Fact: There is no immunity or protection against The Law of Scoreboards.
Did you know: What the media does NOT want you to read is at https://market-ticker.org/nad.
You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account!
|The Market Ticker Single Post Display (Show in context)
|It's Called Evolution, Gentlemen (Tickerforum Changes); entered at 2013-09-30 10:21:24
"SEO: You didn't read my post, obviously.
Try doing so again."
Nothing in what you wrote addresses his points. Neither does this.
If the information is made unavailable, that is equivalent (for those who have not yet seen it) to never having written it in the first place.
The one justification I can think of (and this is entirely my trying to guess what you might intend, it doesn't follow at all clearly from the OP) is that you would have to pay for the traffic on the old posts and therefore would require extra income to pay for that and therefore would have to pay taxes on it. Given that archive traffic is typically a very small fraction of that of new posts, and I am aware of no reason why the articles here should differ in that, this is an explanation I find completely implausible - if it is worth it to you to keep the site online and semi-updated in the first place, the marginal cost of archive access is minuscule in comparison. As I understand it most hosting plans are tiered anyway - once you're paying for a certain level of traffic, you've paid for it, whether you use the full amount or not doesn't make a difference, and a slight increase in traffic would probably not be enough to require a bump up to the next tier.
All of which leaves one major explanation: that the value to you of actively denying people the opportunity to read and understand what you've been writing is greater than the difference between this minuscule additional cost, and the (admittedly non-concrete) value of spreading the information further. That sort of motivation can only be described as spitefully childish. One would hope that this is not in fact the cause, but evidence on the matter is lacking.
Anyway, in the absence of any other information, SEO is correct.