6 ms·

>become worse lately thanks to all those StackOverflow and Github clones A google search showing some of these leech type sites: https://www.google.com/search

by tyingq 5y ago

>become worse lately thanks to all those StackOverflow and Github clones A google search showing some of these leech type sites: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22code+that+protects+users+from+accidentally+invoking+the+script+when+they+didn%27t+intend+to%22 https://www.google.com/search?q=%22code+that+protects+users+... For me, "farath.com" is outranking stackoverflow.

tut-urut-utut 5y ago
Just tried your search in both Google and Duck Duck Go. On Google first page spam copies are ~80% of the links, on DDG maybe 40%. Not good, but much better than Google.
ahurmazda 5y ago
I tried you.com[1]. The first few results seem quite relevant. Best part is that you can actually personalize the weights to assign to your search (your very own bubble) https://you.com/search?q=code%20that%20protects%20users%20from%20accidentally%20invoking%20the%20script%20when%20they%20didn%27t%20intend%20to&fromSearchBar=true https://you.com/search?q=code%20that%20protects%20users%20fr...
- ffhhj 5y ago
  I saw you.com displays some Code Complete snippets but the lines are too short and doesn't get the language highlighting, which make it harder to read. Nice try anyway.
- tobyjsullivan 5y ago
  This isn't the same search. The parent post had quotes around the phrase. You.com returns identical copy-cat results if you do the same search. To be fair, not sure what other results we'd expect if we're going to search for a specific, plagiarized phrase. Edit: actually, upon review, you.com does indeed give one extra useful result within the top three. So one point to gryffindor.
  - tyingq 5y ago
    >To be fair, not sure what other results we'd expect if we're going to search for a specific, plagiarized phrase. Yeah, I posted an exact search solely so people could see examples of the copycat sites. It's not a good example of a real life query in any way, and not useful for comparisons. It is interesting that Google puts one of the copycats above SO though.
endisneigh 5y ago
This is a great example of why "Google sucks!!11" is mainly FUD. Let's say you're looking for the SO link, which is #2 for Google. Let's compare: Google ("code that protects users from accidentally invoking the script when they didn't intend to") Link: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22code+that+protects+users+from+accidentally+invoking+the+script+when+they+didn%27t+intend+to%22&sxsrf=AOaemvJvznVRnOlmQpyNdzsCG5L8xEGlxA%3A1641318151378&source=hp&ei=B4fUYdSHErSnptQPivu3iAE&iflsig=ALs-wAMAAAAAYdSVF8oiGqq4cQ6y-a2LhvEUTbo-sSK8&ved=0ahUKEwiUp_zK0pj1AhW0k4kEHYr9DREQ4dUDCAk&uact=5&oq=%22code+that+protects+users+from+accidentally+invoking+the+script+when+they+didn%27t+intend+to%22&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAM6BwgjEOoCECdQiwFYij5g10BoAXAAeACAAWSIAWSSAQMwLjGYAQCgAQKgAQGwAQo&sclient=gws-wiz https://www.google.com/search?q=%22code+that+protects+users+... SO - #2 Bing ("code that protects users from accidentally invoking the script when they didn't intend to") Link: https://www.bing.com/search?q=%22code+that+protects+users+from+accidentally+invoking+the+script+when+they+didn%27t+intend+to%22&form=QBLH&sp=-1&pq=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.brave.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3D%2522code%2Bthat%2Bprotects%2Busers%2Bfrom%2Baccidentally%2Binvoking%2Bthe%2Bscript%2Bwhen%2Bthey%2Bdidn%2527t%2Bintend%2Bto%2522%26source%3Dweb&sc=1-142&qs=n&sk=&cvid=837B1ACD48A7474CADC9151BF71E8EBD https://www.bing.com/search?q=%22code+that+protects+users+fr... SO - #2 Brave Search Link: https://search.brave.com/search?q=%22code+that+protects+users+from+accidentally+invoking+the+script+when+they+didn%27t+intend+to%22&source=web https://search.brave.com/search?q=%22code+that+protects+user... SO - Not on page You.com Link: https://you.com/search?q=%22code%20that%20protects%20users%20from%20accidentally%20invoking%20the%20script%20when%20they%20didn%27t%20intend%20to%22&fromSearchBar=true https://you.com/search?q=%22code%20that%20protects%20users%2... SO - Doesn't load DuckDuckGo: Link: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22code+that+protects+users+from+accidentally+invoking+the+script+when+they+didn%27t+intend+to%22&t=h_&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22code+that+protects+users+from+a... SO - #2 (seems to depend on refresh) Basically they're all the same. Google is faster, but the order of the results is identical. If you did a large scale analysis in this manner I doubt Google would lose.
- tyingq 5y ago
  I'm not sure it's a good example, really. It's an "exact phrase search" with quotes, which doesn't happen much in real life. It was helpful solely to show what some of these leech sites are. Searching for (without quotes): What does if __name__ == "__main__": do? Is probably a better test of which search engine has better results for the real-life query. Google might still win, but it should do a better job of screening out the spammy sites. It used to be better at this.
Siira 5y ago
> farath.com was first indexed by Google more than 10 years ago This seems pretty suspicious? Is it reporting the first time Google crawled the main domain farath.com? How is that relevant information?
- judge2020 5y ago
  This is the first time it crawled the domain at all. It's been a website since at least 2008[0], but was recently re-registered in 2020[1]. 0: https://web.archive.org/web/20080607010730/http://www.farath.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20080607010730/http://www.farath... 1: https://who.is/whois/farath.com https://who.is/whois/farath.com
nebula8804 5y ago
Thats weird. I noticed no ads on this farath.com site. Are they going to monetize the email subscriptions somehow? How are they making money off of this?

