Activism Discussion: Scroogle Vs. Google

Scroogle Vs. Google
Posts: 7

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

David Morgan \MAMS\
2007-03-02 05:52:49 EST
Scroogle vs. Google (Article below)

sent by Bill Koehnlein - Feb 28, 2007


Scroogle vs Google

Lost and forgotten in the deep trenches of the Internet is the
mathematical origin of the word "google". It's a derivation of "googol",
a word coined by Edward Kasner (or, actually, by his nine-year-old
nephew, as the story goes), which is the number ten to the one-hundredth
power, or the number one followed by one-hundred zeros. Most commonly,
it is an abstraction connoting or expressing any very large number, even
including infinity (though the question has been posed: is "infinity"
really a number, or merely a concept? This leads to the next logical
question: is any number really a "number", or merely a concept for a
specific quantity, which self-expresses as an abstraction known as a
number?). Some mathematical tricksters and game players once postulated
that googol is the highest number possible or imaginable; one of them
then created the concept of "googolplex", which is the number ten raised
to the power of googol. George Gamow's classic One, Two, Three...Infinity
is an entertaining read, delving into the bewildering beauty of very
large numbers.

The Google search engine is infinite, claims Google corporate hype--a
bit of an irony since algorithms are finite sets of instructions, and it
is Google's own unique algorithm that powers and makes its engine work.

Be that as it may, Google returns some impressive results for most
search strings. But it also returns a lot of useless crap, and tons of
commercial garbage, including paid advertisements. If you have the
patience you can wade through this mess and find some truly useful
nuggets. As such, Google (and the many other search engines) are
invaluable research tools.

So other than returning useless trivia and advertisements, what's the
problem with Google? What's the big deal? In a nutshell, Google is
intrusive. It sets cookies that expire only well into eternity. It
retains search terms that can easily be linked with a user's IP. Maybe
you won't worry about it very much if your search string is "michigan
fly fishing resorts" or "apple pie recipes" or "george washington" or
"britney spears". But what if you're searching for "hamas"? Or "osama
bin laden"? Or "nuclear weapons manufacture" or "police brutality"? What
spy operation will those strings trigger? What police agencies will make
a note of your query, and of you? When you do a search on Google your
privacy is compromised.

Scroogle, started by Daniel Brandt and Public Information Research, is a
"Google scraper" (lierally, it "scrapes" Google's database) that
searches the Internet, and gives a high degree of anonymity to those who
search. It sets no cookies on your computer, does not keep IP records,
and search terms are deleted quickly, never retained. Spies looking to
find out who goes where will come up empty.

The ubiquitous ads that show up following a Google search are
conspicuously absent on Scroogle. But Scroogle, unlike Google, is not
about making money. It's about research. And politics. The small group
that operates and maintains Scroogle does so on a shoestring budget, but
their persistence is a political act: the Internet is for research, and
it is also a tool for open communication, a device for democratizing
both knowledge and technology.

The next time you do a web search, give Scroogle a try. Go to
http://www.scroogle.org, then click on the Google scraper button (or
Yahoo scraper, if you like), and then enter your search string.

Scroogle is asking for a few small donations to keep it going. It's
keepers make a compelling case for doing so (read the appeal below). You
can donate online at http://www.scroogle.org/donatesc.html (follow the
instructions and links given), or you can pay by check (made payable to
Public Information Research). Send it to Public Information Research, PO
Box 680635, San Antonio, Texas 78268. (PIR is a 501(c)3 corporation and
your contribution is tax deductible.)

Read on....

- --Bill Koehnlein



*****

Scroogle vs. Google

Scroogle
http://www.scroogle.org and http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm
and http://www.scroogle.org/donatesc.html


Why donate to Scroogle?

There are two reasons why an ad-free scraper of Google's main search
results is important. One reason is personal, and the other is
political.

On a personal level, your support for Scroogle says that search engines
should not be tracking you and retaining this information indefinitely.
Not only does Google scrape much of the web, but they keep records of
who searches for what. If information about your searching is accessible
by cookie ID or by your IP address, it is subject to subpoena. This is a
violation of your privacy. Someday Google's data retention practices
will be regulated, because Google is too arrogant to do the right thing
voluntarily. In the meantime, you should not be leaving your
fingerprints in Google's databases.

