google search results page.
|