by tyingq 5y ago

tut-urut-utut 5y ago

Just tried your search in both Google and Duck Duck Go. On Google first page spam copies are ~80% of the links, on DDG maybe 40%. Not good, but much better than Google.

ahurmazda 5y ago

I tried you.com[1]. The first few results seem quite relevant. Best part is that you can actually personalize the weights to assign to your search (your very own bubble) https://you.com/search?q=code%20that%20protects%20users%20from%20accidentally%20invoking%20the%20script%20when%20they%20didn%27t%20intend%20to&fromSearchBar=true https://you.com/search?q=code%20that%20protects%20users%20fr...

ffhhj 5y ago
I saw you.com displays some Code Complete snippets but the lines are too short and doesn't get the language highlighting, which make it harder to read. Nice try anyway.
tobyjsullivan 5y ago
This isn't the same search. The parent post had quotes around the phrase. You.com returns identical copy-cat results if you do the same search. To be fair, not sure what other results we'd expect if we're going to search for a specific, plagiarized phrase. Edit: actually, upon review, you.com does indeed give one extra useful result within the top three. So one point to gryffindor.
- tyingq 5y ago
  >To be fair, not sure what other results we'd expect if we're going to search for a specific, plagiarized phrase. Yeah, I posted an exact search solely so people could see examples of the copycat sites. It's not a good example of a real life query in any way, and not useful for comparisons. It is interesting that Google puts one of the copycats above SO though.

endisneigh 5y ago

This is a great example of why "Google sucks!!11" is mainly FUD. Let's say you're looking for the SO link, which is #2 for Google. Let's compare: Google ("code that protects users from accidentally invoking the script when they didn't intend to") Link: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22code+that+protects+users+from+accidentally+invoking+the+script+when+they+didn%27t+intend+to%22&sxsrf=AOaemvJvznVRnOlmQpyNdzsCG5L8xEGlxA%3A1641318151378&source=hp&ei=B4fUYdSHErSnptQPivu3iAE&iflsig=ALs-wAMAAAAAYdSVF8oiGqq4cQ6y-a2LhvEUTbo-sSK8&ved=0ahUKEwiUp_zK0pj1AhW0k4kEHYr9DREQ4dUDCAk&uact=5&oq=%22code+that+protects+users+from+accidentally+invoking+the+script+when+they+didn%27t+intend+to%22&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAM6BwgjEOoCECdQiwFYij5g10BoAXAAeACAAWSIAWSSAQMwLjGYAQCgAQKgAQGwAQo&sclient=gws-wiz https://www.google.com/search?q=%22code+that+protects+users+... SO - #2 Bing ("code that protects users from accidentally invoking the script when they didn't intend to") Link: https://www.bing.com/search?q=%22code+that+protects+users+from+accidentally+invoking+the+script+when+they+didn%27t+intend+to%22&form=QBLH&sp=-1&pq=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.brave.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3D%2522code%2Bthat%2Bprotects%2Busers%2Bfrom%2Baccidentally%2Binvoking%2Bthe%2Bscript%2Bwhen%2Bthey%2Bdidn%2527t%2Bintend%2Bto%2522%26source%3Dweb&sc=1-142&qs=n&sk=&cvid=837B1ACD48A7474CADC9151BF71E8EBD https://www.bing.com/search?q=%22code+that+protects+users+fr... SO - #2 Brave Search Link: https://search.brave.com/search?q=%22code+that+protects+users+from+accidentally+invoking+the+script+when+they+didn%27t+intend+to%22&source=web https://search.brave.com/search?q=%22code+that+protects+user... SO - Not on page You.com Link: https://you.com/search?q=%22code%20that%20protects%20users%20from%20accidentally%20invoking%20the%20script%20when%20they%20didn%27t%20intend%20to%22&fromSearchBar=true https://you.com/search?q=%22code%20that%20protects%20users%2... SO - Doesn't load DuckDuckGo: Link: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22code+that+protects+users+from+accidentally+invoking+the+script+when+they+didn%27t+intend+to%22&t=h_&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22code+that+protects+users+from+a... SO - #2 (seems to depend on refresh) Basically they're all the same. Google is faster, but the order of the results is identical. If you did a large scale analysis in this manner I doubt Google would lose.

tyingq 5y ago
I'm not sure it's a good example, really. It's an "exact phrase search" with quotes, which doesn't happen much in real life. It was helpful solely to show what some of these leech sites are. Searching for (without quotes): What does if __name__ == "__main__": do? Is probably a better test of which search engine has better results for the real-life query. Google might still win, but it should do a better job of screening out the spammy sites. It used to be better at this.

Siira 5y ago

> farath.com was first indexed by Google more than 10 years ago This seems pretty suspicious? Is it reporting the first time Google crawled the main domain farath.com? How is that relevant information?

judge2020 5y ago
This is the first time it crawled the domain at all. It's been a website since at least 2008[0], but was recently re-registered in 2020[1]. 0: https://web.archive.org/web/20080607010730/http://www.farath.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20080607010730/http://www.farath... 1: https://who.is/whois/farath.com https://who.is/whois/farath.com

nebula8804 5y ago

Thats weird. I noticed no ads on this farath.com site. Are they going to monetize the email subscriptions somehow? How are they making money off of this?