There are other proxies that can protect your privacy on the web. Almost
all are general-purpose proxies that cloak all of your web activity
behind an IP address that is not easily traced to your service provider.
One is Anonymizer.com. A possible problem with this one is that the
founder, Lance Cottrell, has connections with the FBI and the Voice of
America. It also costs money for a reasonable level of service. Another
is Tor, which is much more secure. But it is also slow, because Tor is a
complicated system that needs networks of volunteers to run server
software. Juvenile surfers from video pirates to rogue Wikipedia editors
tend to clog free services such as Tor, which slows them down even more.

Since Scroogle does just one thing, it is fairly fast and simple. But
because it does only one thing, it is vulnerable to action by Google.
They could block our IP address, which would require that we relay
requests to other servers that are more difficult for them to locate.
They could also centralize their system more in order to better detect
and throttle any outside address that does too many searches per minute.
Finally, they could make minor changes in their output format on a
regular basis, which would break our scraper and require frequent
reprogramming. Any of the above might quickly get too complex and
expensive for us, and that would be the end of Scroogle.

One action that Google is less likely to take is to serve Scroogle with
a cease and desist letter. This introduces the second reason why
Scroogle deserves support. As a nonprofit with a history of activism on
privacy issues, it would be difficult for Google to sue us on the
grounds that their search results and rankings are copyrighted. The main
reason for this is that we are noncommercial. None of our sites has ever
carried ads, we have zero employees, and our gross annual income is
about $10,000. Our lack of commercial intent strengthens our claim that
we have the right to scrape Google. It's obvious that we are doing it in
the public interest.

Showing Google's results without their ads is another political
statement. About 99 percent of Google's total revenue comes from ads,
and these are ruining the web. Thousands of "Made for AdSense" domains
are spewing garbage. Since these sites need content to trigger Google's
ads, they steal it by scraping legitimate sites, or generate their own
by purchasing junk from bulk writers. Meanwhile, click fraud is rampant.
Zombie botnets are used to click on ads. If you cannot afford to buy a
botnet from some shady character, then you can contract with someone in
a country where labor is cheap. They will hire people to click on ads
all day at below-minimum wage.

It's time to stop pretending that Google's revenue model is anything
more than a temporary bubble, and it's time for Google to start
developing more socially-responsible sources of income. Showing Google's
results without the ads amounts to more public-interest advocacy. It
says that the web spam situation is intolerable.

We remain vulnerable to blocking, throttling, or breaking by Google,
which unfortunately is legal if they decide to stop us. But the longer
Scroogle exists and the more our traffic grows, the stronger our
statements become. We cannot survive many more months without at least
one more server, even if Google leaves us alone. While we could apply
for foundation grants, our experience tells us that foundations are
about ten years behind on Internet and other high-tech issues. Any
funding proposals we send out would strike them as bizarre and
incomprehensible. It's not worth our time to send out proposals to
foundations.

That leaves us asking lots of Scroogle users for small contributions.
Searchers who prefer Scroogle are making a unique statement about
important issues. Nothing else we know of is making the same points as
effectively.


*



DemzRock
2007-03-03 15:24:44 EST
Interesting site David. Thanks.

Now, are there completely non-yahoo, non-google search engines that people
like?

I don't think I can give up yahoo and google/youtube completely, but it's
good to know alternatives.


"David Morgan (MAMS)" <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote in message
news:5mTFh.4338$854.160@trnddc04...
> Scroogle vs. Google (Article below)
>
> sent by Bill Koehnlein - Feb 28, 2007
>
>
> Scroogle vs Google
>
> Lost and forgotten in the deep trenches of the Internet is the
> mathematical origin of the word "google". It's a derivation of "googol",
> a word coined by Edward Kasner (or, actually, by his nine-year-old
> nephew, as the story goes), which is the number ten to the one-hundredth
> power, or the number one followed by one-hundred zeros. Most commonly,
> it is an abstraction connoting or expressing any very large number, even
> including infinity (though the question has been posed: is "infinity"
> really a number, or merely a concept? This leads to the next logical
> question: is any number really a "number", or merely a concept for a
> specific quantity, which self-expresses as an abstraction known as a
> number?). Some mathematical tricksters and game players once postulated
> that googol is the highest number possible or imaginable; one of them
> then created the concept of "googolplex", which is the number ten raised
> to the power of googol. George Gamow's classic One, Two, Three...Infinity
> is an entertaining read, delving into the bewildering beauty of very
> large numbers.
>
> The Google search engine is infinite, claims Google corporate hype--a
> bit of an irony since algorithms are finite sets of instructions, and it
> is Google's own unique algorithm that powers and makes its engine work.
>
> Be that as it may, Google returns some impressive results for most
> search strings. But it also returns a lot of useless crap, and tons of
> commercial garbage, including paid advertisements. If you have the
> patience you can wade through this mess and find some truly useful
> nuggets. As such, Google (and the many other search engines) are
> invaluable research tools.
>
> So other than returning useless trivia and advertisements, what's the
> problem with Google? What's the big deal? In a nutshell, Google is
> intrusive. It sets cookies that expire only well into eternity. It
> retains search terms that can easily be linked with a user's IP. Maybe
> you won't worry about it very much if your search string is "michigan
> fly fishing resorts" or "apple pie recipes" or "george washington" or
> "britney spears". But what if you're searching for "hamas"? Or "osama
> bin laden"? Or "nuclear weapons manufacture" or "police brutality"? What
> spy operation will those strings trigger? What police agencies will make
> a note of your query, and of you? When you do a search on Google your
> privacy is compromised.
>
> Scroogle, started by Daniel Brandt and Public Information Research, is a
> "Google scraper" (lierally, it "scrapes" Google's database) that
> searches the Internet, and gives a high degree of anonymity to those who
> search. It sets no cookies on your computer, does not keep IP records,
> and search terms are deleted quickly, never retained. Spies looking to
> find out who goes where will come up empty.
>
> The ubiquitous ads that show up following a Google search are
> conspicuously absent on Scroogle. But Scroogle, unlike Google, is not
> about making money. It's about research. And politics. The small group
> that operates and maintains Scroogle does so on a shoestring budget, but
> their persistence is a political act: the Internet is for research, and
> it is also a tool for open communication, a device for democratizing
> both knowledge and technology.
>
> The next time you do a web search, give Scroogle a try. Go to
> http://www.scroogle.org, then click on the Google scraper button (or
> Yahoo scraper, if you like), and then enter your search string.
>
> Scroogle is asking for a few small donations to keep it going. It's
> keepers make a compelling case for doing so (read the appeal below). You
> can donate online at http://www.scroogle.org/donatesc.html (follow the
> instructions and links given), or you can pay by check (made payable to
> Public Information Research). Send it to Public Information Research, PO
> Box 680635, San Antonio, Texas 78268. (PIR is a 501(c)3 corporation and
> your contribution is tax deductible.)
>
> Read on....
>
> - --Bill Koehnlein
>
>
>
> *****
>
> Scroogle vs. Google
>
> Scroogle
> http://www.scroogle.org and http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm
> and http://www.scroogle.org/donatesc.html
>
>
> Why donate to Scroogle?
>
> There are two reasons why an ad-free scraper of Google's main search
> results is important. One reason is personal, and the other is
> political.
>
> On a personal level, your support for Scroogle says that search engines
> should not be tracking you and retaining this information indefinitely.
> Not only does Google scrape much of the web, but they keep records of
> who searches for what. If information about your searching is accessible
> by cookie ID or by your IP address, it is subject to subpoena. This is a
> violation of your privacy. Someday Google's data retention practices
> will be regulated, because Google is too arrogant to do the right thing
> voluntarily. In the meantime, you should not be leaving your
> fingerprints in Google's databases.
>
> There are other proxies that can protect your privacy on the web. Almost
> all are general-purpose proxies that cloak all of your web activity
> behind an IP address that is not easily traced to your service provider.
> One is Anonymizer.com. A possible problem with this one is that the
> founder, Lance Cottrell, has connections with the FBI and the Voice of
> America. It also costs money for a reasonable level of service. Another
> is Tor, which is much more secure. But it is also slow, because Tor is a
> complicated system that needs networks of volunteers to run server
> software. Juvenile surfers from video pirates to rogue Wikipedia editors
> tend to clog free services such as Tor, which slows them down even more.
>
> Since Scroogle does just one thing, it is fairly fast and simple. But
> because it does only one thing, it is vulnerable to action by Google.
> They could block our IP address, which would require that we relay
> requests to other servers that are more difficult for them to locate.
> They could also centralize their system more in order to better detect
> and throttle any outside address that does too many searches per minute.
> Finally, they could make minor changes in their output format on a
> regular basis, which would break our scraper and require frequent
> reprogramming. Any of the above might quickly get too complex and
> expensive for us, and that would be the end of Scroogle.
>
> One action that Google is less likely to take is to serve Scroogle with
> a cease and desist letter. This introduces the second reason why
> Scroogle deserves support. As a nonprofit with a history of activism on
> privacy issues, it would be difficult for Google to sue us on the
> grounds that their search results and rankings are copyrighted. The main
> reason for this is that we are noncommercial. None of our sites has ever
> carried ads, we have zero employees, and our gross annual income is
> about $10,000. Our lack of commercial intent strengthens our claim that
> we have the right to scrape Google. It's obvious that we are doing it in
> the public interest.
>
> Showing Google's results without their ads is another political
> statement. About 99 percent of Google's total revenue comes from ads,
> and these are ruining the web. Thousands of "Made for AdSense" domains
> are spewing garbage. Since these sites need content to trigger Google's
> ads, they steal it by scraping legitimate sites, or generate their own
> by purchasing junk from bulk writers. Meanwhile, click fraud is rampant.
> Zombie botnets are used to click on ads. If you cannot afford to buy a
> botnet from some shady character, then you can contract with someone in
> a country where labor is cheap. They will hire people to click on ads
> all day at below-minimum wage.
>
> It's time to stop pretending that Google's revenue model is anything
> more than a temporary bubble, and it's time for Google to start
> developing more socially-responsible sources of income. Showing Google's
> results without the ads amounts to more public-interest advocacy. It
> says that the web spam situation is intolerable.
>
> We remain vulnerable to blocking, throttling, or breaking by Google,
> which unfortunately is legal if they decide to stop us. But the longer
> Scroogle exists and the more our traffic grows, the stronger our
> statements become. We cannot survive many more months without at least
> one more server, even if Google leaves us alone. While we could apply
> for foundation grants, our experience tells us that foundations are
> about ten years behind on Internet and other high-tech issues. Any
> funding proposals we send out would strike them as bizarre and
> incomprehensible. It's not worth our time to send out proposals to
> foundations.
>
> That leaves us asking lots of Scroogle users for small contributions.
> Searchers who prefer Scroogle are making a unique statement about
> important issues. Nothing else we know of is making the same points as
> effectively.
>
>
> *
>
>



David Morgan \MAMS\
2007-03-03 15:37:54 EST
What happened, if you recall.... is that a couple of years after 911, the federal
government sued Google for access to it's search history (record of IPAs making
inquiries) so they could try and pinpoint who was making focused inquiries regarding
911 or anything associated with potential hostility toward the new US Coup d'Etat.

In a compromise effort, Google was released from the suit... but in bargaining, they
altered the manner in which search results were returned. No longer did results
containing ALL of the key words come to the front of the search list... making a
fast and fact-filled search possible. Sometimes resluts containing ALL of the
key words will be thousands of pages deep in to the return list.... and of course,
Google's highly unique algorithyms are controllable... so subjects having to do
with, shall we say, 911, can be conpletely turned into a clusterfuck of irrelevant
responses, taking weeks to sort through.

They won the lawsuit in order to maintain their privacy hold on searchers, but in
exchange, virtually destroyed the effectiveness of their engine for use in 'sensitive'
research subjects.

DM



"DemzRock" <DemzRock@rock.com> wrote in message news:J6SdnWF8nPcRRHTYnZ2dnUVZ_oOonZ2d@comcast.com...
> Interesting site David. Thanks.
>
> Now, are there completely non-yahoo, non-google search engines that people
> like?
>
> I don't think I can give up yahoo and google/youtube completely, but it's
> good to know alternatives.
>
>
> "David Morgan (MAMS)" <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote in message
> news:5mTFh.4338$854.160@trnddc04...
> > Scroogle vs. Google (Article below)
> >
> > sent by Bill Koehnlein - Feb 28, 2007
> >
> >
> > Scroogle vs Google
> >
> > Lost and forgotten in the deep trenches of the Internet is the
> > mathematical origin of the word "google". It's a derivation of "googol",
> > a word coined by Edward Kasner (or, actually, by his nine-year-old
> > nephew, as the story goes), which is the number ten to the one-hundredth
> > power, or the number one followed by one-hundred zeros. Most commonly,
> > it is an abstraction connoting or expressing any very large number, even
> > including infinity (though the question has been posed: is "infinity"
> > really a number, or merely a concept? This leads to the next logical
> > question: is any number really a "number", or merely a concept for a
> > specific quantity, which self-expresses as an abstraction known as a
> > number?). Some mathematical tricksters and game players once postulated
> > that googol is the highest number possible or imaginable; one of them
> > then created the concept of "googolplex", which is the number ten raised
> > to the power of googol. George Gamow's classic One, Two, Three...Infinity
> > is an entertaining read, delving into the bewildering beauty of very
> > large numbers.
> >
> > The Google search engine is infinite, claims Google corporate hype--a
> > bit of an irony since algorithms are finite sets of instructions, and it
> > is Google's own unique algorithm that powers and makes its engine work.
> >
> > Be that as it may, Google returns some impressive results for most
> > search strings. But it also returns a lot of useless crap, and tons of
> > commercial garbage, including paid advertisements. If you have the
> > patience you can wade through this mess and find some truly useful
> > nuggets. As such, Google (and the many other search engines) are
> > invaluable research tools.
> >
> > So other than returning useless trivia and advertisements, what's the
> > problem with Google? What's the big deal? In a nutshell, Google is
> > intrusive. It sets cookies that expire only well into eternity. It
> > retains search terms that can easily be linked with a user's IP. Maybe
> > you won't worry about it very much if your search string is "michigan
> > fly fishing resorts" or "apple pie recipes" or "george washington" or
> > "britney spears". But what if you're searching for "hamas"? Or "osama
> > bin laden"? Or "nuclear weapons manufacture" or "police brutality"? What
> > spy operation will those strings trigger? What police agencies will make
> > a note of your query, and of you? When you do a search on Google your
> > privacy is compromised.
> >
> > Scroogle, started by Daniel Brandt and Public Information Research, is a
> > "Google scraper" (lierally, it "scrapes" Google's database) that
> > searches the Internet, and gives a high degree of anonymity to those who
> > search. It sets no cookies on your computer, does not keep IP records,
> > and search terms are deleted quickly, never retained. Spies looking to
> > find out who goes where will come up empty.
> >
> > The ubiquitous ads that show up following a Google search are
> > conspicuously absent on Scroogle. But Scroogle, unlike Google, is not
> > about making money. It's about research. And politics. The small group
> > that operates and maintains Scroogle does so on a shoestring budget, but
> > their persistence is a political act: the Internet is for research, and
> > it is also a tool for open communication, a device for democratizing
> > both knowledge and technology.
> >
> > The next time you do a web search, give Scroogle a try. Go to
> > http://www.scroogle.org, then click on the Google scraper button (or
> > Yahoo scraper, if you like), and then enter your search string.
> >
> > Scroogle is asking for a few small donations to keep it going. It's
> > keepers make a compelling case for doing so (read the appeal below). You
> > can donate online at http://www.scroogle.org/donatesc.html (follow the
> > instructions and links given), or you can pay by check (made payable to
> > Public Information Research). Send it to Public Information Research, PO
> > Box 680635, San Antonio, Texas 78268. (PIR is a 501(c)3 corporation and
> > your contribution is tax deductible.)
> >
> > Read on....
> >
> > - --Bill Koehnlein
> >
> >
> >
> > *****
> >
> > Scroogle vs. Google
> >
> > Scroogle
> > http://www.scroogle.org and http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm
> > and http://www.scroogle.org/donatesc.html
> >
> >
> > Why donate to Scroogle?
> >
> > There are two reasons why an ad-free scraper of Google's main search
> > results is important. One reason is personal, and the other is
> > political.
> >
> > On a personal level, your support for Scroogle says that search engines
> > should not be tracking you and retaining this information indefinitely.
> > Not only does Google scrape much of the web, but they keep records of
> > who searches for what. If information about your searching is accessible
> > by cookie ID or by your IP address, it is subject to subpoena. This is a
> > violation of your privacy. Someday Google's data retention practices
> > will be regulated, because Google is too arrogant to do the right thing
> > voluntarily. In the meantime, you should not be leaving your
> > fingerprints in Google's databases.
> >
> > There are other proxies that can protect your privacy on the web. Almost
> > all are general-purpose proxies that cloak all of your web activity
> > behind an IP address that is not easily traced to your service provider.
> > One is Anonymizer.com. A possible problem with this one is that the
> > founder, Lance Cottrell, has connections with the FBI and the Voice of
> > America. It also costs money for a reasonable level of service. Another
> > is Tor, which is much more secure. But it is also slow, because Tor is a
> > complicated system that needs networks of volunteers to run server
> > software. Juvenile surfers from video pirates to rogue Wikipedia editors
> > tend to clog free services such as Tor, which slows them down even more.
> >
> > Since Scroogle does just one thing, it is fairly fast and simple. But
> > because it does only one thing, it is vulnerable to action by Google.
> > They could block our IP address, which would require that we relay
> > requests to other servers that are more difficult for them to locate.
> > They could also centralize their system more in order to better detect
> > and throttle any outside address that does too many searches per minute.
> > Finally, they could make minor changes in their output format on a
> > regular basis, which would break our scraper and require frequent
> > reprogramming. Any of the above might quickly get too complex and
> > expensive for us, and that would be the end of Scroogle.
> >
> > One action that Google is less likely to take is to serve Scroogle with
> > a cease and desist letter. This introduces the second reason why
> > Scroogle deserves support. As a nonprofit with a history of activism on
> > privacy issues, it would be difficult for Google to sue us on the
> > grounds that their search results and rankings are copyrighted. The main
> > reason for this is that we are noncommercial. None of our sites has ever
> > carried ads, we have zero employees, and our gross annual income is
> > about $10,000. Our lack of commercial intent strengthens our claim that
> > we have the right to scrape Google. It's obvious that we are doing it in
> > the public interest.
> >
> > Showing Google's results without their ads is another political
> > statement. About 99 percent of Google's total revenue comes from ads,
> > and these are ruining the web. Thousands of "Made for AdSense" domains
> > are spewing garbage. Since these sites need content to trigger Google's
> > ads, they steal it by scraping legitimate sites, or generate their own
> > by purchasing junk from bulk writers. Meanwhile, click fraud is rampant.
> > Zombie botnets are used to click on ads. If you cannot afford to buy a
> > botnet from some shady character, then you can contract with someone in
> > a country where labor is cheap. They will hire people to click on ads
> > all day at below-minimum wage.
> >
> > It's time to stop pretending that Google's revenue model is anything
> > more than a temporary bubble, and it's time for Google to start
> > developing more socially-responsible sources of income. Showing Google's
> > results without the ads amounts to more public-interest advocacy. It
> > says that the web spam situation is intolerable.
> >
> > We remain vulnerable to blocking, throttling, or breaking by Google,
> > which unfortunately is legal if they decide to stop us. But the longer
> > Scroogle exists and the more our traffic grows, the stronger our
> > statements become. We cannot survive many more months without at least
> > one more server, even if Google leaves us alone. While we could apply
> > for foundation grants, our experience tells us that foundations are
> > about ten years behind on Internet and other high-tech issues. Any
> > funding proposals we send out would strike them as bizarre and
> > incomprehensible. It's not worth our time to send out proposals to
> > foundations.
> >
> > That leaves us asking lots of Scroogle users for small contributions.
> > Searchers who prefer Scroogle are making a unique statement about
> > important issues. Nothing else we know of is making the same points as
> > effectively.
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
>
>



