7 ms·

This. I installed the personal blacklist extension for Chrome just to blacklist Quora results because of this. I wish Google would actually punish them more. I

This. I installed the personal blacklist extension for Chrome just to blacklist Quora results because of this. I wish Google would actually punish them more. I click through on something which looks relevant, and the result is a useless login screen. LinkedIn is the same.

pkkm 9y ago
You can bypass the Quora login screen by appending ?share=1 to the URL. There's also an userscript which does this automatically: https://github.com/sindresorhus/quora-unblocker-userscript https://github.com/sindresorhus/quora-unblocker-userscript
- kevmo 9y ago
  Ah, I made a similar (but simpler) one years ago: https://github.com/kevmo/greasemonkey/blob/master/quora_upvotes.user.js https://github.com/kevmo/greasemonkey/blob/master/quora_upvo...
- devrandomguy 9y ago
  If you change your browser's UserAgent string to Googlebot, then your client will be treated as a first-class citizen, by many of these sites. Google always wins, so let's all be Google.
  - Xeoncross 9y ago
    Works great until you stumble on one of the big sites who will auto-ban you for not having a valid Google IP address.
    - devrandomguy 9y ago
      Is that really a thing? That must be such a hazard for their developers. I usually have a test for sites that I work on, that scrapes a few URLs as Googlebot, to verify that they are getting an optimized view (no JS, structural-only css).
      - Normal_gaussian 9y ago
        God. That's the reason so many sites look great in the results and are confusing interactive messes when I get into them.
        devrandomguy 9y ago
        If it's any consolation, the site is well tested in Noscript mode.
        SomeCallMeTim 9y ago
        You sir are a god among Web developers. If only they all did this. So many sites I get to and they're a blank page or an absolute disaster....
        SomeCallMeTim 9y ago
        You sir are a god among Web developers. If only they all did this. So many sites I get to and they're a blank page or an absolute disaster....
      - ChuckMcM 9y ago
        Yes. Googlebot only crawls from legit addresses (even when their developers are trying new things) so it's an easy scraper/scammer signal to key off of.
      - dmn001 9y ago
        No. Most websites don't do this.
    - Spivak 9y ago
      * Reverse DNS records. Webmasters shouldn't be verifying Google's bots by hard coding IP addresses. https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/80553?hl=en https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/80553?hl=en
      - imron 9y ago
        Shouldn't != never happens
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - dredmorbius 9y ago
        CIDR blocks and ASN advertisments are cheap. Update those periodically (hours / days / weeks). The adverts don't change particularly quickly.
    - dmn001 9y ago
      It's extremely rare to be ip-blocked by any website just for using the Google's user agent from a non-specific range. IP's get re-used and you can switch to a new one easily, so it's really not common or good practice for this to happen.
      - kbenson 9y ago
        > IP's get re-used and you can switch to a new one easily, so it's really not common or good practice for this to happen. On the flip side, some people can't change their IP addresses easily, and getting IP banned (even if rare because of the reasons you stated) is actually a major hassle when it actually happens for those people. :/
  - ipsum2 9y ago
    I just tried this, doesn't work on WSJ. Tried the user agents listed here: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1061943?hl=en https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1061943?hl=en
    - bduerst 9y ago
      Isn't that what the entire article is about? That WSJ no longer gives access to Google users (and bots)?
      - mirimir 9y ago
        No. It allows Google bots to see full articles, but shows only the first paragraph or so to non-subscribers. Even if they're coming from Google search results. However, I don't see cache links on Google :( Edit: Oops, I'm wrong. The article does say that the Google bot only sees the first paragraph or so.
        Jimmie_Rustle 9y ago
        No. You're wrong, as it states in the article: "The reason: Google search results are based on an algorithm that scans the internet for free content. After the Journal’s free articles went behind a paywall, Google’s bot only saw the first few paragraphs and started ranking them lower, limiting the Journal’s viewership."
        mirimir 9y ago
        Yes, you're right. I got confused by all the discussion about Google checking for cloaking by comparing results using different user agents. So maybe this is why there's no Google cache. Also, if Google can only index the first few paragraphs, the results are much less comprehensive.
- __jal 9y ago
  Or just turn off Javascript. Makes lots of sites better.
  - cynwoody 9y ago
