share
Meta Stack OverflowIs it legal to copy Stack Overflow questions and answers?
[+161] [10] Stefan Steinegger
[2009-10-05 12:10:39]
[ discussion copyright attribution ]
[ http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/24611/is-it-legal-to-copy-stack-overflow-questions-and-answers ]

I just found http://programmingfaq.w3ec.com/faq/4761/whats-the-hi-lo-algorithm which has an exact copy of this Stack Overflow question, What's the Hi/Lo Algorithm [1], with all its answers and no difference in a single character. There is no reference to Stack Overflow.

Is this legal, or at least tolerated? Is this impertinent theft of information? I just can't see any sense in copying whole pages, particularly when not referencing the source.

(2) A long time ago, after a tweet from Jeff, I started another question for people to report sites like this. Convenience link: Report high-Google-ranking SE content copiers here - Popular Demand
The 'Report high-Google-ranking SE content copiers' post should be used both for sites which conform to the license and illegal sites. It can be used to check that we're not missing any SEO tricks. This post, specifically this community-wiki answer, should be used to report license-violating illegal clones regardless of their position in Google. - Kevin Vermeer
(1) Update: Converted to its own post at Report sites that use SE content without following attribution rules here. - Kevin Vermeer
[+143] [2009-10-05 13:56:48] Marc Gravell [ACCEPTED]

Stack Overflow is licenced under Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Generic [1], which states:

Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

I think it is pretty clear that they have failed to do this (or any attribution whatsoever). So IMO (and IANAL) no: this usage is not legitimate. But within the terms of the cc-wiki agreement cited re-use is fine.

Edit: the cc-wiki licensing and attribution policy [2] are also linked on every footer page like so.

Enter image description here

If you click through to the attribution policy [3] you will find the specifics:

So let me clarify what we mean by attribution. If you republish this content, we require that you:

  • 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.
  • Hyperlink directly to the original question on the source site (e.g., http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12345)
  • Show the author names for every question and answer
  • Hyperlink each author name directly back to their user profile page on the source site (e.g., http://stackoverflow.com/users/12345/username)

By “directly”, I mean each hyperlink must point directly to our domain in standard HTML visible even with JavaScript disabled, and not use a TinyURL [4] URL or any other form of obfuscation or redirection. Furthermore, the links must not be nofollowed [5].

[1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
[2] http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/
[3] http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TinyURL
[5] http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/01/preventing-comment-spam.html

(38) That is the bottom line I had never read before, until today. - Daniel Daranas
(1) What if the except from so is in source form? You can't hyperlink it, except in html/xml. I guess you could put a URL, but that is distinctly different than hyperlinking. - KitsuneYMG
What if the question and multiple answers are converted to a blog post with a single question and answer? what if I mention that the question answers are from SO and just link to the original question on SO without linking to individual user pages? Will that be enough? - abel
Has there been any reconsideration of revising this stance? Morally and ethically, I love the CC licensing and laissez faire attitude towards copiers. Practically, it really badly pollutes google search results. Sometimes the entire first page will be direct clones of questions from stackoverflow, with attribution of course. - notJim
@Marc: Are all the 4 points you mentioned required or any one of them? - JP19
@JP19 afaik all, but check the license - Marc Gravell
@Marc Gravell thinking about this, is there an API to get the current attribution requirements? I know this attribution snippet exists in many places, and if the terms are modified, then all the snippets have to be updated. If they pulled from one source automatically then they wouldn't have to be touched. Maybe this is too much of an edge case though... - PsychoDad
I have updated my user name here on SO. If clone sites don't update my username in their content, is this considered a violation of the license? If not, could this be added to the license? - ErikE
(4) @Erik I don't think that could be considered reasonable; and on a logistics side, I don't want people hitting us constantly checking for updates. - Marc Gravell
That arrow is not a freehand circle. -1. - fredley
(1) Just a note: The indicated bottom line in the picture ("cc-wiki") links to CC BY-SA 3.0, while a few lines earlier the "legal" link takes you to a page (stackexchange.com/legal) that references CC BY-SA 2.5 (under "3. Subscriber Content"). I don't know if this has any relevance, just to let you know. - ThomasH
1
[+37] [2011-09-20 15:45:58] Alex Miller

This post has been moved to its own question: Report sites that use SE content without following attribution rules here [1]

There are a number of "illegal" clones popping up that use the cc-wiki data without following the creative commons attribution terms (these are linked at the bottom of every webpage [2], and also included as a .txt file in every data dump we produce).

