Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 153 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 web pages that display Stack Exchange content and rank higher in search results than the original SE posts they copy. It is no longer being maintained, because the procedure for reporting such sites has changed; see the duplicate for more information.

For the original instructions, see this question's revision history. You may also be looking for the post for reporting sites that use Stack Exchange content illegally (that is, without following attribution guidelines).


locked by Pops Nov 7 '13 at 16:07

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 20:25

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.

What about results varying from country to country? Some copycat sites seem to get ranked higher than SO in the U.S. only – Pëkka Dec 10 '10 at 22:56
Perhaps I should learn to stop using stackoverflow in my programming queries? – Ivo Flipse Dec 11 '10 at 7:52
Shouldn't we report at instead? Even when NOT violation Google's rules, reports might convince Google that their users are not happy with these search results? – Arjan Dec 11 '10 at 18:02
Who is to say Stack Overflow should always rank higher. They are allowing the content as CC-Wiki and if another site provides the content in a better way, what's the fuss? – theJerm Dec 15 '10 at 4:18
I guess this is to understand why SO is ranking below the scrapers. I hope it's not to demean the "scrapers" themselves. Because if the scrapers are attributing and following the license, they are doing no wrong. I hope Jeff meant to ask, "Send me the links of those ranking higher. I want to see what they are doing right." – abel Jan 7 '11 at 22:14
@Arjan To give a bad analogy,that is like giving away free Yellow T shirts and then asking people to throw water balloons on those wearing yellow T shirts. Google automatically discredits duplicate content and SO requires attribution so that generally means incoming links from the scraper. So SO should rank higher more often than not. – abel Jan 7 '11 at 22:17
Is Cutts talking about this issue here? – hyperslug Jan 28 '11 at 17:50
Confound sites like efreedom. If they're evil, that's reason enough to not like them. If they're not, I can't get a slice o' that. Either way it's a losing proposition. – MrBoJangles Dec 6 '11 at 23:57
Stack Exchange should have a "wholesale copying" prohibition. Many products have this; they allow liberal use of their IP, but not if you're just making a clone; you must also provide substantial additional value. Copying and pasting the entirety of an SE site is just a lazy attempt to profit off the backs of others, and disrespects the work all of the contributors (and SE corporate) put into their content, attribution or not. – Robert Harvey Aug 6 '12 at 16:05
@RobertHarvey is it even possible to have such a prohibition on CC BY-SA content? Or are you proposing changing to a different license? – Pops Aug 6 '12 at 16:30
@PopularDemand: IANAL, but the CC BY-SA license states that the "collective work" (i.e. the entire site) does not have to abide by the license, although I suppose it does by SE's interpretation of the license. If it does, copiers should state that the material is lifted from [the SE site], in accordance with the license. If it doesn't, I think you can make the case for a wholesale copy restriction. Each page should have a link to the CC BY-SA license. Each contribution should be individually attributed. does none of these things. It's just my opinion. – Robert Harvey Aug 6 '12 at 16:39
@RobertHarvey No way. That would have been a deal-breaker for me. Before participating, one of the things I checked was that in case Stack Overflow went down or bad, someone could fork the site with the existing content. If Stack Exchange ever decides to use a more restrictive license for new content, I'm out. – Gilles Aug 6 '12 at 18:41
Could this question be used to advertise your own scraper site? – prusswan Sep 7 '12 at 22:41
@prusswan I suppose so, but the people who read this page are probably not going to be interested in switching from the Genuine Article to a scraper. And I personally keep an eye on new posts, making sure to remove any direct links to scrapers, so that the copycats don't get any Google PageRank boost for being listed. – Pops Sep 8 '12 at 0:27

21 Answers 21

is a direct copy of Why does $($) crash my page?. So far, other than in the retained links from the sister sites, I do not see any citations or links to SO or the original question. In other words, they do not follow the the content attribution rules.

Another case:

is a copy of Beating jQuery addiction: Which jQuery methods are easily translated into pure javascript? which the owner of the site takes credit for... methinks Felix Kling will not be impressed.

Also, they're changing names for obfuscation. The questions/answers remain the same, however.

