"Oh, you need me to click LIKE on your page? ... Deleted!"
"Oh, your news article is 25% of the width of the page and the other 75% is navigation, ads, and other unrelated articles? Deleted!"
"Oh, you have the annoying chat box that hovers in the bottom corner and hides things I actually wanted to see? Baleted!"
I keep telling myself that eventually I'll add a deletion option to the right-click context menu but I never actually bother with it.
Based on Aardvark; fixes the web.
edit: I just see a bunch of others also made bookmarklets to remove elements, so I added a bit more description as to why mine is different. Setting all position:fixed elements to position:static really does seem to do exactly what you want in one fell swoop, in 99% of the cases.
Maybe some kind of balance would be better than a block list. Effective ads that don't annoy.
(though I think it strips out the junk after the whole page loads.)
Since that started, I stopped reading Quora entirely and I always avoid their links. Occasionally there is some great content I can't find elsewhere, and I won't sign up to a service that is so abusive. This is a great trick. Thanks.
It's a shame they went down this route after a promising start. They could have taken the StackOverflow route but chose to be Expert-Sex-Change instead.
That was when I cancelled my account: they're doing this because someone decided it would be profitable. I don't want to subsidize an unethical business with my content or help them by viewing ads or sharing their pages. This has yet to be a problem in any way: the amount of “must-read” Quora content has remained zero.
From Googlebot's perspective, it is not cloaking at all.
"Cloaking is essentially serving different content to users than Googlebot".
I'm a user who cannot view Quora content that Googlebot has indexed even though it was a result Google said matched my query. This result is therefore unusable without modifying the URL or signing in. That is the definition of different content, HTML/CSS/JS or other semantics be damned, and a poor user experience. And that's something Google is allegedly trying to avoid.
The Matt Cutts video also talks about mobile user experiences. If I worked for Quora, I'd pay close attention as I cannot view the site at all without getting their mobile app even though, again, Google said "you should check out this Quora link for this query".
Edit: From the webmaster guidelines...
•Using white text on a white background
•Locating text behind an image
•Using CSS to position text off-screen
•Setting the font size to 0
•Hiding a link by only linking one small character—for example,
a hyphen in the middle of a paragraph
When evaluating your site to see if it includes hidden text or links,
look for anything that's not easily viewable by visitors of your site.
Are any text or links there solely for search engines rather than
You're right about the pages still appearing with high ranks on specific queries, but on the other hand I attribute it more to Google bombing than page relevance. At least I'm pretty sure Googlebot finds nothing to read on Quora, so the effect must be due to incoming links.
I made this search :
And got a topic with answers obscured.
I then selected a portion of the obscured text and made this query :
https://www.google.com/search?q=python+vs+php+"Here are just a few reasons based on my"
Came up with the original obscured answer on that very same question :
Check out that page's source. You'll note the canonical URL is the original question.
<link rel="canonical" href="http://www.quora.com/Python-programming-language-1/Which-is-better-PHP-or-Python-Why" />
Edit: Link to webmaster guidelines on rel="canonical" :
Adding this link and attribute lets site owners identify sets of identical
content and suggest to Google: "Of all these pages with identical content,
this page is the most useful. Please prioritize it in search results."
I think the blurred text is generic.
Edit: just tried with a proxy IP and it worked too. Did you guys actually try to click outside of the light box?
Yes, I clicked outside of the light box.
I used a screen capture service online to see what the site looks like to a third party: http://i.imgur.com/UedyYQW.png
Since it's an automated service, it doesn't click away the lightbox, but if you scroll down you will see the text in the background are all blurred images.
As someone who has never used this site I can assure you that answers are a blurred PNG with the title "Sign up to view the contents of this answer."
It's not misinformation if it's correct.
I still feel that Quora should promptly go die in a fire, Google should de-rank them, Stack Overflow should supersede them, and users should abandon them for the good of the internet, but what do I know.
My only real objection to Quora is that they make it so hard to share content. I think the walled garden thing is just wrong; I (and many other Top Writers) haven't been shy about telling them that, either. I hope they will eventually come around.
The original domain had potential to be misread too though! :-)
It's like saying dollar-store dog food isn't that bad...compared to malaria.
Another good one is simply to load the google cache. Often these sites want to turn up in search results, so they allow the googlebot to see the content, and then show the user a paywall. Obviously this means the full content ends up in the cache. This works for the Financial Times, and probably many other such places.
And got redirected to the homepage instead.
Edit: Link fixed :)
Open any Quora URL. If you come across a Quora link
anywhere and you want to read it without being asked to
join Quora, you can add the text "?share=1" to the end
of the URL.
They started requiring registration because they belong to The Cult Of Registered User Metrics and they forgot the internet is 98% read and 2% contribute.
"How to get into a library without having to fill out a registration form" where the library doesn't care what you write in it, including Dicky McDick.
Honestly. Just register under some kind of pseudo. The sense of entitlement here... why do you think people write great answers there?
You're taking for granted the resource - which wouldn't exist if Quora didn't create and encourage a platform - and want to not give back to an uttely inane extent: even the idea of registering a pseudonym is abhorrent to you.
Well, I certainly don't think it has anything to do with the fact that they require registration. People write great content on 4chan.
> Jesus H. the lengths people go through not to register a throwaway astounds me.
Have you ever actually been to Quora? The registration modal doesn't even give you the offer to register with a pseudonym that you so casually throw out. You get smacked in the face when you go to the site with a demand to link to your (real-name required) Google or Facebook accounts before you can so much as read 'their' precious content. To sign up with just an email address (that you then have to verify, which automatically opts you in to literally over 30 different 'newsletters' and notifications and other bits of spam that you have to manually opt out of individually). It certainly isn't just "type something into this form to shut up" as you suggest.
> If you come across a Quora link anywhere and you want to read it without being asked to join Quora, you can add the text "?share=1" to the end of the URL.
(All right all right, you can do the "but it's technically not content cloaking" quora astroturf dance now; but you know the saying: if it walks like duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck...)
- You can't use their website without using your real name. They're really persistent in this. A pseudonym won't do, they'll ask you to identify yourself with a scan of your ID before they let you participate. It's ridiculous.
Google should come out and do their thing banning them.
still not using that site though.
edit : my mistake. it seems that once you've used a ?share=1 link, that changes some cookies so after that you seem to always see everything