Note: Google now has a form to report scrapers [3] when they appear above the original in search results.

Also, you can block unwanted sites from appearing in Google search from the search page itself [4]:

The option to block a site appears when you click a search result and then navigate back to the search results page. Click the "Block" link next to that result to block all pages within the site's entire domain.

The following is a list of all the illegal clones found so far. This post is a wiki; please edit in any new clones you find that are not already listed here!

unobaord.com & coderesource.org

  • Links to the Stack Overflow main page (no follow)

Globberstack.com

  • No older posts. Assuming MSO post is accurate (new posts adhere to rules and are no follow)

Omgili.com

  • Questions link to Stack Overflow (no follow)

developerquestion.com

  • Links to Stack Overflow question (no follow)

johnnycoder.com

  • Example (http://johnnycoder.com/blog/2008/11/10/run-cmdexe-as-local-system-account/)
  • It looks like for this one, the person who posted it also has his own blog and posted the question there. He doesn’t link to us or any of the people on Stack Overflow who answered, but he doesn’t quote that text either - looks like he was just trying to get other answers from his readers.

apacheserver.net ("Best unofficial Apache Server developers community") - VIOLATING

  • Question links redirect to homepage, on which I can’t figure out what’s happening.

shrenikvikam.com

  • Example (http://www.shrenikvikam.com/adb-doesnt-detect-android-device-vodafone-845/)
  • Doesn’t indicate post came from Stack Overflow, but does link to our post
  • Doesn’t list or link to authors

drija.com

  • Example (http://drija.com/multiple-monitors/54867/how-to-move-an-applications-dialog-box-from-a-disconnected-monitor-to-the-main/)
  • This is a copy of this super user question [5], which links to another super user question (it includes a link to the second super user question, but not the one it copies)
  • Does not indicate the post came from Stack Overflow
  • Lists and includes links to asker and answerers

questionhub.com

  • Example (http://www.questionhub.com/StackOverflow/1341075)
  • Aggregates Q&A’s from all around the web
  • Format: copies text of question, then links to our question as the answer
  • Does indicate that it came from Stack Overflow (logo in corner)
  • Hyperlinks to our question
  • Links to user who asked question and displays their name (bottom of page says “Post X days ago by _”)
  • Does not link to users who answered - but they don’t display the text of answers either (their answer is a link to our question)

genmaint.com

  • Example (http://www.genmaint.com/kill-ajax-requests-using-javascript-using-jquery.html)
  • Note: they describe themselves as “A collaboratively edited question and answer site.”
  • Indicates it came from Stack Overflow
  • Links back to original post and user profiles

fr.w3support.net

  • Example (http://fr.w3support.net/index.php?db=su&id=9811)
  • Doesn’t acknowledge it came from Stack Overflow, link to Stack Overflow, or any of our user profiles

lampcms.com

  • Question is attributed properly
  • Answers are attributed to users, but not directly to Stack Overflow

nujk.com

  • Example (http://www.nujk.com/timer-job-from-a-spweb) ( original [6])
  • copies the adzerk divs, that is the only attribution
  • mangles usernames

ency9.com

  • Example (http://www.ency9.com/gadget/indexing-for-google-scholar-which-tags-to-use/) ( original [7])
  • no mention of Stack Overflow anywhere on the site
  • no usernames at all, let alone credit to Stack Overflow users

need-programmer.blogspot.com

  • Example (http://need-programmer.blogspot.com/2010/09/how-to-use-subqueries-in-sqlalchemy-to.html) ( original [8])
  • Questions do not have attribution
  • Link to Stack Overflow question is nofollow

news.puppin.org

  • Example (http://news.puppin.org/question/non-relational-db-which-one-is-the-right-choice-closed/) ( original [9])
  • No attribution or link of any kind

