- Yah is spidered by Google using their defaults and there is no bandwidth problem, and Yah's article cache is presumably much larger than the whole of Grok.

 - Ibiblio presumably have plenty more bandwidth than I do

 - Presumably then she means server load is the issue, not bandwidth.

 - Add a sleep(10); to the Geeklog PHP to be executed when the client IDs itself as a bot (as they all do).  That should be a five minute job to set up and gives total control over bot load.

So I find myself unconvinced by this explanation.  I wonder what Mathfox thinks about this, because I'm sure he can imagine this too.

Next we seem to have some basic communication problems using words like most, majority, minority.

> Most readers thank me for giving them some privacy.

Can it actually be that more than 50% of the Groklaw readership has emailed, or phoned, or sent telepathic messages to PJ to "thank" her for "giving them some privacy"?  This is what she is saying with those words.  If it is not true it would be better to have used different words.

> A vocal few want it different, but they are the minority by far

How can she know?  Did she run a poll asking her readership if they want Groklaw on Google or not?  How can she speak authoritatively, then, that...

> I go with the majority's wishes,

How did she determine that it was the wish of "the majority" to have Grok completely closed off from Google?  Because she has only heard from a "vocal minority" that Grok should be on Google?  How many people contacted her thanking her for NOT sticking Grok on Google?  Even one?  More than those that disagreed?  She assumes that everyone else who has not been asked, but has not offered an opinion is in agreement with her?  Or is it the case again that more than 50% of the readership of Groklaw have been in contact with her, so she can actually properly use that powerful and unqualified word "majority"?

> which also match my own.

Here's an idea.  Let's assume PJ is right to use these words in that way.  There is no harm then in running a poll to see what the readership would actually like in terms of Grok being indexed in Google.  I mean, she talks about the minority and majority as if that is important to her.  Why not get properly democratic about it and run a poll to find out what the majority actually want.  Then one can use terms like most, majority, minority with precision.

I think she may be surprised to find that pretty much 100% of her readership is using Google daily to find stuff and would find it convenient and useful to get Grok results popping up in it.

> We also have a determined few who post
> pornographic links and others who post
> unpleasant threats and disgustingly graphic
> language or just love to troll and then brag
> about it elsewhere.

For example, disallowing new comments after a few days, and only letting Google see the articles after that has happened would solve this.  It's not perfect being several days out of date, but it's way better than no Google at all, and will have had all the crap edited out.  I mean really, are we hearing that mathfox cannot imagine these same solutions, or is he just not being asked?

Slashdot BTW gets indexed with the crap in.  The world did not come to an end.

> Comments are copyrighted and they can't be
> used without the author's permission as well
> as my permission. I hold copyright on the site
> as a collective work. If bots grab them, we'd
> end up in the policing-the- copyright
> business, which would be a distraction, a lot
> of work, a financial drain, and something I
> can largely avoid by our no-bots policy.

Gosh, you know usually Blogs are really over the moon to get Google coming and indexing them, since it means more visitors and publicity.  Somehow those indexed blogs survive without all this awful policing/ distraction /work /financial drain that PJ sees.

> But I can't wait for everyone to get it. I see
> the game now, and I am in charge of protecting
> Groklaw.