8 ms·

>Better ranking of original, quality content Hah. Just another day, someone sent me this link[1] which took images and text from my page[2] for the Google quer

>Better ranking of original, quality content Hah. Just another day, someone sent me this link[1] which took images and text from my page[2] for the Google query "linux check disk space". Here is the thing my page doesn't even appear on Google. The ripped page points to the source[2] and has a link back to the original images. These scammers know how to game Google with their AI-driven sites, and they adopt it faster than Google rolling out new changes. I hope Google fix this issue. [1] Spam/scam page - http://blog.imm.cnr.it/content/linux-check-disk-space-command-view-system-disk-usage-df-and-du http://blog.imm.cnr.it/content/linux-check-disk-space-comman... [2] Original my page published on 2016-01-23 - https://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/linux-check-disk-space-command/ https://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/linux-check-disk-space-command... [3] Google search query - https://www.google.com/search?q=linux+check+disk+space https://www.google.com/search?q=linux+check+disk+space

stevewatson301 4y ago
DMCA notices are unpopular with the crowd here, but when your content is plagiarized and other people are profiting off of your work, I'd recommend the following workflow: * Use Copyscape and perform automated plagiarized content detection. * Automate the sending of DMCA notices to Google and the website host (using captcha solving services, if necessary).
- mianos 4y ago
  As lame as it is, it's not really plagiarism when there is attribution, even if it is non obviously that URL at the top of the page.
  - janosdebugs 4y ago
    Attribution does not exempt an author from the need to get permission. Baring a few edge cases, such as fair use, a copying without permission is still a copyright violation, attribution or not.
  - JW_00000 4y ago
    Plagiarism is not the same as copyright infringement. "Plagiarism" is not a legal thing: it's not a crime codified in law and doesn't appear in laws [1]. Instead, usually it's a violation of some internal code, e.g. a school's or newspaper's policy of integrity. As you say indeed, usually these policies only consider something plagiarism if there is a lack of (clear) attribution. However copyright is encoded in law and copyright infringement is a crime. The linked page clearly violates the copyright of OP. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism#Legal_aspects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism#Legal_aspects
- account42 4y ago
  Yeah no, automated DMCA notices should never be a thing. The shoot first ask questions later mechanic of DMCA notices is bad enough but at least have the decency to verify the claims you are making.
yrro 4y ago
My Google experience would be improved immeasurably if there was a way for me to block domains after I decide I never want to see them in my search results again.
- blackshaw 4y ago
  Google used to have this feature. Why did they remove it?
  - dazc 4y ago
    Because it was gamed.
    - planb 4y ago
      Then they should have simply ignored the signal, not canned the feature
- ComodoHacker 4y ago
  You mean allow people to block Google properties in search? No way I guess.
- stevewatson301 4y ago
  https://github.com/iorate/ublacklist https://github.com/iorate/ublacklist
  - yrro 4y ago
    That looks great, thanks. Installing it now! I've been burned in the past by relying on extensions like these, which only work until Google change their HTML and then the extension author is (understandably) burned out and doesn't update the extension, and eventually I just give up and uninstall it... I'd be a lot happier if this was a core Google Search feature. But I understand that Google don't make money by blocking their (paying) customers (spammers who run ads) from their search results.
- 4y ago
xthestreams 4y ago
cnr.it is a domain which belongs to the Italian Research Council, and that subdomain seems to be a blog by the Institute of Microelectronics and Microsystems. These are not scammers, it's probably an amateur researcher which published that information in a blog which is usually read by no-one. Probably it wasn't even meant to be public. But because of the prestige of the domain, it becomes first in relevant searches. If you track down the author and send him a quick mail, I'm 100% sure they'll help. I've worked at CNR.
- sph 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Research_Council_(Italy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Research_Council_(Ita...
- raverbashing 4y ago
  Correct, it looks more like a page containing useful info for their users/students etc There are plenty of scam pages, but specifically this one doesn't look like it
- pyb 4y ago
  Still, it appears someone at CNR copy-pasted someone else's blog and published it as their own.
  - oefrha 4y ago
    No, the very first thing in the blog post is a link to the original, so it’s highly unlikely they wanted to pretend to be the author. More like someone who didn’t care much about copyright or license decided to back up information they found useful in their personal blog.
    - jraph 4y ago
      Honestly, a researcher should know better to not plagiarize or to give attribution better than that. This is core in their job. If they do exactly this in their papers, it's going to be bad for them and they know it. It's good they linked to the original post and that the link is the first thing we see, but nothing says that it's the source, and no paragraph explains that the content comes from elsewhere. I also don't see why the content should be copy-pasted instead of just a link. I see no malicious intents, it's probably done in good faith, but meh. To the author: did you try to reach out? I'm sure something can be done about it if it bothers you. I expect the author of this copy to be receptive.
meltedcapacitor 4y ago
Maybe the bootleg page could be a source of inspiration? It has a garbage/content ratio of 32 (the browser downloads 32 bytes for every byte of content) while the original page has a 400 ratio (the browser downloads 400 bytes for every byte of content). It's borderline denial of service attack against the visitor. The original also has a slow aggressive cookie box that is unnecessary as visitors can be spied on using server logs, no need to have cookies for the spy infrastructure. The bootleg has no cookie box (though does set a couple of gratuitous cookies, and does load one gratuitous googleanalytics.js, so maybe it does the right thing in a non-compliant way). Maybe all these factor make the original page look "less good" to google quality ranking? (which would be ironic given Google's general leadership of the Orgy of Waste school of web design.) Also if google starts ranking such pages up they may expose themselves to class action lawsuits as users could ask for a refund for the power, hardware and telecom bills incurred in being lead to load them?
- gregw134 4y ago
  Plus, the original has an excessive amount of ads. I'm not surprised Google is ranking the other page higher.
- feanaro 4y ago
  > Also if google starts ranking such pages up they may expose themselves to class action lawsuits as users could ask for a refund for the power, hardware and telecom bills incurred in being lead to load them? Sorry, but this is completely insane. Search engines should most certainly and definitely not ever be liable for linking to original sources for such a stupid reason. This American pro-litigious attitude has to stop.
  - meltedcapacitor 4y ago
    Sure, it's tongue in cheek, but there is a tragedy of the commons in there: whatever massive waste devs and their employers inflict on society goes unpunished because there is no incentive to change that behaviour. Was suggesting some activist subvert computer misuse laws to fix this. Primary legislation or big tech using its weight would do as well. In the physical world one can't dump a rusty aircraft carrier on someone else's lawn and get away with it. Should be the same in tech.
progre 4y ago
The traditional response when someone hotlinks your images is to goatse them.
- jraph 4y ago
  This would be lame, here I'm sure the person who reposted this content is not malicious. A quick mail is nicer and less work. Sure, goatse people if they refuse to observe your requests if you feel like it.
SNlMyhFioa 4y ago
I'm seeing your page above the "spam/scam" page. #2 cyberciti.biz #3 cnr.it
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
layer8 4y ago
FWIF, I get the original page as the first search result (and [0] as a “featured snippet” above it), and the crn.it page only as the third. [0] https://opensource.com/article/18/7/how-check-free-disk-space-linux https://opensource.com/article/18/7/how-check-free-disk-spac...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