SoftwareTalk.info

  • Example (http://www.softwaretalk.info/how-can-i-start-from-page-1-again-on-the-4th-page-of-my-ms-word-document.htm) ( original [10])
  • Gives credit to users and links to their profiles
  • Main SuperUser attribution link is nofollow

bigresource.com

  • Example (http://asp.net.bigresource.com/MVC-3-Razor-Syntax-partial-view-Menu-cshtml-with-full-markup-a9sAFbss8.html) ( original [11])
  • No attribution
  • No links
  • They mangle the original text (e.g. leave out salutations)

streamreader.org

  • Gives attribution to users and links to their Gaming Stack Exchange profiles
  • Does not link to the Gaming Stack Exchange question
  • Mangles some of the text even

sharepointqanda.com

  • No attribution at all whatsoever

programmersgoodies.com

  • question link is nofollowed

iappnow.com

  • no attribution at all
  • “Continue here” link is broken (seems to direct to some original source)
  • there is a <link rel=”stackoverflow.com/...> in the page source but it doesn’t seem to do anything

gardenquestions.com

  • has an attrib link at the bottom claiming to get content from the Stack Exchange data dump
  • no credit to users or link to the question

jqpoint.com

  • links back to the Stack Exchange question, but nofollow
  • no asker or answerer attib

applerr.com

  • no reference to stackoverflow or stack exchange in any way
  • no attribution to users
  • does not post the answer
  • claims its own copyright on the content!

www.aspwinhost.com

  • changing names of the users
  • replacing links of users to a single Indian site
  • claims copyright on the content

answerleaks.com

  • Missing attribution of answers (example here [12])
  • nofollow in footer links to Stack Exchange sites (but regular links to the site otherwise)

justlogged.com

  • no attribution at all (at least not with JavaScript blocked)
  • The last editor is misattributed as the asker of the question and the link is to the main page of justlogged.com
  • Example: www.justlogged.com/Question/3/2786/fb3f76858cb38e5b7fd113e0bc1c0721

codinganswers.info

  • does contain link to "original source" but no author attribution
  • example question with my own content: http://codinganswers.info/index.php/2010/11/stackapplet-stackoverflow-meets-the-gnome-desktop-v1-4-released/

www.texmach-intl.com

  • absolutely no attribution anywhere
  • example question with the same content as the above offender: http://www.texmach-intl.com/stackapplet-bringing-stack-exchange-notifications-to-your-desktop-1-5-beta-2-released/

s25.codeinspot.com

  • Sometimes the s25 can be other numbers (I have seen s416 too)
  • Does not visually attribute to Stack Overflow
  • Does link to questions, answers and authors on Stack Overflow

bicycles.vniup.com, b.vniup.com, and www.vniup.com

gamingqna.blogspot.com

  • content from accepted questions is actively being scraped off of Gaming [25] since July
  • there is no attribution for neither questions nor answers
  • the only link back to Stack Exchange is an obscure nofollow "more discussion" link

6-da.com

  • Example (http://it.6-da.com/show/6939570.aspx) ( original [26])
  • No names, links, or any attribution whatsoever. Contact link does not work.
  • Requires one to subscribe to see the accepted answer! ( screenshot [27]) That reminds me of some other site...

www.x2x1.com/

  • Entire site?
  • No link to original question or any reference to SO
  • No author names
  • Registration required to see the selected answer
  • Example: http://www.x2x1.com/show/6766034.aspx http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6766034/cancel-block-in-uiview-animatewithduration
  • Fortunately I have never seen it appear before SO on google search results, but it still is in violation.

