I am not sure if it is a problem or OK. I found a Stack Overflow question and my answer on answerspice.com.


WCF in IIS 6: Server cannot set status after HTTP headers have been sent


Based on the answers below, it looks like they may be breaking the rules. Is it possible to do anything about it?


Now also on FriendFeed:



Now also on tuts9.com:


Why doesn't my WCF endpoint throw a Max Clock Skew exception?


Found another one:


Edit5: And another


The interesting thing here was that this was the first link in a google search. The original article was not on the first page.

Edit6: And another


  • 3
    Can you share how you found this? Was it through a simple Google search, or some other means? May 14 '10 at 17:47
  • 1
    @Bill, I found it through google, I was reseaching question 2383169 May 14 '10 at 17:55
  • 3
    I found a question I had commented on on answerspice as well, through Google, using my name even. May 14 '10 at 18:09
  • 2
    @George: same here... May 14 '10 at 18:13
  • 5
    it helps when you avoid linking to the scrapers, by the way. Aug 9 '10 at 3:05
  • Please add these here: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/24611/…
    – Jon Seigel
    Dec 11 '10 at 19:09

That site appears to just gather content from any site that publishes Q&A under a CC-wiki license.

Edit: Actually, I guess they are breaking the rules. They do link to back to the original question on Stackoverflow, so I don't think they're trying to take credit for the information, but they do not follow the guidelines Jeff set out. They do not post the author names next to the post and they don't hyperlink to the authors profile.

  • 2
    The site is just plain weird … it’s incredibly badly and lovelessly done but it doesn’t appear to have any ads. Huh? What’s its purpose then? May 14 '10 at 17:55
  • 2
    @Brandon did you see " This is just an excerpt. To learn more, please go to the original site >>" link back to SO ?
    – rlb.usa
    May 14 '10 at 18:00
  • @Konrad: To maybe drive usage to that site in the hopes of selling ads on it eventually? Dunno, really, just a stab in the dark.
    – Randolpho
    May 14 '10 at 18:04
  • @rlb.usa, I did. That is what I meant by they do link back to the original question. However since they actually post the question and answer, I think according to Jeffs comment on his post (blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/…) then his blog post still applies. Could be wrong though...
    – Brandon
    May 14 '10 at 18:06
  • They also don't appear to indicate that the content is from StackOverflow either...they link to SO but don't say that it is from SO. May 14 '10 at 18:11
  • Do you have to say content is from StackOverflow? Where is that in the CC-Wiki you just have to attribute the creator right? In this case is SO.com any more of a creator than they are? May 14 '10 at 18:21
  • 6
    *looks at bottom of every page* user contributed content licensed under cc-wiki with attribution required
    – perbert
    May 14 '10 at 19:54
  • @Evan: Yes you do. CC-wiki license says you have to attribute it in the manner that the copyright holder describes. See Jeff's blog post here: blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required Aug 20 '10 at 15:29

This is clearly against 3 of the 4 rules stated by Jeff when using site content for your own purposes:

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.

No. There is no mention of SO, and I don't believe having to mouseover the original question link qualifies.

2. Hyperlink directly to the original question on the source site (e.g., https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12345)

Yes. There is a link to the original question.

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., https://stackoverflow.com/users/12345/username)

No, on both items. The content appears anonymously.

While I believe the site has properly done its duty for the base cc-wiki licence, they have failed to take into account the 'attribution required' part.

I don't think there's much more to say about it, really. Except to ask Jeff to post the cease-and-desist e-mail on Meta for fun. :D

  • 6
    Cease-and-desist letter, eh? And in future news, Jeff Atwood will be announcing a new member of the SO-family of sites shortly: StatutorilyNegligent! Welcome to SOFUN!
    – Pops
    May 14 '10 at 18:36
  • @Pop: Or just buy them out with the VC funds. Note to self: start screen-scraping the Trilogy.
    – Jon Seigel
    May 14 '10 at 18:48
  • 4
    seriously though, the next site added to the trilogy MUST have an 'N' name
    – David Z
    May 15 '10 at 4:20

Tuts9 do not link back to the original question. Here's an example:

  • My original question
  • Tuts9 copy - http://tuts9.com/questions/56484/get-a-mediawiki-template-to-change-depending-on-its-location-on-a-page

All the links on this page are Tuts9 links. So basically they just stole the contents, of this and many other questions.

Found via Google.

  • @random - I see a very weird edit, apparently by you, in the history of this answer but not displayed here. Any idea what is going on? Oct 24 '10 at 6:49
  • Other than making the link not a link, nothing.
    – random
    Oct 24 '10 at 21:15
  • @random - why did you do that? Thanks for the reply, if you look at the history it is really weird. meta.stackoverflow.com/posts/61717/revisions Oct 25 '10 at 8:15
  • Was flagged, no need to increase their linking (even if nofollow). Revision looks fine.
    – random
    Oct 25 '10 at 11:52
  • @random - thanks for explanation. Revision on this page is fine but if you click on the above link you get bizarre text starting, "Picking at the scab" ! Oct 25 '10 at 12:04
  • Am seeing "added 5 characters in body"
    – random
    Oct 25 '10 at 12:06
  • @random - so you don't see the text I quoted above when you click on that link? Really weird... Oct 25 '10 at 13:13
  • In the comments, and that's it. Not picking the same in revision history.
    – random
    Oct 25 '10 at 13:38
  • @random - where did it come from? Oct 25 '10 at 14:11

Dodgy site Shapado are ripping off StackOverflow too. Originally just the design which was brought to attention and tolerated, but now Shapado rips off questions as well. Worst part is I just ran a Google search for "shazam api"... I found the result a little disturbing.

Edit: it won't let me post images because of my reputation so linked here: http://i.stack.imgur.com/ePYA2.png

  • 2
    Sharpado is a Stack Overflow clone - not just in that it scrapes content, but it provides the entire Q&A platform. However, that example you have there is not valid, because the user actually asked the same question on two different site, so it's not a scraper. For future reference, report scrapers here and here
    – Yi Jiang
    Feb 13 '11 at 0:19

I posted a workaround for this annoying issue here: Did anyone notice that some sites seem to be scraping/republishing SO's posts?

If a lot of people does this, maybe google figures out that those sites are not welcome.

You must log in to answer this question.

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