Scraper Sites & Morality

John Scott · 01-02-2006, 03:33 AM

I'm wondering if people here think there are actual moral implications in using scraper sites to generate revenue and feed one's family.

Just to be sure, I don't scape, but I also feel that scraping is something that the search engines need to deal with, as opposed to clergy.

If the search engines deal with it effectively, it will cease to be an issue.

zivkovicp · 01-02-2006, 04:00 PM

I agree.

I think it is becoming a major problem. In general I think scraper sites are crap, but there is an opportunity there to make some cash.

I've never wasted time with them but I can definately see why someone would. In general I think there is a major problem with poor business ethics these days and the Online scene is no different. Scraper sites are like the $6 armani shirts you buy at the flea market... it's ripping off someone who worked hard to build something of value, in this case a website/search results.

The search engines should make it a priority to get these out of their indexes ASAP, especially considering how many of them populate the SERPs for less competitive terms.

Ferre · 01-02-2006, 06:08 PM

I could do with some info on what scraper sites are. Frankly, I don't have a clue.

John Scott · 01-02-2006, 06:12 PM

Often times you'll come across a site that has snippets of text copied from other sites, usually the top ranking websites for the same terms that the scraper site is targeting. These sites scrape the web for their content, thus "scraper site".

Ferre · 01-02-2006, 06:36 PM

I see, thanks. I came across sites that had copied the first page of the serps for their keyword and had that as content + ads, they scraped Google, lol

...but I don't mind, I found them in my stats as a backlinks and because they used the serps for a keyword that I ranked with 4 different pages from my site on the first page of the serps, they have 4 links to my site on there, and to be honest, it gives me 150-200 visitors/month.

toddieg · 01-02-2006, 07:15 PM

i don't have any moral issues with scraper sites. IMO they are hardly as bad as doing a search for 'disneyland' and ending up on a hardcore porn site.

scrapers are generally (not always) product/service related. for instance, a web search for jewelry might land you on a scraper site full of jewelry ads. all of the 'resources' (aka. scraped content) and ads will be jewelry related. clicking on any of the links on that site will take you to another 'jewelry related' site - so, in reality, you are actually getting what you have searched for.

not to mention scraper sites are 100% legal, and 'adsense friendly'

hulkster · 01-02-2006, 09:11 PM

I think John has a good point - think about it, if the Search Engines weren't around, would there be scraper sites - probably not. So argueably it's a problem the SE's should solve ... ideally!

noob_0001 · 01-02-2006, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Often times you'll come across a site that has snippets of text copied from other sites..... These sites scrape the web for their content, thus "scraper site".

Isn't that what search engines like google do.

toddieg · 01-02-2006, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noob_0001

Isn't that what search engines like google do.

lol... it appears that way on the 'outside', based on the fact that *most* scraper sites are filtered out of Google.

but, in reality, google contributes more to this problem then they do to fight it.

nuthin · 01-02-2006, 11:49 PM

if it isn't scrapers it's affiliate sites that we have been used to competing against in the past, so what's really new?

but kudos to Google, they seem to be doing a good job from what i see.
the thing is.. you will find alot of the sites doing well on Google with scraped or MFA type-pages, the website owners alot of times are actually using there authority/already established domains/websites to penetrate the serp's.

new scraper sites on "fresh" domains find it hard to beat the sandbox before a penalty occurs & if they do manage to beat the sandbox, they don't seem to last too long anyway.

& with alot of sites out there now using Adsense, Google IMO will only have problems with these rogue authority domain owners.

the introduction of the sandbox way back then, left an opportunity wide open for people with authority domains/websites to make alot of money -- and alot are, whilst others are abusing the privilege.

Yahoo! and scrapers --- well IMO, what can you expect from Yahoo's algo which is probably 99% based on the Inktomi algo? The Inktomi algo has always been easy to manipulate if you wanted too.