www.qandasystem.info/

  • Entire site
  • No link to question or reference to SE
  • Author names appear to have been scraped
  • Registration not required to see answers
  • Example: http://www.qandasystem.info/security/securing-an-area-both-physically-and-technically/

loopingrecursion.com

  • Probably borderline. They DO show names and links on all pages, but the word 'stackoverflow' only appears on the home page: on other pages it's visible in an image, but I'm not sure if that counts

asiantravelhotel.com

  • Pure scraping, no references of any kind
  • Author names removed from questions and answers

fatalweb.com

java.resourcezen.com

  • Example: http://java.resourcezen.com/how-to-copy-a-function-or-class-to-another-file-1
  • Links back, but no mention of StackOverflow, or the author's name
  • Claims "Copyright © 2011 java.resourcezen.com All Rights Reserved" in the footer
  • Probably other subdomains of resourcezen.com also exhibit the same behavior.

codeblow.com

  • Example: http://codeblow.com/questions/good-ruby-on-rails-free-hosting duplicates http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1055682/good-ruby-on-rails-free-hosting.
  • Does not visually indicate origin, does not link to the original question, does not show any author names, and therefore cannot hyperlink back to the user profile.
  • Says "Code Blow provides to you all the programmers knowledge of all programmers that took time to write answers to every question that you can find here. Feel free to ready and learn from all these informations." - They acknowledge that it took time, but feel that it's OK to steal it? What gives?

dkphp.com

  • Copied several answers, examples:
  • http://www.dkphp.com/questions-2/pros-and-cons-of-using-a-cursor-in-sql-server.html
  • Original: Pros and cons of using a cursor (in SQL server) [29]
  • http://www.dkphp.com/questions-2/incorrect-date-comparison-results-in-sql-server-2008-r2.html
  • Original: http://stackoverflow.com/a/9524429/61305
  • This is not scraped content, they are clearly and intentionally incorporating specific answers as their own work.
  • They also have a very nasty modal dialog that will go away after hundreds of seconds or after you like their stuff on Facebook.
  • No attribution or links to the original content.

rqna.net

  • Example(http://www.rqna.net/qna/iiymmi-how-to-have-a-type-in-closure-compiler-externs-without-a-constructor.html)
  • Includes author's name, but the name links to a page on their site.
  • No reference to Stack Overflow

Note that if you find a system that does appear to be following the terms of the CC license and providing sufficient attribution, you may still want to report it on this MSO question [30] if it is appearing ahead of the original SE site in Google search results.

[1] http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/131846/131713
[2] http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/
[3] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dGM4TXhIOFd3c1hZR2NHUDN1NmllU0E6MQ&ndplr=1
[4] http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/static.py?hl=en&page=guide.cs&guide=1224171&answer=1210386&rd=1
[5] http://superuser.com/questions/187176/how-to-move-an-applications-dialog-box-from-a-disconnected-monitor-to-the-main
[6] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2772508/timer-job-from-a-spweb
[7] http://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/11613/indexing-for-google-scholar-which-tags-to-use
[8] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3764358/how-to-use-subqueries-in-sqlalchemy-to-produce-a-moving-average
[9] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5808930/non-relational-db-which-one-is-the-right-choice
[10] http://superuser.com/questions/204639/how-can-i-start-from-page-1-again-on-the-4th-page-of-my-ms-word-document
[11] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5450596/asp-net-mvc-3-razor-syntax-question
[12] http://meta.superuser.com/questions/3555/can-we-do-something-about-sites-copying-content-from-super-user-redux
[13] http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/
[14] http://english.stackexchange.com/
[15] http://electronics.stackexchange.com/
[16] http://gaming.stackexchange.com/
[17] http://gis.stackexchange.com/
[18] http://diy.stackexchange.com/
[19] http://physics.stackexchange.com/
[20] http://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/
[21] http://tex.stackexchange.com/
[22] http://askubuntu.com/
[23] http://apple.stackexchange.com/
[24] http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/35196/jailbroken-iphone-stuck-on-boot-screen/35199#35199
[25] http://gaming.stackexchange.com
[26] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6939570/glassfish-3-1-credential-error-in-eclipse
[27] http://i.stack.imgur.com/CxQGy.png
[28] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10028195/should-i-upgrade-this-model-to-inheritance
[29] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9319918/pros-and-cons-of-using-a-cursor-in-sql-server/9322937#9322937
[30] http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/71820/report-high-google-ranking-se-content-copiers-here

