Meta Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for meta-discussion of the Stack Exchange family of Q&A websites. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Not quite sure if this is bug report or feature request.
In Google Advanced Search, you can search by CC license: http://search.creativecommons.org/. Other search engines also have similar features.
Content on Stack Exchange is licensed under Creative Commons, however Stack Exchange doesn't show up under Google's search result. Only, blog.stackoverflow.com shows up in the search.
Stack Exchange should tag its content properly so that it is visible in the CC search.
The official CC instructions for marking are at https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Marking_your_work_with_a_CC_license#Example:_Website
The current footer is:
<div id="copyright">
site design / logo © 2015 stack exchange inc; user contributions licensed under <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" rel="license">cc by-sa 3.0</a>
with <a href="http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/" rel="license">attribution required</a>
</div>
Maybe Google has a bug and doesn't parse the license link if it's a href=... rel="license" instead of a rel="license" href=...?? Putting the rel in a more common position is a trivial change worth trying (even if it's silly, it doesn't cost anything).
Or Google gets confused by the "license" linking a non-standard URL? I'm not sure what's the point in machine-readability of a URL that has no meaning for a machine, indeed. I don't remember what's the standard for this right now.
rel="license" links in the same paragraph? I'd say you should probably only have one of those, since a computer won't be able to tell whether you're dual-licensing, doing some weird kind of intersection-licensing (i.e. reusers must comply with multiple licenses at once), or just writing an explanatory note as in this case. The "attribution required" blog post is technically part of the license since it specifies how to attribute, but I'd say it probably shouldn't have the "license" semantics.