    I call that enacting the nuclear option. It's almost guaranteed to win the war with ad-tech! It should be enacted for sites with run-away ad engines that spin up your CPU fans and make scrolling laggy. Of course, the problem with nuclear is collateral damage. Drop the bomb and ads don't work, but neither does a lot of other stuff. E.g., the site shows a blank screen, images are invisible or blurry, drop-down menus don't drop. And, of course, the deal-breaker: videos don't play. The remedy for killing JavaScript is more JavaScript (and CSS). But supplied inside a Chrome extension targeted at the offending site. An injected stylesheet makes `<body>` visible again, hides assorted useless junk, and styles injected UI elements. Your content scripts load the missing images, drop the menus down, and play the unplayable videos in button-activated pop-over windows displayed at superior resolution. Of course, the problem is, there are a lot of sites out there, and they change unpredictably, requiring your extension library to change in response. That argues for crowd-sourcing the extension library, but the crowd needs to be proficient in HTML, JavaScript, and CSS and know the ins and outs of browser extensions and care and have time. You can completely change how a site presents. E.g., change a slide-show in a static slide window that barely moves due to the background ad-tech load changes into a set of `divs` that roll upwards as your finger swipes. It's a hobby at best. Disabling ad-tech components by origin is the practical option.
    - __jal 9y ago
      Call me Dr. Strangelove, then. I usually browse with JS off, enabling it on occasion. And there are some whitelisted sites. I used to play around with filtering sites to make them less antisocial, but find that slog less entertaining these days. So now when confronted with a site that's useless without JS, eh, there's almost always another site out there that doesn't mind the terms I demand for my attention.
amelius 9y ago
Pinterest too.
- dawnerd 9y ago
  Google images feel like it's nothing but Pinterest now.
  - shostack 9y ago
    Frankly I'd love Google to turn Google Images into much more of a true Pinterest competitor. Image search volume is pretty large, and they are already testing monetizing it. Now they just need to add in features that let you store and organize that information (and build a better profile of you in the process while also crowdsourcing tagging). Pinterest needs more competition.
    - jquery 9y ago
      > X needs more competition. In the context of Google being the alternative, this is sad and funny at the same time. Hacker News in the abstract: The web needs more decentralization. Hacker News IRL: Let Google own every vertical.
      - shostack 9y ago
        I certainly recognize the irony of suggesting that Google might help improve competition. That said, there aren't many players in a position to provide actual competition to Pinterest like Google can. The obvious concern is where you draw the line at anti-competitive if Google tried to do the equivalent of what they did with Yelp ratings.
    - jlarocco 9y ago
      If they did that I would switch to Bing's image search immediately. Definitely not what I want when I'm searching for an image.
  - sverige 9y ago
senorjazz 9y ago
Have never signed up to quora and I don't get these nag screens :-s
hoschicz 9y ago
What's your problem with Quora? They provide great answers most of their time and their digests are very inspiring.
- trendia 9y ago
  The Google search result looks like you'll see the content when you open the link, but instead you have to login first. OP doesn't want to login.
- kbos87 9y ago
  Quora is one of the biggest offenders of growth tactics at the cost of user experience. They make it so easy to create an account without intending to that I probably have 15 of them.
- Jedd 9y ago
  This 2013 article sums up nicely why quora is frustrating to be directed to while seeking enlightenment, and as others have pointed out they use some unpleasant anti-patterns to lure in (potential) users. http://jesuschristsiliconvalley-blog.tumblr.com/post/48962035819/quoraquoraquora http://jesuschristsiliconvalley-blog.tumblr.com/post/4896203...
bby 9y ago
yeah man, fuck quora
mistermann 9y ago
Could you PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE link to this extension so I can install it to, I used to have one but lost it and couldn't find one that worked last time I checked. (Would love one for both Chrome and FF if it isn't cross platform). Would also love to have one that rewrites URL's in search results to avoid the frequent 5 second pause when Google's redirector gets it's head stuck up its ass or whatever the problem is.
- arkitaip 9y ago
  Personal Blocklist by Google https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/personal-blocklist-by-goo/nolijncfnkgaikbjbdaogikpmpbdcdef https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/personal-blocklist... Note that it doesn't block some spam domains that sneakily use certain special characters i their domain names. Unfortunately Google hasn't fixed this issue for forever.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    Thank you! And for Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/personal-blocklist/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/personal-bloc...