A trick they're using: the date on their site is two months older than SO's. They're making it look like SO copied them.

Here is their Google ranking when searching for the question I noted above:
enter image description here

Upon further investigation, appears to copy most if not all of its content from SO. Also, it appears to belong to this SO user. Here is his question about scraping content from Stack Overflow: What is the best way to save the articles?

To further fuel my rage on all of this: here is a random collection of links (there might be more; I just clicked on a few recent ones) that show the user plugging his ripped site. (The answers at least seem to be unique in these cases, but that is only when searching them against SO and not other sites.)

Need date format in SQL Server
Date format pattern
Update without first selecting data in LINQ 2 SQL?
Update using linq

It really grinds my gears that he is making money for other people's hard work, so I've been researching his other questions. is a direct copy of

I will be contacting with this information next.

Well after flagging the answers as SPAM they were removed so the 4 links I posted just make me look like I'm going crazy! – rlemon Jun 21 '12 at 13:57
no, users with enough rep see deleted answers. it's all fine, you don't need to fear that you loose your face here ;) – hakre Jun 21 '12 at 14:33
huh, looks like he took down the examples you mentioned. Sneaky bastard... – Tobias Kienzler Jul 12 '13 at 12:29
@TobiasKienzler I have noticed some as well (I reported him on two answers in Meta for coverage) and updated the other answer. You can still find scraped content if you look. Take a few of the higher rated Q/As and google search the title / content and you will find the same content from other site.s – rlemon Jul 12 '13 at 13:04
"A trick they're using: the date on their site is two months older than SO's. They're making it look like SO copied them." Is Google seriously this stupid? Why isn't they simply using the timestamp of indexing? I'm sure SO was indexed earlier... – Calmarius Aug 23 '13 at 12:56
yes this is what they (or he) does. The names of the users and sometimes the titles are changed. Sometimes answers / questions have small parts omitted as well (a few words here and there, or an image) – rlemon Aug 23 '13 at 16:54

This site is a blatant rip-off. Even their layout is similar. Most (if not all) questions are ripped verbatim from Stack Overflow. I Googled the text from one question, and Stack Overflow was the first result; this site was third and fourth.

Google this: TypeError: unbound method can_move() must be called with O_shape.

Original question: Drawing Blocks Tetris at

Knockoff URL: (even the question ID is the same facepalm)

enter image description here

No attribution and they're spamming all kinds of social bookmark links and hiding accepted answers behind a membership wall... that's definitely infringing on the CC-wiki license. – Aarobot Jan 31 '12 at 3:54
There is absolutely nothing on that site but illegal content >:( – uɐɯsO uɐɥʇɐN Jan 31 '12 at 6:29
The site seems to be owned by some dude in China. – Rocket Hazmat Jan 31 '12 at 14:35
You can try emailing, this seems to be where he bought the domain from. – Rocket Hazmat Jan 31 '12 at 14:42 They seem to abide by the license: they link back to the question and to each post author, they have a footer indicating that the content is aggregated from SO/SU/SF and under CC-wiki.

Found by searching "securing file system for secure sftp server". The copy of the question on readmespot is returned first, then the other results on that site, then results on SF with 1: a question that links to it, 2: a tag page, 3: the question with this title.

Next down is a license violator. Nice to see that at least the legal content scraper did better than the illegal and visually aggressive one.

no readmespot showing up now, but I do see some *.info which is never good. – Jeff Atwood Apr 17 '12 at 22:09

Given, most of these are a few spots behind Stack Overflow, but a few are higher.

