Google scraper may have to be permanently retired, thanks to a change at Google

https://ssl.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbwssl.cgi?Gw=Google

by nitrox • 16 years ago

22 16 16 years ago

ssl.scroogle.org

So in other words, Google are the bad guys for depreciating/axing a feature which they no longer use, and which was probably never intended to be used in the way which Scroogle are using it?

That's right, it's all about Scroogle. I appreciate that Scroogle are upset that their service (which relies on hacks) will no longer work, however, it's ridiculous that even developers are acting irrational these days.

Why Scroogle thinks that Google should pay developers to maintain an interface to support their service which strips the ads from results, is beyond me. I'd say this change shows scroogle's true colors...

gnosis6• 16 years ago

This note simply describes the bare facts underlying Scroogle's outage and that they've emailed Google to ask some relevant and perfectly reasonable questions.

How is any of what they say "irrational"? Where do they imply that they're entitled to anything from Google?

As for Google being "bad guys", well, that really depends on how much you value privacy and whether you think Google is acting in ways that respect their users' privacy.

UnknownSource3• 16 years ago

I'd say that the title is intended to strongly imply that Google are evil. Also, the vibe the article is trying to create is that if Google don't re-add the api, they are probably doing it to block competition (why else would they start with their Microsoft rant at the bottom?)

Also.. Privacy issues with Google? Just because they are capturing details you put into their system, doesn't mean they are sharing it, or changing their privacy policy overnight to make all your details public (as Facebook does). Or are you complaining they take photos in public areas?

pierrefar• 16 years ago

They should look at http://www.google.com/xhtml?q=blah

eli3• 16 years ago

Perhaps that interface implements IP-based rate limiting like the regular google.com

eli3• 16 years ago

I'm amazed it was allowed to continue for so long. It's pretty clearly against Google's terms of service.

gnosis6• 16 years ago

I'm not amazed at all. I would guess that most violators of Google's terms of service don't even get noticed by Google until and unless their actions begin to significantly impact Google's bottom line or Google feels threatened in some other way.

The API changes that resulted in Scroogle no longer being able to get results from Google may not have had anything to do with Scroogle violating Google's terms of service.

But if it did, then it's likely Scroogle was performing a significant number of searches and Google noticed. This would lead me to believe that there is a serious demand among a significant number of Google's customers for more privacy, and Google itself was not meeting that demand.

I hope other privacy-respecting search engines step up to the plate and fill the void left by Scroogle's demise.

eli3• 16 years ago

Write a little script that runs a search on google every few seconds and let me know how long it runs before you're blocked. Google definitely cares.

These guys weren't using an API, they were breaking the rules and scraping an obscure search results pages that Google apparently neglected to secure.

gnosis6• 16 years ago

Scroogle shall be sorely missed.

I've now switched to using ixquick instead:

https://us2.ixquick.com/

Does anyone know of any other privacy-respecting search engines that can be used over SSL ?

lemur• 16 years ago

Indeed... Scroogle was nice.

You can always check out "Duck duck go".

BCM43• 16 years ago

Check this out: http://www.googlesharing.net/

gnosis6• 16 years ago

Previously: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1337039

Google scraper may have to be permanently retired, thanks to a change at Google

Related Stories