@Peter techques.com actually link to the question, see below the answers "View original post at serverfault.com" - Daniel Beck
@Daniel Beck: yes, I overlooked it. - Peter Mortensen
(4) This is getting ridiculous. I just added two of them. - Nathan Osman
I added more detail to the vniup.com entry, as I found several sites being scraped there. While it doesn't seem to show above the search results for questions (at least the ones I've tested), it does show up on the first page, in many cases, only 3-4 sites down from the SE answer. - FallenAngelEyes
Jut a question, if they making money on our account. I share my ideas, knowledge & questions freely with SE, but not with the other sites. So, can SE sue these site into oblivion (and maybe get some €€€ for us in the process)? - GUI Junkie
(1) @GUIJunkie The copyright holder for the content of SE sites is not Stack Exchange, but the single contributors. - kiamlaluno
@kiamlaluno I don't believe that is the case. IANAL, but I'm 99% sure some clause somewhere in places we never read state that whatever we post here can be used as SE pleases. - Camilo Martin
yo @GeorgeEdison your stackmobile is still listed here - Sathya
@Sathya: Thanks for the heads up. I've removed it. - Nathan Osman
@CamiloMartin Beginning of section 3 of SE ToS: "You agree that all Subscriber Content that You contribute to the Network is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Exchange under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license. You grant Stack Exchange the perpetual and irrevocable right and license to use, copy, cache, publish, display, distribute, modify, create derivative works and store such Subscriber Content and to allow others to do so...." So content we contribute can be used by SE under the terms of CC-BY-SA 3.0, not however they please. - David Zaslavsky
@DavidZaslavsky What I do not understand here is: SE has the license to use our contributions as CC-BY-SA, but BY who? I mean, does that clause mean our content counts as created by SE? We can't thus re-post our own personally contributed content elsewhere without crediting SE for having "created the content"? (I'm sure nothing wrong would happen, but it's so odd if in theory this is the case). - Camilo Martin
@CamiloMartin You do realize CC-BY-SA is just a code, right? It doesn't mean anything except that it is a reference for the actual license. If you read the piece of the ToS I quoted, you'll notice that "Subscriber Content that You contribute to the Network is... licensed to Stack Exchange under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license." That is not a transfer of copyright ownership. It does not allow SE to be considered the creator of the content. (cont'd) - David Zaslavsky
You create the content and license it to SE under CC-BY-SA 3.0 (with the stipulation that linking to your SE profile page satisfies the "attribution" requirement), and they have the right to use it consistent with the terms of that license. In particular, they have the right to publicly display it (on the site) and redistribute it under the same license (via the site and the data dump). Just as if you wrote an email to a friend and licensed it under CC-BY-SA, that friend would have the right to post the contents of the email on their website under the terms of the license. (P.S. IANAL) - David Zaslavsky
@DavidZaslavsky Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. - Camilo Martin
@DavidZaslavsky I have a question, so say I read a question on stackoverflow, and then I found it interesting, I understand it, reword the question, reword (and summarized with my own opinion and thoughts) into an answer. Will a reference link to the original post be enough? - George Chan
2
[+19] [2009-10-05 16:32:21] GmonC

I do believe the problem is with the following paragraph:

Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

(emphasis is mine)

What's this manner specified? I think this is too subjective. How can you just point at people and say they are ilegal using your content if you didn't specified what exactly this "attribution" means?

The only complete reference about this subject that I found is within an official blog post [1] (it even has the website you're concerned about as an example).