We believe to have killed the feed for this bot. Thanks for the report. – Geoff Dalgas May 2 '13 at 16:34
I googled my name "Rocket Hazmat" (with the quotes around it), and this... site was the 5th result. It shows SO questions and answers with no links to SO at all! The even have user contributions licensed under CC BY-SA with Attribution required at the bottom of their site (what tools)! – Rocket Hazmat Jun 13 '13 at 14:06
OH MY! It's worse than I thought! They have Site Design / Logo © 2013 Rqgg, user contributions licensed under CC BY-SA with Attribution required. at the bottom of their site. Look familiar? ... (site design / logo © 2013 stack exchange inc; user contributions licensed under cc-wiki with attribution required) – Rocket Hazmat Jun 13 '13 at 14:13
@GeoffDalgas I discovered this same domain has lifted Q&A from other sites in the Stack Exchange network, including and Found some of my own posts at RQGG by way of Google when I did a vanity search. See – Chris W. Rea Jun 26 '13 at 13:49
I posted this at the other list since they do not link back to the original page – Tobias Kienzler Jul 12 '13 at 12:25

is a to-the-letter copy of this question from Arqade, and comes up fifth in a Google search for the name.

The answerer's username is still there, but that's about it in terms of "attribution."

It's kind of strange that it's being touted as a "Q&A system" when they're using a WordPress blog format (thoughts/comments) to post "answers"....

In fact, it looks like at least the gaming category on this site is entirely composed of ripped content from Arqade:

Edit: Looking at the rest of the site, it appears that all of it is ripped from Stack Exchange. Copy and paste any of the question titles into Google and watch what comes up.


This site is stealing SO content without attributing.

Example 1:

I searched Google for "Apache Filesmatch" and got, which is a copy of the SO question Apache FilesMatch.

Example 2 (merged in from another answer that was originally posted separately):

was found when searching for

Get Latitude and Longitude from SQLite database for use in Android MapOverlay

@PopularDemand Must be a search bubble or whatever it is called. – Anish Gupta May 7 '12 at 20:42
codeblow is also modifying the content by using synonyms for some words to avoid being an exact duplicate (even if it doesn't make sense, like replacing "drivers" with "motorists" even though it refers to software drivers) – dsims Apr 24 '13 at 3:19

Search text in Google:

jquery ui accordion copy item shows multiple active Animate Items Added / Removed To Accordion


"jquery ui accordion copy item shows multiple active"

Scraper site above Stack Overflow:

Stack Overflow question:

Animate items added/removed to a jQuery Accordion

Do not see attribution/link to SO question in the scraper site.

Did not see the SO question in the first eight pages of Google results.

I forgot, in my haste, to ignore this other site in the search results — as I most often do — as they have horrid performance and often/most of the time clicking on the "replies" to the questions on their site gives you not found bombs due to their horrid performance... and I really see no value in their site.


Site stealing SE posts without attribution:

Here is the question (and answers) they stole:

Unable to access linux/skbuff.h

Content theft alone doesn't make an answer good for this question; it also has to rank above the corresponding SE question on Google. You're looking for Report sites that use SE content without following attribution rules here. But don't bother re-reporting it, because there's already a post about vniup on that question. – Pops May 17 '13 at 19:17

A few days ago, I posted this question on Gaming. Having not received a correct answer, I decided to do some Google searching, and stumbled upon It would seem they stole my question, as well as the answers. I've looked, but I can't find an attribution anywhere on their page.

Also, in case it's important, it was the fifth result in the Google search.

I'm always astounded how ugly the copycat sites always are. – Ben Brocka Feb 3 '12 at 15:38
I like how the largest tag in that site's tag cloud is "Possible Duplicate." – Dave McClelland Feb 14 '12 at 14:01

I wanted to find this question and Googled for "tortoisesvn sharptooth". I got a bunch of other result, and the 8th result was on, which is a scraped version of the question I tried to find, but there wasn't the original question anywhere on the first page of the resultset.

Also I wanted to find this question and Googled for "debug heap" sharptooth attach - there're no results on in the output, but there's a link to this thing (that btw looks like violating the license...).

no repro at all now – Jeff Atwood Apr 17 '12 at 22:06

This blog post incorporates one of my Stack Overflow answers, copied in full, with no link, attribution, mention of me or of Stack Overflow:

If you wait for the annoying "like" dialog to access this "premium" stolen content, you'll find that the portion of the post directly below "The Answer" is a direct copy - links and all - of my answer here:

Pros and cons of using a cursor (in SQL server)

This was not scraped or automated, or pulled via an API - this was very clearly done by hand, incorporated into the user's own blog post as if it were part of his own work.