stevewatson301 4y ago

DMCA notices are unpopular with the crowd here, but when your content is plagiarized and other people are profiting off of your work, I'd recommend the following workflow: * Use Copyscape and perform automated plagiarized content detection. * Automate the sending of DMCA notices to Google and the website host (using captcha solving services, if necessary).

mianos 4y ago
As lame as it is, it's not really plagiarism when there is attribution, even if it is non obviously that URL at the top of the page.
- janosdebugs 4y ago
  Attribution does not exempt an author from the need to get permission. Baring a few edge cases, such as fair use, a copying without permission is still a copyright violation, attribution or not.
- JW_00000 4y ago
  Plagiarism is not the same as copyright infringement. "Plagiarism" is not a legal thing: it's not a crime codified in law and doesn't appear in laws [1]. Instead, usually it's a violation of some internal code, e.g. a school's or newspaper's policy of integrity. As you say indeed, usually these policies only consider something plagiarism if there is a lack of (clear) attribution. However copyright is encoded in law and copyright infringement is a crime. The linked page clearly violates the copyright of OP. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism#Legal_aspects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism#Legal_aspects
account42 4y ago
Yeah no, automated DMCA notices should never be a thing. The shoot first ask questions later mechanic of DMCA notices is bad enough but at least have the decency to verify the claims you are making.

yrro 4y ago

My Google experience would be improved immeasurably if there was a way for me to block domains after I decide I never want to see them in my search results again.

