Re: Resistance to allowing anonymous web access to online help?

[Keith Hood <bus -dot- write -at- gmail -dot- com>]

I didn't see any given reason for your stance in your post, so I have to
wonder, why do you want to do it? What benefit would there be to you or
your documentation group or the company you work for, from allowing Google
to search for it? If it would not bring you extra money or some kind of
business advantage, then there's no point in bothering.

I saw something in a later post about your customers going to Stack
Overflow for answers if they can't find your help on the Web. If they are
your customers, they should have gotten your documentation when they bough
your product, and their lack is not a Web problem, but a sales/release
management problem. If you're worried about them going to that web site,
the answer is to make sure your customers get the help when they cut a deal.

If they aren't "customers" in the sense that they haven't bought the
product, then they have no real reason to need to be able to access the
help online. Somebody earlier used the analogy of building a catalytic
convertor from reading a car user manual. Here's another automotive analogy
- why should a tech writer for Toyota care if Buick owners can read Toyota
docs online?

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 1:40 PM, John G <john -at- garisons -dot- com> wrote:

> Am I the only one who is fighting with product managers and owners to allow
> Google and other search engines to index and provide access to our online
> help?
>
> All our documentation is online, but we are not allowed to let it be
> indexed and made available to search engines. If someone has the URL for a
> document or one of its pages, they can access it. The product owners are
> afraid that the competition will be able to use our documentation to
> potentially reverse engineer our applications.
>
> If you have fought this battle - win or lose - I'd like to hear the
> arguments you faced, as well as how you overcame people's objections (if
> you indeed, did).
>
> I have found several articles (none within the last 2-3 years) that
> advocate making the information publicly available, but none since then. If
> you have any, please let me know.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
>
> John Garison
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and
> content development | http://techwhirl.com
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as bus -dot- write -at- gmail -dot- com -dot- 
>
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
>
>
> Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-  Visit
> http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources and
> info.
>
> Looking for articles on Technical Communications?  Head over to our online
> magazine at http://techwhirl.com
>
> Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions?  Search our public
> email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and content development | http://techwhirl.com

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- 

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com


Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-  Visit
http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources and info.

Looking for articles on Technical Communications?  Head over to our online magazine at http://techwhirl.com

Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions?  Search our public email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives