I like Stack Overflow. However, I found that some sites 'mirror' stuff from here, for example:


They do not only post my questions and answers, they also post my name. I do not want to be connected (in a sense of Google results) to these website, their layouts are horrible, the domain names awful and, lastly, I don't see the point.

However, I do want to be connected to Stack Overflow.

Is there anything I can do? Is there an opinion Stack Overflow has regarding those websites?

I noticed a related post: What is hows.info?

But I could not open the duplicate.

Moreover, here one can report, but what is done with the report? Are the websites taken down somehow?

Report sites that use Stack Exchange content without following attribution rules here

Report high-Google-ranking Stack Exchange content copiers here

My solution For those who have the same questions and want to know how to be unggoogleable on Stack Exchange-mirrors:

First I removed my last name from all Stack Exchange accounts.

Then some of the mirrors simply update their pages and remove it immediately. For others, you have to e-mail and ask. This is a list of experiences I have per website that mirrored my name:

Site                          Possible Fix                          
http://www.9nit.com/          e-mail                       
http://www.questiondb.com/    e-mail                       
http://www.rqna.net/          e-mail                       
http://fatalweb.com/          feedback button, bottom right 
http://it.dbline.net/         e-mail
http://s7438.socode.info/     e-mail
http://www.techques.com/      nothing, updates automatically

The e-mail template I use
Dear sir, madam,

Your website shows my name, NAME, namely on these pages:


Please remove my name from them.

Thank you in advance.

Yours Sincerely,



I also found this site, which states that a site cannot just mention your name without your consent:


  • 4
    There isn't much you can do if someone takes a picture of you in the public and then photoshops in a dog pissing on your head. You can sue them for defamation. But I mean... it's the internet...
    – Mysticial
    Jul 6 '13 at 16:38
  • That is the same duplicate as for the post you linked to. I can open it just fine. Jul 6 '13 at 16:38
  • 2
    @MartijnPieters This isn't a duplicate. It isn't about improper attribution. And the links here seem to link back to SO anyway.
    – Mysticial
    Jul 6 '13 at 16:40
  • 5
    If they attribute, then there is nothing we can do. Posting here on the Stack Exchange network means your words are licensed under the CC Wiki license and that means they can re-publish as long as they follow the rules of the license. Jul 6 '13 at 16:41
  • It is properly attributed to the OP though. Jul 6 '13 at 16:45
  • Just report them (each individually) in the duplicate if they are not there yet and don't provide proper attribution. Then let SO/SE take it from there.
    – Bart
    Jul 6 '13 at 16:59
  • 3
    Moreover, shouldn't stackoverflow do more to protect its user? I use stackoverflow not only for my own benefit, but also to help others. And now I am stuck with shabby websites listing me and showing up in google results. What is the use of allowing blatant copying? Aren't there rules (which I see a lot in disclaimers of websites) disallowing commercial use and publishing next to adds and commercials? Is it enough to just point to SO?
    – Herbert
    Jul 6 '13 at 17:01
  • 4
    You might want to read the site's TOS you have agreed to. All content is licensed with a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. So with proper attribution the content is free to be taken and re-published.
    – Bart
    Jul 6 '13 at 17:02
  • I am not questioning what the TOS says. Like @billy-mailman said, I can remove my account and than politely ask or sue the mirrors if they don't take the information down. However I do not want to delete my account, since, like Billy stated, it is overkill. I want the mirrors to either have a reason to mirror or to not mirror. I can imaging that I am not the only user who would want this and moreover can not imagine that a user (asker, googler or questioner) has benefit from the mirrors. Is SO 'happy' with these mirrors?
    – Herbert
    Jul 6 '13 at 17:11
  • 4
    They don't need a reason. They are explicitly free to do so. If SO would not be happy about the mirrors, don't you think the content license would be different? And if there is no proper attribution, they will surely take care of the situation. If there is however, there is no problem, and you could sue them all you wish, but you'd lose.
    – Bart
    Jul 6 '13 at 17:20
  • I would absolutely think the content license would be different, and therefore I would like to ask what the benefit according to SO is of such mirror websites? From a user point of view I can only see disadvantages.
    – Herbert
    Jul 6 '13 at 17:24
  • 1
    Such websites, if providing proper attribution, don't do a lot of harm. They are not the most positive effect of the license, but they are not significantly bad. The idea however is that SO/SE creates sites which will be a quality repository of information (in the form of questions and answers) for others to use. The license (and data dumps) guarantees the life of the content even if SO/SE would stop to exist. And it allows others to use the content and build upon it.
    – Bart
    Jul 6 '13 at 17:28
  • "And it allows others to use the content and build upon it." These mirrors don't build upon it, that was a previous point I made. "The license (and data dumps) guarantees the life of the content even if SO/SE would stop to exist." It would be stunned if SO were to stop existing before any of these shabby mirrors. Moreover, I guess the information on SO would become more and more outdated and less relevant. It would be nice if SO maintained some legal blacklist of mirror sites. Well, I will accept that I am not the boss of SO ;) and hence can not determine these things. Thanks everyone!
    – Herbert
    Jul 6 '13 at 17:37
  • 4
    If you're interested in this any further @herbert, this might provide for a good read: wiki.creativecommons.org/Case_Studies/StackOverflow.com
    – Bart
    Jul 6 '13 at 17:42

Stack Exchange sites' content is licensed under a Creative Commons Wiki license. The details are linked at the bottom of every page. By posting your content to any Stack Exchange site, you make it available to anyone and everyone in the world to use, provided that they give proper attribution. This is kind of the point of SE - making information available, not just to the person asking the question, but to everyone who comes past in the years to come.

If you feel that a site isn't giving proper attribution, you can post about it here (which seems to have been edited into you post while I was writing this). But ultimately, any site that uses SE's data is outright required to put your name on it, and failure to do so would get them into legal trouble.

If you 100% refuse to be associated with such sites, the only recourse, unfortunately, is to not use SE, and to ask for your profile to be deleted. It's harsh, it's severe overkill, but if you personally feel that your content showing up on sites other than Stack Exchange is completely unacceptable, it's your best bet. Once the account is gone, your content will remain, but will be as if it had been posted by an anonymous account.

  • I think the answer is clear :) But as you may have notice, I disagree with the lineant policy towards copy-pasters. Like I said, I have not problems showing up via google on a SO page. What is the use of a website which copies the content of SO? Why would the information become more available? If I gave you two identical pdfs or two identical books, would it be 'more available' to you?
    – Herbert
    Jul 6 '13 at 17:05
  • 1
    The policy allows a lot of other use cases, though. A limited, internal mirror of some portions of the content inside a country that blocks the whole SE for political reasons. Full archives so that if, god forbid, SE crashes and burns, the content can still be found. Sites that index questions from one SE site, under one tag, and aim to provide better searching within those questions. It doesn't take long to come up with a lot of cases where making the SE content available is a good idea. And legally, that means making it available to EVERYONE, as long as they provide attribution. Jul 6 '13 at 17:16
  • All these reasons are political, not technical.
    – Herbert
    Jul 6 '13 at 20:44
  • 1
    @Herbert I copy SE posts in order to put on my own web site questions I have personally answered, in order to highlight my own knowledge base. In all cases the questions are attributed to the person who wrote them and the SE site they came from. No one has yet complained.... Jul 17 '13 at 1:24
  • So, since no one has yet complained, I am not allowed to complain?
    – Herbert
    Aug 1 '13 at 7:29

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