[AznHisoka]

OK, so now that implicit contract changed and says Google can show that information above the organic search results. Given this, publishers do have a choice of blocking Google in their robots.txt.

this is an implicit agreement (not explicit). the agreement changed. publishers still have a chance to respond... dont like it? block google! (its just 1 line in robots.txt) go rely on word of mouth, bing, ads and emailing to get traffic!

dont want to do that? oh i see... well that means you voluntarily agree to the agreement and have no right to complain.

[falsedan]

> you voluntarily agree to the agreement and have no right to complain

See, that sounds exactly like the kind of thing a standover merchant would say: feel free not to pay the protection fees, sure would be a shame if something would happen to your organic search traffic…

[putlake]

Blocking Google via robots.txt isn't an option because Google has a monopoly. You're amputating the whole leg because of an infected toe. Instead of free samples at Costco you're giving away entire boxes and users love you for it because it's free. It's the producer who loses the revenue.

At what point do you draw the line? Is it OK if Google steals 1 line? How about a whole list of steps for how to do something? How about when Google takes an image from your page and puts it in its hero search result "answer box" but with a link to another site?

As a publisher, I feel the right solution is that the publisher decides the title and meta description -- which are the 2 things Google needs to show in their SERPs. If my title and description snippet are clickbaity or not good enough, other publishers can win. That's fine because publishers are competing on a level playing field.