Timeline for Did anyone notice that some sites seem to be scraping/republishing SO's posts?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
34 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 24, 2023 at 12:34 | comment | added | Mark Jeronimus | I still find many sites without attribution link. And I HATE them in general because the only time when I encounter them is when I've already read the same SO question to no avail, and an not waiting to read the same info again. | |
| Jan 18, 2021 at 11:48 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://blog.stackoverflow.com with https://blog.stackoverflow.com
|
|
| Jun 3, 2020 at 13:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 13:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 13:35 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 9:16 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| Aug 25, 2011 at 15:21 | comment | added | Grey Panther | A similar scraping site: zx2010.com/question/group-chat-xmpp-google-app.asp (doesn't seem to contain any license / attribution either) | |
| Jan 7, 2011 at 9:13 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | @conroyp grr, lame. Another loophole we have to explicitly disallow in the attribution terms. Thanks for letting me know about it. | |
| Jan 7, 2011 at 9:03 | comment | added | ConroyP | Some sneakiness going on at some of the sites (simpleanswer.us/answer/…) - SO attribution not in the raw html, but only being generated by JS after page has finished loading. An attempt to stop google picking up on the backlink perhaps? | |
| Jan 6, 2011 at 8:10 | comment | added | abel | @Jeff If they are meeting the attribution guidelines that should be the end of it. if we go over and start adding limitations to the license so as to maintain SO's ranking on google, it simply makes us that little bit more evil. | |
| Jan 6, 2011 at 7:16 | history | edited | Jeff Atwood | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Jan 6, 2011 at 3:41 | comment | added | Jesse Dorsey | Something I was curious about. What about how they are linking it, I thought it was preferable to link with the text you want google to recognize. Does the fact that they aren't using the question title reduce the PR that flows through to the page? All of the efreedom links use "Stackoverflow" as the link text. | |
| Dec 10, 2010 at 22:05 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | @eamon these sites do seem to run afoul of Google's own "no original content" rule -- google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66361 | |
| Dec 10, 2010 at 12:18 | comment | added | Marco Demaio | @Eamon Nerbonne: great comment, the problem is @Google, that is the SAD TRUTH. The web2.0 brought up many cool sites like SE, but also a new range of useless sites that are actually using web 2.0 power to aggregate stuff from 'normal' sites and basically copy and pasting everything, like the new directories that are apperaing everywhere for each specific search also the localized ones. I think Google should send all of these damn sites to Google hell, but it's very hard to adjust this time, they want' be able to PATCH this as tehy did with teh nofollow. | |
| Dec 1, 2010 at 15:00 | comment | added | Eamon Nerbonne | Of course, the real problem here is clearly @google: What efreedom is doing is potentially useful and certainly valid (nothing wrong with aggregation), it's just that it shouldn't be ranking higher on pages that are purely reposts. | |
| Nov 29, 2010 at 21:19 | comment | added | Peter | Agree this is getting out of hand. Reposters should not be showing up in Google ahead of the original source. | |
| Nov 12, 2010 at 21:58 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | @pbz That is so odd. I asked this at pro webmasters .. webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/5385/… | |
| Nov 12, 2010 at 14:49 | comment | added | Ben | I know you consider it closed since they attribute, but this has been getting worse and worse. The efreedom pages are often ranking higher, and I consider them absolutely useless to me. They're getting the clicks anyway since I'm not always looking what site they're going to. | |
| Oct 23, 2010 at 23:27 | comment | added | pbz | Here's one more, search for "uiviewcontroller best practices" (without quotes). The first three entries are from efreedom followed by four entries from SO. | |
| Oct 21, 2010 at 6:15 | comment | added | pbz | @Jeff: That's weird, that's not what I'm getting i.imgur.com/RG7QC.png (check #4 vs #5) | |
| Oct 19, 2010 at 17:14 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | @pbz I can't repro that -- see my image of Google results here which looks correct (and is what I would expect if attribution is followed) imgur.com/DKFZk.png | |
| Oct 19, 2010 at 17:11 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | @hans our view counts are very very strict -- more akin to visits as they are unique per IP per 15 minute interval. As long as these sites strictly follow our attribution rules, they are allowed; it is on mission to share great questions and answers, so long as proper attribution of sources is done. | |
| Oct 19, 2010 at 14:31 | comment | added | Uphill Luge | That's what I'm seeing too. Comparing "number of people that recommended this" on their site vs the view counter on SO suggests they are getting roughly 3 times as many views. At least on the one question I checked. Counting on their back-links to improve page rank doesn't seem to be working. SO's stated goal of becoming the repository for programming questions may well be achieved by this site. Darwinian stuff. Fwiw, if SO would consider a more restrictive license then I'd personally have no problem with it. I derive no great joy from seeing my name linked without any flair or rep. | |
| Oct 16, 2010 at 0:57 | comment | added | pbz | @Nick Craver: Lately I've seen quite often posts from efreedom showing up above SO or in cases where SO doesn't even show up. For example, search for "CGContextStrokePath performance" in my case EF shows above SO for the same question (my guess is because they have the 'related questions' section which maybe convinces google that they have more content). | |
| Jul 27, 2010 at 18:46 | history | edited | Jeff Atwood | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 1060 characters in body
|
| Jul 26, 2010 at 12:49 | comment | added | jjnguy | @Jeff, you should update that rule now that more sites are joining the network. | |
| Jul 26, 2010 at 8:44 | history | edited | VonC | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
restore link to the list of clones
|
| Jul 25, 2010 at 14:30 | vote | accept | pdbartlett | ||
| Jul 25, 2010 at 13:37 | comment | added | Nick Craver | @Esko - It's definitely an SEO scam, but since google sees that no one outside that hive of sites links to them, their page rank is abysmal, as it should be. I agree they should be taken down, but at least for the moment, they don't seem to be earning much traffic from what they're doing. | |
| Jul 25, 2010 at 13:10 | history | edited | Jeff Atwood | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 289 characters in body; added 312 characters in body; added 69 characters in body
|
| Jul 25, 2010 at 7:56 | comment | added | Esko | I don't think that site really makes a strong enough distinction, there's no visual indicator that tells where the question is from in reality. Besides the amount of ads make it look like some sort of SEO scam. | |
| Jul 25, 2010 at 2:32 | history | edited | Lance Roberts | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 3 characters in body
|
| Jul 24, 2010 at 22:26 | history | answered | Jeff Atwood | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