I do believe it would made no harm a simple url below the cc-wiki image in SO footer, named "Attribution Guidelines" that are contained in this post [2]. Doing this way people have no excuse of "misunderstanding" attribution guidelines since you explicity said what you need to to when using SO content.

[1] http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/
[2] http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/

(13) we now have attribution guidelines in the footer as you suggested. - Jeff Atwood
3
[+6] [2009-10-05 15:37:54] Steven A. Lowe

I am not a lawyer...but to me the site clearly violates the terms of use:

  1. there is no link to Stack Overflow on the referenced page
  2. there is no link to the original question
  3. there is no attribution of the author of the question
  4. there is no attribution of the author of the answers

The last two are serious violations of the spirit and letter, and I think that persecution would be warranted.

Unfortunately, the registrant [1] is in China, but godaddy.com will probably cut them off at the knees if @[Jeff Atwood] requests it.

[1] http://who.godaddy.com/WhoIs.aspx?domain=w3ec.com&prog_id=godaddy

(4) I think you're overly optimistic about the response from godaddy, but I agree that it is in violation ;-p - Marc Gravell
(1) @[Marc Gravell]: probably - but a cease-and-desist letter on the letterhead of a law firm should be sufficient for a rational business to take notice, and take down, since the registrant is also violating godaddy's terms of service - Steven A. Lowe
(1) While I, for one, would love to see these people persecuted, I think it might be more appropriate to prosecute them, don't you? ;-) - HodofHod
4
[+6] [2010-08-23 17:55:26] willjcroz

This seems a bit worrying:

Searching Google for my one and only (woohoo!) Stackoverflow question using unambiguous terms returns the top result as a tuts9.com copy of the SO page. Also clicking this result link gives me a 403/forbidden page from tuts9.com (Google cache page confirms this page is my SO question even though they filed it as a VB/VB.NET question!).

My original stackoverflow question is here:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3251191/how-to-prevent-non-repeatable-query-results-using-persistence-api-in-java-se

Google.com results for "how to prevent non repeatable query results using persistence api in java se" :
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22how+to+prevent+non+repeatable+query+results+using+persistence+api+in+java+se%22 [1]

The SO page is nowhere to be seen instead the top result from Google is:
http://tuts9.com/questions/25608/how-to-prevent-non-repeatable-query-results-using-persistence-api-in-java-se

Looks like Google are eliminating the SO page from the results as if it were spam, instead giving the tuts9.com copy the 'top slot'. Are Google being gamed here? I've sent a feedback message to Google raising this issue (through their web form though so I don't know how much attention it will get). Maybe someone from SO contacting Google directly would have more effect.

Update (2010/09/02): Currently the top 2 Google results from the search above are for tuts9.com followed by this question on meta! The original SO question is omitted for being too similar (too similar to tuts9.com copies? lol). When similar results are included the SO question appears in page 2 of results.

[1] http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22how+to+prevent+non+repeatable+query+results+using+persistence+api+in+java+se%22

(1) this was corrected in Google's algorithm update early in 2011: codinghorror.com/blog/2011/01/… and searchengineland.com/… - Jeff Atwood
5
[+3] [2010-06-27 02:39:36] Developer IT

I just found out about this thread while googling our site...

From what I understand from CC-by-SA [1] we comply with everything the license permits.

We ALWAYS provide a link back to the original content and a link to the source site's homepage. We always state that we don't own any of the content and state our sources. We just want to help people find good articles. We are a meta-search engine.

We never thought that we would have that much traffic. In the next few weeks, we will reduce the number of articles coming from Stack Overflow and Server Fault and will have parterships with good publishers in order to have great blog articles.

Things move so fast on the internet that we have gotten caught in a big spiral. That's why we need ads in order to have access to better servers and invest time into the site to make it better.

Our goal is to be a good meta-search engine and blog mashup. We need good articles, so do not hesitate to contact us if you want your site included.

