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

My website is pretty old, but I have started putting in more effort into it lately with the following idea:

  1. Fetch RSS feeds from technical sites like stackoverflow, drupal, ubuntu etc.
  2. Ask the community to edit the RSS feed to create a sensible "technical tip" out of it. (I have disabled "edit" right now because of SPAM reasons, but would be enabling soon after I have sorted moderation concerns).
  3. The attribution/link of the original site always remain to the original RSS feed (even though the subsequent users may change the content).
  4. Not all feeds may be changed by the users/communities and therefore, may remain unchanged.

Let me know if this is compatible with the stackoverflow terms and conditions. I don't want to do anything that is in-compatible with the terms and conditions.

Thanks a lot, Ajosh

*Update: * Now, all new feeds on the site link to with the author names as well in the feeds. So, I believe it is now compatible with CC attribution.

share|improve this question
As a start I would recommend you read the attribution requirements for cc-wiki here. Also read the blog post here for the attribution requirements in detail. Lastly, review the Legal section for some specific Trademark requirements. – BinaryMisfit Dec 21 '10 at 11:19
Thanks Diago. I read that. I am bit confused if RSS feed from SO that link to the original page/question would permit me legal use of the feed. – ajosh Dec 21 '10 at 11:31
re update: Nice, thanks! I don't see the author name/link though (I'm not registered on your site in any way), see the screenshot I attached at the bottom of my post. Could you point it out to me, please? – Piskvor Dec 27 '10 at 16:06…. See "Orignal Question by". Does it need to be more explicit? – ajosh Dec 28 '10 at 10:33
Ah, didn't notice that. Looks good IMO. Not sure about the old ones, e.g.… (where you presumably didn't store the author) – Piskvor Dec 31 '10 at 16:02

Although I'm not affiliated with SO, there's this answer by the SO team, which links to the attribution policy:

If you republish this content, we require that you:
1. Visually indicate that the content is from Stack Overflow, Meta Stack Overflow, Server Fault, or Super User in some way. It doesn’t have to be obnoxious; a discreet text blurb is fine.
2. Hyperlink directly to the original question on the source site (e.g.,
3. Show the author names for every question and answer
4. Hyperlink each author name directly back to their user profile page on the source site (e.g.,

By “directly”, I mean each hyperlink must point directly to our domain, and not use a tinyurl or any other form of obfuscation or redirection. Furthermore, the links must not be nofollowed.

For example, this article: is taken from this SO question. To go through the attribution requirements as specified on the blog:

  1. Not sure - there is a blurb which indicates the content may be from SO or another source - I don't know if that's sufficient (in my personal opinion "not compliant").
  2. Not compliant - although you link back with "View Original Seed", it is through a redirector.
  3. Not compliant - it says "Created by Anonymous", whereas the answer you copied was actually created by one Tatu Ulmanen
  4. Not compliant - as you are not showing the real author, you aren't even linking to their profile.

So, what can you do? As per the policy that's linked at the bottom of every page (see this answer for a screenshot),

  1. for SO questions, indicate that they do come from SO (a link saying "originally posted at" is IMHO better than a vague non-link text saying "from SO/reddit/somewhere/whatever")...
  2. ...and link to them directly (not through redirector), without a nofollow.
  3. also, show original author name(s) where applicable...
  4. ...and link to their profile page directly, without a nofollow.

This, to my understanding, should get you into compliance.

Edit: RSS feeds from SO contain the name of the author, even their profile page URL. An excerpt from the feed for this very page (the same structure exists in other feeds, like the one you linked):

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
        <link rel="alternate" href="">

Edit: It looks that the SO question is linked directly now as "View StackOverflow question", but I still don't see the name of the original author (see screenshot). Am I missing something?

share|improve this answer
Thanks Piskvor for the response. I took the RSS feed and am linking to the original link: "View original seed". (Unfortunately, RSS feeds does not give me the author of the question). – ajosh Dec 21 '10 at 11:28
@Ajosh. I just checked the main RSS feed and the question RSS, both include the name of the author. – BinaryMisfit Dec 21 '10 at 11:31
@ajosh: You are linking back, through a redirector. This is explicitly forbidden by the attribution requirements, which I have quoted in the answer: each hyperlink must point directly to our domain, and not use [...] any other form of [...] redirection. – Piskvor Dec 21 '10 at 11:32
@Diago, look at this RSS feed:, it doesn't have the author. – ajosh Dec 21 '10 at 11:33
@AJosh It does. Right there: <author> <name>emaillenin</name> <uri></uri>; </author>. In fact it includes a link to the user profile. Even with RSS I doubt SO would violate it's own attribution rules. – BinaryMisfit Dec 21 '10 at 11:33
@Piskor Thanks. This is a good point. I will fix that up. – ajosh Dec 21 '10 at 11:34
@Diago, I see the author in RSS Feed now. I think I can redirect to the author now. Many Thanks for all the help. I believe now if I redirect to the original question (without redirection .thanks Piskvor!) and the original author (thanks Diago!) it would be compatible with rules. – ajosh Dec 21 '10 at 11:37
@Diago♦: Wait a minute, must, or must not? I believe that's a typo, as otherwise you seem to be contradicting the attribution policy: "Furthermore, the links must not be nofollowed." - I understand it as "normal links without nofollow attribute". – Piskvor Dec 21 '10 at 11:47
@Piskvor. Apologies. Comment deleted. My eyes read faster then my brain registered. – BinaryMisfit Dec 21 '10 at 11:49
@Diago: Accepted - it's a fake double negative. I needed to read that sentence about "not nofollow" multiple times to get it right, too :) – Piskvor Dec 21 '10 at 11:51
Thanks for helping. You guys (or gals) are awesome! I will make these changes to my website. – ajosh Dec 21 '10 at 11:52
@ajosh: You're welcome. When you're done with the changes, edit this question to say so. – Piskvor Dec 21 '10 at 11:53
@Piskvor thanks. I have already stopped my RSS feed process which I will enable when I have made the changes. I would then edit the question to say so. – ajosh Dec 21 '10 at 12:02

You must log in to answer this question.

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