blackshaw 4y ago
Google used to have this feature. Why did they remove it?
- dazc 4y ago
  Because it was gamed.
  - planb 4y ago
    Then they should have simply ignored the signal, not canned the feature
ComodoHacker 4y ago
You mean allow people to block Google properties in search? No way I guess.
stevewatson301 4y ago
https://github.com/iorate/ublacklist https://github.com/iorate/ublacklist
- yrro 4y ago
  That looks great, thanks. Installing it now! I've been burned in the past by relying on extensions like these, which only work until Google change their HTML and then the extension author is (understandably) burned out and doesn't update the extension, and eventually I just give up and uninstall it... I'd be a lot happier if this was a core Google Search feature. But I understand that Google don't make money by blocking their (paying) customers (spammers who run ads) from their search results.
4y ago

xthestreams 4y ago

cnr.it is a domain which belongs to the Italian Research Council, and that subdomain seems to be a blog by the Institute of Microelectronics and Microsystems. These are not scammers, it's probably an amateur researcher which published that information in a blog which is usually read by no-one. Probably it wasn't even meant to be public. But because of the prestige of the domain, it becomes first in relevant searches. If you track down the author and send him a quick mail, I'm 100% sure they'll help. I've worked at CNR.

sph 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Research_Council_(Italy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Research_Council_(Ita...
raverbashing 4y ago
Correct, it looks more like a page containing useful info for their users/students etc There are plenty of scam pages, but specifically this one doesn't look like it
pyb 4y ago
Still, it appears someone at CNR copy-pasted someone else's blog and published it as their own.
- oefrha 4y ago
  No, the very first thing in the blog post is a link to the original, so it’s highly unlikely they wanted to pretend to be the author. More like someone who didn’t care much about copyright or license decided to back up information they found useful in their personal blog.
  - jraph 4y ago
    Honestly, a researcher should know better to not plagiarize or to give attribution better than that. This is core in their job. If they do exactly this in their papers, it's going to be bad for them and they know it. It's good they linked to the original post and that the link is the first thing we see, but nothing says that it's the source, and no paragraph explains that the content comes from elsewhere. I also don't see why the content should be copy-pasted instead of just a link. I see no malicious intents, it's probably done in good faith, but meh. To the author: did you try to reach out? I'm sure something can be done about it if it bothers you. I expect the author of this copy to be receptive.

meltedcapacitor 4y ago

Maybe the bootleg page could be a source of inspiration? It has a garbage/content ratio of 32 (the browser downloads 32 bytes for every byte of content) while the original page has a 400 ratio (the browser downloads 400 bytes for every byte of content). It's borderline denial of service attack against the visitor. The original also has a slow aggressive cookie box that is unnecessary as visitors can be spied on using server logs, no need to have cookies for the spy infrastructure. The bootleg has no cookie box (though does set a couple of gratuitous cookies, and does load one gratuitous googleanalytics.js, so maybe it does the right thing in a non-compliant way). Maybe all these factor make the original page look "less good" to google quality ranking? (which would be ironic given Google's general leadership of the Orgy of Waste school of web design.) Also if google starts ranking such pages up they may expose themselves to class action lawsuits as users could ask for a refund for the power, hardware and telecom bills incurred in being lead to load them?

gregw134 4y ago
Plus, the original has an excessive amount of ads. I'm not surprised Google is ranking the other page higher.
feanaro 4y ago
> Also if google starts ranking such pages up they may expose themselves to class action lawsuits as users could ask for a refund for the power, hardware and telecom bills incurred in being lead to load them? Sorry, but this is completely insane. Search engines should most certainly and definitely not ever be liable for linking to original sources for such a stupid reason. This American pro-litigious attitude has to stop.
- meltedcapacitor 4y ago
  Sure, it's tongue in cheek, but there is a tragedy of the commons in there: whatever massive waste devs and their employers inflict on society goes unpunished because there is no incentive to change that behaviour. Was suggesting some activist subvert computer misuse laws to fix this. Primary legislation or big tech using its weight would do as well. In the physical world one can't dump a rusty aircraft carrier on someone else's lawn and get away with it. Should be the same in tech.

progre 4y ago

The traditional response when someone hotlinks your images is to goatse them.

jraph 4y ago
This would be lame, here I'm sure the person who reposted this content is not malicious. A quick mail is nicer and less work. Sure, goatse people if they refuse to observe your requests if you feel like it.

SNlMyhFioa 4y ago

I'm seeing your page above the "spam/scam" page. #2 cyberciti.biz #3 cnr.it

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

layer8 4y ago

FWIF, I get the original page as the first search result (and [0] as a “featured snippet” above it), and the crn.it page only as the third. [0] https://opensource.com/article/18/7/how-check-free-disk-space-linux https://opensource.com/article/18/7/how-check-free-disk-spac...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]