[1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/

(2) I only see a question. Why is there no answer with it? The is no hyperlink to the original question or to the authors profile for the original question. - PsychoDad
(1) e.g. this url: developerit DOT com / 2010/05/21/is-there-a-good-dual-monitor-arm-solution-for-imac-27-i7s - PsychoDad
6
[+2] [2010-09-08 17:11:51] Chris W. Rea

answermoz.com is copying questions without attribution. The copy of a question at answermoz.com appears in Google searches ahead of results from money.SE (try searching on the question titles below.)

Example 1
http://money.stackexchange.com/questions/3461/what-differentiates-index-funds-and-etfs
http://answermoz.com/what-differentiates-index-funds-and-etfs/

Example 2
http://money.stackexchange.com/questions/3118/is-my-credit-score-of-766-lower-than-it-should-be
http://answermoz.com/is-my-credit-score-of-766-lower-than-it-should-be/


This is a weird one. Considering the first link using the title: with dashes between words, perfect hit to money.se, no answermoz. With spaces between words, answermoz and no money.se. In quotes (with spaces between words), perfect hit to money.se. Very very odd! - Jeff Atwood
7
[+2] [2010-09-22 06:52:49] Pure.Krome

Hi folks. I found this answer today:

http://www.go4answers.com/Example/non-nullable-columns-db-becomes-101286.aspx

It looks very much like a Stack Overflow question, but it could be it has nothing to do with Stack Overflow. I thought I might just pop something quickly, to-be-sure (/said in an Irish way, with no offence to our Irish friends).


It appears that they're stealing from the MSDN forums: go4answers.com/Example/… vs social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en/wpf/thread/… - Yi Jiang
8
[+2] [2011-02-24 14:32:50] Lauritz V. Thaulow

It seems google has created this tool to address and combat just this problem: Personal blocklist [1]

The personal blocklist extension will transmit to Google the patterns that you choose to block. When you choose to block or unblock a pattern, the extension will also transmit to Google the URL of the web page on which the blocked or unblocked search results are displayed. You agree that Google may freely use this information to improve our products and services.

I guess if you want to combat this thing, the easy thing to do is to use this extension. Many people blocking a site is sure to get their attention, thereby removing it from search results, thereby solving most of the problem.

[1] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/nolijncfnkgaikbjbdaogikpmpbdcdef

I'm using it myself, but to my knowledge it was explicitly stated that this does in no way influence the search results of others (as of late '11) - mafutrct
As you can see from the quote I've included, they say that they may "... use this information to improve our products and services". I interpret this to mean that they may look at what sites have been blocked by a lot of users to determine in what ways they should fine tune their page rank algorithm. - Lauritz V. Thaulow
9
[+1] [2011-01-03 19:42:40] Dmitri

What about stackmobile? They say they are not affiliated with stackoverflow, so it's clearly not an official mobile version of SO.

They scrape all SO sites, including all data about users, badges, etc., yet they don't provide direct link to questions nor do they provide direct links to profiles on SO sites.

They also don't mention creative commons license anywhere on their site.

Example: http://stackmobile.com/view_question.php?site=stackoverflow&id=4587642 [1]

Is it OK for them to scrape SO sites like that?

[1] http://stackmobile.com/view_question.php?site=stackoverflow&id=4587642

stackmobile.com/about.php - jjnguy
stackapps.com/questions/36/… - jjnguy
(1) OK, but what were you trying to say? Just posting a couple of links does not answer any of my questions. There are no mention of CC licence, there are no direct links to profiles, both seem to be violations of licencing terms. - Dmitri
OK. I see that if you click on profile link, then from that page on stackmobile profile there is a direct link to actual profile on SO. So I guess it's OK, but how come they don't have the Creative Commons license notice? - Dmitri
(1) @jjnguy: Thanks for pointing that out. I have tried my best to link back to the equivalent SE page for every single StackMobile page. I am currently in the process of making some changes to the site. I should also point out that StackMobile does not scrape content. It uses the API. - Nathan Osman
10