Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

This question already has an answer here:

NB The following is a community-generated list of websites that republish Stack Exchange content without attributing it properly. It is no longer being maintained, because the procedure for reporting such sites has changed; see the duplicate for more information.

There are a number of license-violating clones of Stack Exchange sites popping up that use Stack Exchange's CC-wiki data without following our Creative Commons attribution terms. Those terms are linked at the bottom of every Stack Exchange webpage, and are also included as a .txt file in every data dump we produce.

Google now has a form for reporting content copiers that appear above the originals in search results.

Also, you can block unwanted sites from appearing in Google search from the search page itself:

The option to block a site appears when you click a search result and then navigate back to the search results page. Click the "Block" link next to that result to block all pages within the site's entire domain.

This post was created as an attempt to organize information originally posted in this answer. You may also be looking for the post for reporting copycat sites that outrank Stack Exchange in search results.


locked by Pops Nov 7 '13 at 16:05

This question exists because it has historical significance, but it is not considered a good, on-topic question for this site, so please do not use it as evidence that you can ask similar questions here. This question and its answers are frozen and cannot be changed. More info: help center.

marked as duplicate by Pops Oct 9 '13 at 20:24

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

I have never seen the CAPTCHA page as often as I did when I was adding the existing 40 or so answers to this question. – Pops May 8 '12 at 20:20
That is because you pasted. Try typing... Like a real person :) – Jeff Atwood May 12 '12 at 15:20
...yeeeeahhhh, I prefer the CAPTCHAs. – Pops May 12 '12 at 21:17
@JeffAtwood I would put a poison pill question(s) that only those APIs presented so that you could automatically re-scrap via Google and easily find infringing sites. Much like cartographers do on physical maps by putting fake locations or markers to easily spot copies. The thieves would never know what to look for and you could easily make this an automated process. – Jarrod Roberson Jul 14 '12 at 6:04
@Jeff is this handled at some level? Can we know which sites were reported and closed? – Shadow Wizard Aug 8 '12 at 10:58
@ShaWizDowArd I don't have a handy list of sites that have been dealt with, but we do monitor this thread and contact offenders. This post isn't just a black hole. :) – Adam Lear Aug 31 '12 at 22:25
It's a bit late for this comment, but if you ever want to check out what one of these sites looked like (if it was later removed), you can use one of the many webcache services online (I use the chrome web cache plugin) – Snakes and Coffee Mar 1 '13 at 9:02
Site blocking is currently unavailable through google unless you use Chrome and the Chrome blocking extension. – gebuh Mar 12 '13 at 18:27
I just went through and about 50% of these are gone. I edited some, until I got tired of it. Cleanup please? :) – Doorknob Apr 6 '13 at 1:01
@PopularDemand: Can you check please? I'm not entirely sure whether to classify it as an illegal clone or not. – Karan Apr 24 '13 at 23:25
@Karan FYI I'm just the user who posted the question, not an official person of any kind. – Pops Apr 24 '13 at 23:29
@PopularDemand: Thanks, maybe a mod will check it out then if they ever read my previous comment. – Karan Apr 24 '13 at 23:57
Is there a reason the original list of offenders was split into countless posts over multiple pages? Giving it its own topic, sure, but splitting into individual answers just makes searching for existing entries a PITA and invites duplicates. – Daniel Beck May 27 '13 at 8:49
Here's another one I don't think has been reported earlier, with fake author names and as far as I can see no attribution whatsoever: – Karan Jun 8 '13 at 22:27
@AnnaLear The RNQA site seems to still be going strong; here’s an ELU meta post about them scraping content from ELU. If there is anything more we can do, please let us know and we would be glad to pitch in in any way we can. Thanks. – tchrist Aug 4 '13 at 20:14

127 Answers 127 is scraping at least Stack Overflow and English Language & Usage without following attribution rules.

For example,


are scrapes of:


without (1) visually indicating that the content is from Stack Overflow, Meta Stack Overflow, Server Fault, or Super User [etc.] in some way; (2) hyperlinking directly to the original question on the source site; or (4) hyperlinking each author name directly back to their user profile page on the source site.

