3 ms·

I don't want your archive website near the top of my search results when the original is readily accessible.

by pupppet 4y ago

UncleMeat 4y ago
Won't stop the outrage post.
- Fatnino 4y ago
  The actual outrage should be when a small site posts something and then that content gets stolen and posted verbatim as an answer on stackoverflow. There's even the possibility that the Google crawler will have seen the SO page before discovering the original small site.
  - carewell 4y ago
    The suggestion is not to penalize all websites that share some minor amount of content with SO but to remove websites that copy tens of thousands of comments from SO and do not provide any other value. It’s a pretty easy to identify and implement this distinction.
  - _cs2017_ 4y ago
    You have any examples of that? Sounds far-fetched to me, since SO posts: (a) are in response to very specific questions (b) can be easily reported to SO for plagiarism (c) make no $$ for the poster, reducing the incentive to plagiarize
    - mynameisvlad 4y ago
      You misunderstand the parent comment. They’re saying there are full sites which just scrape SO content. These are not hosted in StackExchange and therefore are not subject to their reporting system, and generally are filled with ads which provide the money and therefore incentive.
      - thiht 4y ago
        > You misunderstand the parent comment. I don’t think so. The parent seems to talk about StackOverflow answers plagiarizing some small blogs, not StackOverflow itself being scraped. Not an issue I’ve witnessed though.
        anupamchugh 4y ago
        I see the parent comment clearly stating small blogs lifting content from SO and SEO-optimising it. This happens a lot. For instance, a Google search for “maps vs list comprehensions” shows an ad-based website result featured at the top, despite having re-hashed content from the SO post on the same topic. Clearly, Google’s SEO favors recently-published articles over quality. I ran a search “react node.js”, and a digital marketing blog post is highlighted in the “Featured by Google” despite being low-quality. So, it’s just spam at the moment to milk views by content-marketers. Also, it’s hard to plagarise from small blogs when SO is the more active forum for day-to-day solutions. I don’t see that happening a lot.
        thiht 4y ago
        > I see the parent comment clearly stating small blogs lifting content from SO and SEO-optimising it. Are we talking about the same comment? > when a small site posts something and then that content gets stolen and posted verbatim as an answer on stackoverflow. This is about SO answers stolen from small blogs, not SO answers stolen and copied to SEO optimized pages. Unless we’re not reading the sentence the same way somehow?
        anupamchugh 4y ago
        Sorry. I took the top-most comment as parent. Having said that, SO answers getting stolen from small blogs is a rarity as I wrote in my previous reply.
    - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
      It wouldn't have to be malicious or uncredited, SO answers often quote manuals, books, etc.
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    That's a good one too.

I don't want your archive website near the top of my search results when the original is readily accessible.

UncleMeat 4y ago

Won't stop the outrage post.

Fatnino 4y ago
The actual outrage should be when a small site posts something and then that content gets stolen and posted verbatim as an answer on stackoverflow. There's even the possibility that the Google crawler will have seen the SO page before discovering the original small site.
- carewell 4y ago
  The suggestion is not to penalize all websites that share some minor amount of content with SO but to remove websites that copy tens of thousands of comments from SO and do not provide any other value. It’s a pretty easy to identify and implement this distinction.
- _cs2017_ 4y ago
  You have any examples of that? Sounds far-fetched to me, since SO posts: (a) are in response to very specific questions (b) can be easily reported to SO for plagiarism (c) make no $$ for the poster, reducing the incentive to plagiarize
  - mynameisvlad 4y ago
    You misunderstand the parent comment. They’re saying there are full sites which just scrape SO content. These are not hosted in StackExchange and therefore are not subject to their reporting system, and generally are filled with ads which provide the money and therefore incentive.
    - thiht 4y ago
      > You misunderstand the parent comment. I don’t think so. The parent seems to talk about StackOverflow answers plagiarizing some small blogs, not StackOverflow itself being scraped. Not an issue I’ve witnessed though.
      - anupamchugh 4y ago
        I see the parent comment clearly stating small blogs lifting content from SO and SEO-optimising it. This happens a lot. For instance, a Google search for “maps vs list comprehensions” shows an ad-based website result featured at the top, despite having re-hashed content from the SO post on the same topic. Clearly, Google’s SEO favors recently-published articles over quality. I ran a search “react node.js”, and a digital marketing blog post is highlighted in the “Featured by Google” despite being low-quality. So, it’s just spam at the moment to milk views by content-marketers. Also, it’s hard to plagarise from small blogs when SO is the more active forum for day-to-day solutions. I don’t see that happening a lot.
        thiht 4y ago
        > I see the parent comment clearly stating small blogs lifting content from SO and SEO-optimising it. Are we talking about the same comment? > when a small site posts something and then that content gets stolen and posted verbatim as an answer on stackoverflow. This is about SO answers stolen from small blogs, not SO answers stolen and copied to SEO optimized pages. Unless we’re not reading the sentence the same way somehow?
        anupamchugh 4y ago
        Sorry. I took the top-most comment as parent. Having said that, SO answers getting stolen from small blogs is a rarity as I wrote in my previous reply.
  - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
    It wouldn't have to be malicious or uncredited, SO answers often quote manuals, books, etc.
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  That's a good one too.