Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.144.107.83

Forum Moderators: incrediBILL & martinibuster

Message Too Old, No Replies

What is a scraper site?

     
4:11 pm on Jun 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 7, 2004
posts:81
votes: 0


Okay - people keep referring to scraper sites and I'm not sure exactly what that is - could someone quickly give me a definition?

It's different than spam pages?

11:18 pm on June 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

Full Member

joined:Mar 17, 2005
posts:296
votes: 0


HG,

Yes, it is legal to make less money publishing scraper sites than you can publishing popular content sites.

And it's legal to risk your entire revenue stream with get-rich-quick schemes.

But it's smart to receive the highest possible return on the time and effort you invest in your business.

11:25 pm on June 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:June 7, 2005
posts:18
votes: 0


Gee what a thread. Can't possible answer every query on it but I'd like to add my point of view.

Scrapers are NOT search engines, when did you last see google serps appearing in yahoos results or vice versa.

Scrapers take advantage of the hard work of somebody else and are not sites that help the public find information they just dilute the pool of information that is already available.

Just because something is not illegal doesn't make it moral. I won't draw any analogies - but you must get the drift. Laws are always one step behind - they are normally made to stop a practise continuing rather than stop it from happening in the firstpalce - hindsite and all.

Most scraper sites in my opinion are designed for pure profit and unfortunately can be replicated real easy - if your making 1,000k a month from one site - next month make 10! Just change the results slightly for each one - mix them up and bingo you have 'unique' content.

We could all knock this type of portal up in a minute, but some of us are in it for the long haul - we have reputations and families to think about in the long term. Most of us professionals are also on our own in this game and not company. The only way to make real money is to remain professional and not turn into a deviant - scamming every system we know how (and there are a few ways to make money but be 'naughty' arn't there! And we all know how - but its like stealing from the local corner shop - it just ain't done - and anybody doing it should expect crap from their piers!

Ta
Barry

Sitemaps in an Instant
-edit-
sorry edited my signature for over zelous mods ;)
-/edit-

12:29 am on June 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:May 19, 2005
posts:203
votes: 0


HughMungus wrote:

Like I keep saying, argue all you want based on "morality". It's meaningless.

(...)

I said that it's no more immoral than what search engines do and what most webmasters do. But even if it is the most immoral thing ever done on the web -- it's still legal which is all that matters.

I think you are likely joking. :-) But perhaps those kind of opinions are right about the legal and honorable scraper profession... Scrapers just violate the Google TOS, for instance.

But you know, trivialities such as morals, ethics, and TOS are meaningless in the scraper and spam business. ;-)

1:48 am on June 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 31, 2005
posts:114
votes: 0


what is a scraper site

the impetus for me NEVER again to click yes to email notification of replies

which means I'll never know if you respond to me...

you should be able to turn off the notification

ann

8:32 pm on June 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 25, 2002
posts:2605
votes: 0


well, no matter how you "define" them they are still a pain in the kester when they have scraped your information.

Found 2 scraper sites that had stolen the info, verbatim, from my numerology site a PR5. No wonder I can't get it in gear and off of page 4.
I wrote them both a letter to cease and desist...copyright and all that etc..

I guess I am going to have to rewrite the whole page.

Darn!

Ann

10:22 pm on June 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 17, 2003
posts:1947
votes: 0


Scrapers just violate the Google TOS, for instance.

Yeah, I know what you mean:

Make pages for users, not for search engines. Don't deceive your users or present different content to search engines than you display to users, which is commonly referred to as "cloaking."

Avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings. A good rule of thumb is whether you'd feel comfortable explaining what you've done to a website that competes with you. Another useful test is to ask, "Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn't exist?"

Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank. In particular, avoid links to web spammers or "bad neighborhoods" on the web, as your own ranking may be affected adversely by those links.

Don't use unauthorized computer programs to submit pages, check rankings, etc. Such programs consume computing resources and violate our Terms of Service. Google does not recommend the use of products such as WebPosition Gold™ that send automatic or programmatic queries to Google.

12:39 am on June 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Aug 12, 2003
posts:850
votes: 0


HughMungus: I claimed no legal authority.

Um, no surprise there.

HughMungus: Let me know when you're ready to reply what I posted back in March.

To "reply what you posted" in March? I have no idea what you posted in March. In case you didn't notice, it's June, and whatever you may have said in March isn't part of the present thread. Nice smokescreen, but really.
2:00 am on June 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 18, 2005
posts:37
votes: 0


Morality actually is meaningful.

Ethical behavior rewards itself.

What goes around comes around. I wouldn't be surprised if scrapers are the ones whining in a little while when Google (and others) get rid of their listings.

3:09 am on June 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:July 17, 2002
posts:205
votes: 0


Every day thousands and thousands of webmasters and programmers try to reverse-engineer Google's ranking algorithm for a keyword or keyphrase.

And now the answer is: just duplicate Google's result listings?

Does anyone else find this to be rather strange?

I mean, how complicated can an algorithm be if you can loop the results back through and get the same results back out?

5:21 am on June 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:May 12, 2005
posts:89
votes: 0


What goes around comes around. I wouldn't be surprised if scrapers are the ones whining in a little while when Google (and others) get rid of their listings.

I am not holding my breath here on this one. Although I agree with those that see scrapers as the scum of the earth, I think that G will not be removing them from their index anytime soon, as they (i would argue) keep advertising costs low. Since the company went public, a lot of realities such as this have no doubt affected policy.

cagey1: one annoying thing that is on the rise is that there is a proliferation of sites which scrape Google groups. Have a look for all the ones scraping alt.comp.freeware for eg., -- to make it look like it's their own forum. The argument, that you can't prove intent, is one I would not agree with in a million years. Those are, in fact, blatant dead-simple examples of creating a site merely for the intended purpose of littering the Net with Adsense.

Which brings me back to my first point above: with (a)so many Adsense ads out there, and with (b)so many low-converting sites because of this -- it keeps advertsing costs low and protects the insidious bottom line. (At the expense of so many respectable webmasters/site owners, like those ones who took a s-kicking because of Bourbon...)

6:32 am on June 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 17, 2003
posts:1947
votes: 0


To "reply what you posted" in March? I have no idea what you posted in March. In case you didn't notice, it's June, and whatever you may have said in March isn't part of the present thread. Nice smokescreen, but really.

We had this same discussion back in March and the same case law was posted then and nothing has changed. See the link I posted previously.

12:57 pm on June 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Aug 12, 2003
posts:850
votes: 0


Um... No.

If you have anything relevant to say, say it here. If you don't, as is obviously the case, I fully expect you to continue your hand-waving.

5:52 pm on June 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 17, 2003
posts:1947
votes: 0


Um... No.

If you have anything relevant to say, say it here. If you don't, as is obviously the case, I fully expect you to continue your hand-waving.

Why? You're just going to not answer again.

Have fun with your rants.

This 223 message thread spans 8 pages: 223