pkkm 9y ago

You can bypass the Quora login screen by appending ?share=1 to the URL. There's also an userscript which does this automatically: https://github.com/sindresorhus/quora-unblocker-userscript https://github.com/sindresorhus/quora-unblocker-userscript

kevmo 9y ago
Ah, I made a similar (but simpler) one years ago: https://github.com/kevmo/greasemonkey/blob/master/quora_upvotes.user.js https://github.com/kevmo/greasemonkey/blob/master/quora_upvo...
devrandomguy 9y ago
If you change your browser's UserAgent string to Googlebot, then your client will be treated as a first-class citizen, by many of these sites. Google always wins, so let's all be Google.
- Xeoncross 9y ago
  Works great until you stumble on one of the big sites who will auto-ban you for not having a valid Google IP address.
  - devrandomguy 9y ago
    Is that really a thing? That must be such a hazard for their developers. I usually have a test for sites that I work on, that scrapes a few URLs as Googlebot, to verify that they are getting an optimized view (no JS, structural-only css).
    - Normal_gaussian 9y ago
      God. That's the reason so many sites look great in the results and are confusing interactive messes when I get into them.
      - devrandomguy 9y ago
        If it's any consolation, the site is well tested in Noscript mode.
        SomeCallMeTim 9y ago
        You sir are a god among Web developers. If only they all did this. So many sites I get to and they're a blank page or an absolute disaster....
        SomeCallMeTim 9y ago
        You sir are a god among Web developers. If only they all did this. So many sites I get to and they're a blank page or an absolute disaster....
    - ChuckMcM 9y ago
      Yes. Googlebot only crawls from legit addresses (even when their developers are trying new things) so it's an easy scraper/scammer signal to key off of.
    - dmn001 9y ago
      No. Most websites don't do this.
  - Spivak 9y ago
    * Reverse DNS records. Webmasters shouldn't be verifying Google's bots by hard coding IP addresses. https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/80553?hl=en https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/80553?hl=en
    - imron 9y ago
      Shouldn't != never happens
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - dredmorbius 9y ago
      CIDR blocks and ASN advertisments are cheap. Update those periodically (hours / days / weeks). The adverts don't change particularly quickly.
  - dmn001 9y ago
    It's extremely rare to be ip-blocked by any website just for using the Google's user agent from a non-specific range. IP's get re-used and you can switch to a new one easily, so it's really not common or good practice for this to happen.
    - kbenson 9y ago
      > IP's get re-used and you can switch to a new one easily, so it's really not common or good practice for this to happen. On the flip side, some people can't change their IP addresses easily, and getting IP banned (even if rare because of the reasons you stated) is actually a major hassle when it actually happens for those people. :/
- ipsum2 9y ago
  I just tried this, doesn't work on WSJ. Tried the user agents listed here: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1061943?hl=en https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1061943?hl=en
  - bduerst 9y ago
    Isn't that what the entire article is about? That WSJ no longer gives access to Google users (and bots)?
    - mirimir 9y ago
      No. It allows Google bots to see full articles, but shows only the first paragraph or so to non-subscribers. Even if they're coming from Google search results. However, I don't see cache links on Google :( Edit: Oops, I'm wrong. The article does say that the Google bot only sees the first paragraph or so.
      - Jimmie_Rustle 9y ago
        No. You're wrong, as it states in the article: "The reason: Google search results are based on an algorithm that scans the internet for free content. After the Journal’s free articles went behind a paywall, Google’s bot only saw the first few paragraphs and started ranking them lower, limiting the Journal’s viewership."
        mirimir 9y ago
        Yes, you're right. I got confused by all the discussion about Google checking for cloaking by comparing results using different user agents. So maybe this is why there's no Google cache. Also, if Google can only index the first few paragraphs, the results are much less comprehensive.
__jal 9y ago
Or just turn off Javascript. Makes lots of sites better.
- cynwoody 9y ago
  I call that enacting the nuclear option. It's almost guaranteed to win the war with ad-tech! It should be enacted for sites with run-away ad engines that spin up your CPU fans and make scrolling laggy. Of course, the problem with nuclear is collateral damage. Drop the bomb and ads don't work, but neither does a lot of other stuff. E.g., the site shows a blank screen, images are invisible or blurry, drop-down menus don't drop. And, of course, the deal-breaker: videos don't play. The remedy for killing JavaScript is more JavaScript (and CSS). But supplied inside a Chrome extension targeted at the offending site. An injected stylesheet makes `<body>` visible again, hides assorted useless junk, and styles injected UI elements. Your content scripts load the missing images, drop the menus down, and play the unplayable videos in button-activated pop-over windows displayed at superior resolution. Of course, the problem is, there are a lot of sites out there, and they change unpredictably, requiring your extension library to change in response. That argues for crowd-sourcing the extension library, but the crowd needs to be proficient in HTML, JavaScript, and CSS and know the ins and outs of browser extensions and care and have time. You can completely change how a site presents. E.g., change a slide-show in a static slide window that barely moves due to the background ad-tech load changes into a set of `divs` that roll upwards as your finger swipes. It's a hobby at best. Disabling ad-tech components by origin is the practical option.
  - __jal 9y ago
    Call me Dr. Strangelove, then. I usually browse with JS off, enabling it on occasion. And there are some whitelisted sites. I used to play around with filtering sites to make them less antisocial, but find that slog less entertaining these days. So now when confronted with a site that's useless without JS, eh, there's almost always another site out there that doesn't mind the terms I demand for my attention.