For (2), they are linking back ("Read More Details"), but are both using tinyurl and nofollow, so it's not a direct link.

They have this in the footer, but it doesn't meet SE attribution requirements:

© 2013 All rights reserved.

Except for third party materials and otherwise stated, this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence. The original Author/Publisher name is mentioned above.

Me too. I found my question popping to the top of google search on their site within 2 hours of posting it. – steve cook Sep 13 '13 at 5:12
@MattEllen: See the linked duplicate for new instructions on reporting duplicates, please. – Josh Caswell Oct 20 '13 at 7:42



Didn't even bother to upload the images somewhere else, they still point to stack.imgur.

i will say, it's flattering to find someone stealing my stuff. it's also sad. – James May 9 '13 at 22:17

  • A clear scraped version of Travel-SE, with copied verbatim questions and answers
  • There's no attribution, no links to the original content, no ToS or any contact information on the site.
  • Plastered with Amazon adverts
  • Example: without linking to the original question.


share,, and

  • content on bicycles is from [Bicycles.SE] (I recognized it) and content on www sure looks like it's from other SE sites
  • In addition, there is scraped content from:
    • CSTheory.SE (see
    • English.SE (see
    • Electronics.SE (see
    • Gaming.SE (see
    • GIS.SE (see
    • Home Improvement/DIY.SE (see
    • Physics.SE (see
    • Sharepoint.SE (see
    • TeX.SE (see
    • (see
    • (though it seems to be only this question repeated over and over...)
    • Unix & Linux (see
  • The categories on itself seem to be scraping some of the larger Ubuntu tag feeds.
  • Shows names of answerers, but not askers. There is no further attribution to SE or any indication that the site is not providing original content.


  • Can't see any attribution what-so-ever on the site, not even usernames

  • copies from and
  • the only reference to SE is a discrete, indirect link back to the original post
  • all user information stripped

Example: is a clone of Alt-tab does not display all applications

It also appears higher in google search results than (for example, see,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=eb77e84dac2421f&biw=1515&bih=993)

There is a reference to, right at the beginning of the q. – HodofHod Jun 12 '12 at 23:47
@HodofHod: I'd say this is just on the wrong side of the borderline. It has a link back to the original question and (barely) mentions AskUbuntu, but fails the other two tests that Jeff has laid out. – Josh Caswell Jun 13 '12 at 1:20
I have banned their scraper from hitting us, thanks! – Nick Craver Apr 12 '13 at 2:56

  • Example (
  • Entire site, even some CSS
  • No attribution, no single mention of SO
  • No hyperlinks

  • Example ( is a direct copy of this SO question
  • I checked several Joomla articles. All of them were from StackOverflow.
  • This site has many categories of questions. Others might also be copied from StackOVerflow, although a quick check suggests they copy from many other sites.
  • No hint the question and answer came from StackOverflow.
  • No link to StackOverflow.
Also using… – Richard Deeming Feb 25 '13 at 20:08

  • Questions link back to Stack Overflow (no follow)
  • Example links back to original at TypeError: 'module' object is not callable API
  • All questions are attributed to hunt answer.
  • Only questions are copied, answers are left out.

  • Example: which is a copy of question in Ask Ubuntu.

  • The questions do not have any attribution to the contents in Ask Ubuntu.

Not only that, but because the domain name is phonetically equivalent to "ubuntu", it would likely fall under trademark infringement under most jurisdictions. I filled in the form on Canonical's website letting them know about this and they have indicated that they are looking into this. – uɐɯsO uɐɥʇɐN Apr 9 '13 at 1:44

Orginal Question: Android : Custom Shapes (Behaviour of layer-list)
And its clone

There is not any contibuting to the author or Stack Overflow.


  • Question2Answer Serving the latest DB dumps
  • No link back to SO
  • Authors are not mentioned or linked
  • Site has malware / rogue JS issues so be wary, example link:

It looks like someone wrote a connector to import our dumps right into Question2Answer, but it doesn't handle the attribution requirements. Additionally, the site might be compromised - so be wary when visiting.