I did not find this blog post through Google, but it was just posted today (I discovered it via trackback). So it doesn't appear above Stack Overflow for relevant search terms today, but it still seems to violate the terms of use.

(I brought this up as a new question, Answers lifted and published elsewhere.)


No links back or attribution whatsoever:

Main site:

Specific instance:

Original SO question: Modify presentation of element in a TabularInline

screenshot of google search

share is in partial violation of our cc-by-sa license. Most pages do have author links, e.g. doesn't.

Could they possibly be doing this by hand? The mind boggles.


One more site that is stealing Stack Overflow content without attributing: They are using fake author names with answers and not mentioning Stack Overflow.

I found one of my SO answers on that site.

Post this on… – torrential coding Jul 15 '12 at 9:42
@torrentialcoding You don't have to wait for the OP in cases like this, you can just do it yourself. This time, there's no need, it's already been reported there: – Pops Jul 16 '12 at 14:23
@PopularDemand Thanks. I will make sure I do that in the future. – torrential coding Jul 16 '12 at 14:31

A full copy of DIY.SE minus the footer. It seems to be read-only.


is an unattributed copy of the Stack Overflow question

How dangerous is it to access an array out of bounds?

I found it via a simple Google search for the title "How dangerous is it to access an array out of bounds?".

There's no mention of Stack Overflow on the page other than two references in the question itself (including "This is my first Stackoverflow question"). The answers, of which there are several, do not appear. The added footer:

This entry was posted in C / C++ and tagged OSX, SET, SO, VALUE, VALUES on March 26, 2013 by bartol.

is mostly incorrect; the questioner is ChrisD, not bartol, and the "tags" do not resemble those on the original question.

I haven't looked at the rest of the site.


Ruby openssl dgst -sha1 -sign

was the search term.

While it's not necessarily above the fold, this is an obscure enough search that there are few meaningful result subject lines, and one of them was copy of the same article on so.

enter image description here

Original image link:

It's now three months later, I just tried to reproduce this, and the first TLDs I got were, in order:,, (x2),,,,, and I didn't see or any SE sites anywhere. – Pops May 31 '13 at 18:46

No attribution at all. Also no indication who the responsible person for the site is, which is a violation of German law (and the site gets served to me from a German domain—yes I know that this is just Blogspot changing the domain, but maybe this is a legal way to show teeth to them).

Thank you David Wallace for noticing it.

I actually do see very discreet attribution pointing back to the author profiles on SE, and at the bottom of each post is a "more discussion" link that directs you back to the original question on Seasoned Advice. So on first glance, it looks like they actually are following our attribution laws, but definitely in a kind of shady way. Someone here at Stack HQ will look into this further, though. – Laura May 26 '12 at 17:53

Searching for something I dimly remembered one one of the StackExchange sites (which one? Math? Security? Crypto? Maybe Google knows ...), I Googled this:

stackexchange encryption "initialization vector" same file different ciphertext

and (near the bottom of) the first page of Google results includes

"Should I use an initialization vector (IV) along with my encryption?"

These people seem to be complying with all the attribution requirements listed at " Is it legal to copy Stack Overflow questions and answers? ", so as far as I can tell they are legal.

(I didn't know there was way to search all StackExchange sites until hours after I did that Google search).


Copying content from stackoverflow, without date or attribution. Furthermore, they write in the bottom "Copyright (C) 2013 - All rights reserved".

Searched for "ggplot connecting line space".

Screenshot of google search

Original content: connecting lines between means of factors in ggplot2



They pretend to be the site where you can ask the questions, but there's no link for it. They remove user names and machine-translate the content to German. No information about the source, they pretend it's theirs.

A little flower, from

088062 ist Teil der Stapel Exchange-Netzwerk

"Stapel" is the translation of "Stack" into German.

What were the offending Google search terms? – Pops May 31 '13 at 18:27
I think I should have posted it here:… I can't replicate it with my home laptop, but that portal is impudent enough to copy even original SE favicons and logos – Danubian Sailor May 31 '13 at 19:17

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