MSN suprisingly is a bit better handling scrapers, but still both MSN and Yahoo! suffer a bit from redirects and http://keyword-phrase.domain.com/keyword-here.html i've noticed.

if they weren't scraping for Adsense, you would probably see alot more commission junction (cj.com) affiliate sites in the serp's. so Google's probably said, righto - why make cj even richer when they could be doing that for us. :-) Google kicks them out, most times even before they come out of the sandbox and it makes there competitors results look crap, win-win Google!

Michael Allison · 01-03-2006, 01:27 PM

Here's what I think about scraping content:

It's lazy and dishonest. Simple enough.

Now, my application, Image Miracle, gets urls from msn search, but I don't think that's what we mean. It does a lot with those urls that msn doesn't do. Besides, all the search results on the planet are, by definition, scraped content. That's obviously, not what John is asking, though.

Scraper sites, in the traditional sense, will not be with us forever. I'm certain of it. Sooner or later, people that make millions from scraped content will be out of a job.

I hope that happens sooner, not later.

-Michael

toddieg · 01-03-2006, 01:47 PM

lazy - i agree with: many are just button pushers with no creativity

dishonest - perhaps, but please expand on that thought... i don't understand what classifies scrapers as 'dishonest'

Michael Allison · 01-03-2006, 02:22 PM

Well, all original content is the sole property of the originator and a scraper site is profiting from using that person's copyrighted work... 2 + 2 = 4

Profiting from someone elses work, without compensating them or even informing them is dishonest. That's how I see it. It's stealing for personal gain.

-Michael

toddieg · 01-03-2006, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Allison

Well, all original content is the sole property of the originator and a scraper site is profiting from using that person's copyrighted work... 2 + 2 = 4

Profiting from someone elses work, without compensating them or even informing them is dishonest. That's how I see it. It's stealing for personal gain.

-Michael

actually, scraper sites only scrape search engine results pages, not actual websites. some scraper programs scrape free to reprint articles, but never any copyrighted material or material off of someone's webpage. if that's what you are referring to, then i completely agree - actually that is illegal and called copyright infringment or theft.

compensation is also given in the form of a link. in fact, i actually get a large portion of inbound links and click-thru traffic from scraper sites. (which is beyond my control of course)

it's a catch 22 - if you rank well, you get scraped ... and there's nothing you can do about it.

note: this is also why it's a good idea to have a good title tag. because your title tag is what gets hyperlinked

Michael Allison · 01-03-2006, 02:52 PM

Hmm...

Yeah, I guess you're right. As far as scraping search engine results, I think it's less than honest, too. It's something that's done just to get good rankings and it's not the webmasters content. It adds no real value to a site. It's a maniplulation of the search engines and spammy, by nature. It may work, but I doubt that will be true forever. At least, I hope not.

-Michael

toddieg · 01-03-2006, 03:04 PM

i agree - i hope it doesn't last forever either.... however i'm certain newer and more innovative ways to spam will soon take over and we'll be laughing at how simple scraper sites used to be.

anyhow - the main reason i don't like them is that they annoy me when i'm searching for information

though as far as ethics or morality go - i don't see any problem with them. afterall, everyone's got to make a living. you can argue that any form of SEO is manipulation of the search engines... you can also argue that all search engines are scraper sites (which in reality, they are)....

i guess it's just in the eye of the beholder.

capmexbiz · 01-19-2006, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Allison

As far as scraping search engine results, I think it's less than honest, too. It's something that's done just to get good rankings and it's not the webmasters content.

With the most popular programs they scrap webmasters' content via RSS feeds, then applying some rules they can modify slightly the content (a few words) and assemble the text to appear as original content. Ultimately the trend is to remove the live urls from the scraped content, to avoid being detected in referral logs.

Nintendo · 01-21-2006, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Allison

As far as scraping search engine results, I think it's less than honest, too.

What do you think of search engine caches?? That's scraping our complete sites!! If it's less than honest to scrap search engine results, then it's way less than honest for them to scrap our complete sites, and Googles just one massive scrap site!!!!