Just found one of my answers on that site without any mention of who posted the answer, so was coming here to report it. – Rachel May 2 '13 at 19:51

Reproduces content from all over the Stack Exchange network without attribution to the authors or the site.

Example from Physics:

Internal moment in the hull of a pressure vessel

On the site:

Example from Super User:

What is the difference between striping BYTES and BLOCKS using RAID?

On the site:

Scraping questions and answers from the android tag with no attribution and not even mentioning the users who asked and answered the questions.

For example

is sourced from:

Trying to requery an already closed cursor


Example here: (copied from here)

Only reference to SU/SE are the links in the question's last paragraph (by the original author on SU) and the image from in the answer.

This site is still reposting SU content w/o attribution. I found this meta thread while searching for more information after experiencing deja vu while reading that site after an identical SU thread. Substitute their domain name on any SU thread URL to see an example. – artgravity Oct 8 '13 at 3:53

No notice that content is from Stack Overflow. No links to original question. Does identify original author. Does not link back to original author's profile.

Also appears to be scraping the related questions links.

Appears to be using the site as a giant advertising board for an Amazon Associate account. Not sure if there's a way to report that to Amazon...



Original question: mkfs.ext4 is taking hours to complete on 4TB raid 5

Copied content:

The website appears to be scraping all content from Server Fault and not giving any attribution what-so-ever.


copies from It links back to original posts for questions, but not answers, and does not include usernames. It does not indicate content is from SE.

I mentioned this on their facebook page and they have now taken this page down. I also recommended that they review the licensing of all of their other aggregated content. – Mark Booth Jul 21 '13 at 13:40

Takes SO content whole hog.

straight screen scrap from

Migrating from MySQL to MariaDB and viceversa


Scrapes answers from Server Fault without attribution.

Example: is lifted from Best strategy/practices for Dev/Test/Prod Server with no attribution for Server Fault or the question or answer authors, nor is the license given.


Yet another one.

I actually came across it due to a spamming user who posted a link to their site twice in this question: Support offline data display in iOS app (10k only) with that link being to their copy of that question.

Checking out their home page today, they seem to be getting stuff pretty quickly; probably using the API. They also have Disqus comments active, and seem to get a bit of activity there, so they are apparently getting hits through from Google.


  • seems to be a scrape of's PHP tagged questions
  • no attribution at all
  • all questions attributed to username 'Stacked'
  • no links to
  • very spammy (popups, etc.)

Doesn't respect the fourth requirement :

Hyperlink each author name directly back to their user profile page on the source site

Example :

Only 3/5 author profiles are linked.

Real post here.


Here is a description from the site, a pretty murky looking, badly designed FAQ page:

IFMDb is searchable database of messages which are legally posted on the internet forums by internet community, for internet community

To try to illustrate the cc-wiki breach, let's take for example This page does not break attribution requirement 1, since there is a reference to StackOverflow (albeit not-hyperlinked). What is does breach is 2, as the link to the "full question" is a proxy between the original clone site and StackOverflow, e.g. has a nofollow and doesn't link back.

Furthermore, I believe 3 is breached as well, as only Unknown shows up as the author. To round it all up, 4 is not respected, as there is no reference to the original account from StackOverflow which originated the question – original question is here

Sure hope my assertions are ok. Thanks!


I found a copy of my question ( How to De-Authenticate a Windows Auth user with PHP ) over here:


  • Rough translation into other languages (like German), might be Google translator.
  • Links that are part of text or users are kept: go directly and visible to Stack Overflow sites etc.
  • example:
  • Update: On bottom of example is written (in German): This comes originally from this question (linked) on (linked). Thus it might not be a real misuse/ stealing.


All link was abandoned rel = 'nofollow' please be considered. thanks you – user216457 Mar 22 '13 at 14:13


See also this post. – Pang Mar 9 '13 at 8:42

Stack Overflow: How do I setup jogl with netbeans?



  • Does not show author name; does not hyperlink author name
  • Stack Overflow attribution is not clearly established
    • Link is in plain-text
    • Blurb does not identify that content came from SO, merely that you can find an answer there.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .