Apparently Is http://englishqna.blogspot.com violating EL&U (or YOUR) copyright? was successful. Enough of us were prompted to file DMCA complaints with Google, and that "scraper" website was closed down.

But I'm now finding that if I Google search terms from past ELU questions, I keep getting hits from another scraper site...

What would be an appropriate opposite of “exceed”? reappears at http://www.tinyguru.com/english/qid81657.html

Why do we invert word order when asking a question? reappears at http://www.tinyguru.com/english/qid21018.html

What exactly is an “adverb”? reappears at http://www.tinyguru.com/english/qid75491.html

etc., etc.

That last one was a question of mine, so it's definitely a violation of my copyright. I'll probably face a long slog to get satisfaction if no-one else here complains, so I'm hoping others will pitch in too.

If you use Google you'll probably find your own violations easily enough with...

site:http://www.tinyguru.com/english/ SomeTextFromYourQuestionOrAnswer

I assume if ELU habitually responds robustly and in numbers to such sites, the Google Complaints Team will soon get into the habit of dealing with them promptly, and giving us credibility/priority in future. So it's worth making a bit of effort now to avoid things getting worse later.

This answer by waiwai933 on the earlier post summarises the legal/moral position, and this answer by PPL tells you exactly what to do if you're willing to spend a minute or two helping things along.

If you just want to post answers/comments about scraper sites in general I think maybe you should do it on the original question - but it's up to you, obviously.

  • Then again, why would it matter to you? If you hadn't told me, I wouldn't have noticed. It would not have harmed me. Results from SE should turn up (far) higher in the list anyway; I have never noticed any clones myself. This is the kind of problem that goes away if you ignore it, that is, it will not affect you. Commented Oct 31, 2012 at 3:01
  • @Cerberus: I'll admit that partly, I just feel it's a damned cheek. But SO as a whole takes the matter seriously, since fairly obviously the site is damaged by such activity. And I feel that as good citizens of the community, we should defend the integrity of our site. I don't want to overstate the case (I wouldn't sent my children off to war over this one), but as I'm sure you know perfectly well - All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Even small evils are "evil". Commented Oct 31, 2012 at 3:18
  • 2
    I had an earlier comment saying that I'd refer this to the SE Community team, but it looks like it's already on the master list. I should note, however, that unlike the previous case, this is not a Blogspot blog, and so Google can only remove search results; they're powerless to takedown the website itself.
    – waiwai933
    Commented Oct 31, 2012 at 4:05
  • Also, if/when you file complaints with Google, you should select the options "Web Search" => "Legal issue that is not mentioned above" => Copyright, etc. on this form
    – waiwai933
    Commented Oct 31, 2012 at 4:09
  • 1
    I've removed the links to tinyguru (as recommended in the master list page on MSO) because links push the plagiarising pages up Google's search results, and we do want searches for "tinyguru" to come to this post as a protest!
    – Andrew Leach Mod
    Commented Oct 31, 2012 at 7:27
  • @FumbleFingers: I agree that those people are immoral for cloning us (no, I don't mean that biological cloning is immoral), but I don't see why it should harm the site. Is there any evidence? No offence, but this sounds like copyright-layer speak, which is notoriously weak on evidence. Commented Oct 31, 2012 at 8:04
  • @Cerberus: If I'm honest, I don't know exactly why SO would be damaged by scraper sites. I imagine it would be harder to raise funds if the site content is constantly plagiarised, but presumably Jeff Atwood, Joel Spolsky, etc. would be able to give a sound argument that goes beyond my admittedly emotive response. Perhaps someone else can address that issue, but all I can say is I personally find it irritating. Commented Oct 31, 2012 at 14:08
  • There is a reverse version proposed in another thread here... meta.english.stackexchange.com/questions/3211/…
    – GEdgar
    Commented Oct 31, 2012 at 14:35
  • @GEdgar: Sacré bleu! That was another one of my questions! Looks like I'm getting to be a real old worry-guts! Commented Oct 31, 2012 at 15:44
  • @FumbleFingers: I would say the site was only really harmed if it received significantly fewer visitors owing to these scrapers. But I doubt it. Commented Oct 31, 2012 at 18:11
  • Good job guys. I think all SE communities should be doing this. It's our content and we're fully entitled to file complaints
    – Pekka
    Commented Nov 9, 2012 at 7:33

1 Answer 1


I have a suggestion of action we can take, as a community. I've looked for an email address for the proprietor of tinyguru, but the closest I've got is a name: Ujas Patel.

What one of us (me, if you like) can do, therefore, is post a question on the main site, titled "Appeal to Ujas Patel" and the body should explain how to properly attribute our content.

That will get picked up by his crawler and he might even read it.

  • Ooh. Sneaky. And presumably once it's been crawled it can be removed here just to confuse things.
    – Andrew Leach Mod
    Commented Oct 31, 2012 at 12:06
  • 1
    This appears to be the same fellow - note his websites. Commented Oct 31, 2012 at 13:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .