

Google scraper may have to be permanently retired, thanks to a change at Google - nitrox
https://ssl.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbwssl.cgi?Gw=Google

======
UnknownSource
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...

~~~
gnosis
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.

~~~
UnknownSource
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?

~~~
gnosis
_"I'd say that the title is intended to strongly imply that Google are evil."_

The title is "Scroogle has been blocked". How does this imply Google is 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?)"_

They put in the quote from a lead Microsoft developer that describes
Microsoft's anti-competitive practices, and then say "Let's hope Google
doesn't do the same thing." Is this an unreasonable hope? I really don't see
the problem with what they say here.

 _"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?"_

I consider any and all information about me, my interests, my friends (since
you bring up Facebook), etc, to be private. If that information is collected
without my explicit permission, I consider it a privacy violation. If that
information is shared without my explicit permission, it's an even worse
privacy violation.

~~~
arantius
> The title is "Scroogle has been blocked". How does this imply Google is
> evil?

The title of the post on HN is "Google scraper may have to be permanently
retired, thanks to a change at Google". Big difference.

~~~
gnosis
That's an even more innocuous title. I really don't see why you think it
implies Google is "evil".

~~~
UnknownSource
If I wrote "Flash no longer available, thanks to a change by Apple", I'm
pretty sure you'd probably change your mind.

And if I wrote "Linux no longer supports our program due to a change in kernel
design. We are asking why it was done. Oh, and Microsoft did the same things 2
years ago and were sued for trying to block competitors. But until we find
out, we can't confirm its because they are trying to stop competition."

Both of these statements are obviously heavily biased, and yet, that's what we
see in the article, and in the hacker news headline.

If it weren't biased, why would Scroogle even mention the Microsoft thing? It
is hardly relevant. It seems like they are trying to invoke anger by the
community, so that Google is forced to reinstate the feature. And judging by
the headline here, it seems to have worked.

But hey, I guess headlines which are anti-large company on a system which only
gets upvotes would generate more attention than neutral ones, because all the
Google haters jump on board and vote it up, without reading the article and
actually seeing if the headline is remotely accurate.

------
gnosis
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 ?

~~~
BCM43
Check this out: <http://www.googlesharing.net/>

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

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

------
gnosis
Previously: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1337039>

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

~~~
gnosis
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.

~~~
eli
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.