amelius 9y ago

Pinterest too.

dawnerd 9y ago
Google images feel like it's nothing but Pinterest now.
- shostack 9y ago
  Frankly I'd love Google to turn Google Images into much more of a true Pinterest competitor. Image search volume is pretty large, and they are already testing monetizing it. Now they just need to add in features that let you store and organize that information (and build a better profile of you in the process while also crowdsourcing tagging). Pinterest needs more competition.
  - jquery 9y ago
    > X needs more competition. In the context of Google being the alternative, this is sad and funny at the same time. Hacker News in the abstract: The web needs more decentralization. Hacker News IRL: Let Google own every vertical.
    - shostack 9y ago
      I certainly recognize the irony of suggesting that Google might help improve competition. That said, there aren't many players in a position to provide actual competition to Pinterest like Google can. The obvious concern is where you draw the line at anti-competitive if Google tried to do the equivalent of what they did with Yelp ratings.
  - jlarocco 9y ago
    If they did that I would switch to Bing's image search immediately. Definitely not what I want when I'm searching for an image.
- sverige 9y ago

senorjazz 9y ago

Have never signed up to quora and I don't get these nag screens :-s

hoschicz 9y ago

What's your problem with Quora? They provide great answers most of their time and their digests are very inspiring.

trendia 9y ago
The Google search result looks like you'll see the content when you open the link, but instead you have to login first. OP doesn't want to login.
kbos87 9y ago
Quora is one of the biggest offenders of growth tactics at the cost of user experience. They make it so easy to create an account without intending to that I probably have 15 of them.
Jedd 9y ago
This 2013 article sums up nicely why quora is frustrating to be directed to while seeking enlightenment, and as others have pointed out they use some unpleasant anti-patterns to lure in (potential) users. http://jesuschristsiliconvalley-blog.tumblr.com/post/48962035819/quoraquoraquora http://jesuschristsiliconvalley-blog.tumblr.com/post/4896203...

bby 9y ago

yeah man, fuck quora

mistermann 9y ago

Could you PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE link to this extension so I can install it to, I used to have one but lost it and couldn't find one that worked last time I checked. (Would love one for both Chrome and FF if it isn't cross platform). Would also love to have one that rewrites URL's in search results to avoid the frequent 5 second pause when Google's redirector gets it's head stuck up its ass or whatever the problem is.

arkitaip 9y ago
Personal Blocklist by Google https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/personal-blocklist-by-goo/nolijncfnkgaikbjbdaogikpmpbdcdef https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/personal-blocklist... Note that it doesn't block some spam domains that sneakily use certain special characters i their domain names. Unfortunately Google hasn't fixed this issue for forever.
- mistermann 9y ago
  Thank you! And for Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/personal-blocklist/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/personal-bloc...