David Morgan \MAMS\
2007-03-03 15:48:08 EST

"DemzRock" <DemzRock@rock.com> wrote in message news:J6SdnWF8nPcRRHTYnZ2dnUVZ_oOonZ2d@comcast.com...
> Interesting site David. Thanks.
>
> Now, are there completely non-yahoo, non-google search engines that people
> like?
>
> I don't think I can give up yahoo and google/youtube completely, but it's
> good to know alternatives.


By the way... I quit using Yahoo! a long time ago, because they caved in
and provide all of their IPA inquiry info to the government.



Infiltrator
2007-03-03 16:34:21 EST
Using Scroogle is not enough. You guys also need the secure connection
to the server.

DemzRock
2007-03-03 17:37:28 EST
You know, I've noticed that it was getting harder to find stuff on google
for a while. Some things seem to get a bunch of irrelevant stuff, other
searches seem to result in zip. And their news search is pathetic. Yahoo
is sometimes better but often worse.

I've been looking around, and I found a couple of alternatives that seem
interesting... Here's an example...

If you put +bbc +wtc7 into yahoo news search you get 0 (zero) responses!

If you put +bbc +wtc7 into google news search you get 4 responses.

If you put +bbc +wtc7 into acoona you get 11 news responses, granted 4 of
them are German, but is that bad?

Here's a link to a list of 100 top alternative search engines....

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/top_100_alternative_search_engines.php



"David Morgan (MAMS)" <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote in message
news:C0lGh.777$NA4.594@trnddc07...
> What happened, if you recall.... is that a couple of years after 911, the
> federal
> government sued Google for access to it's search history (record of IPAs
> making
> inquiries) so they could try and pinpoint who was making focused inquiries
> regarding
> 911 or anything associated with potential hostility toward the new US Coup
> d'Etat.
>
> In a compromise effort, Google was released from the suit... but in
> bargaining, they
> altered the manner in which search results were returned. No longer did
> results
> containing ALL of the key words come to the front of the search list...
> making a
> fast and fact-filled search possible. Sometimes resluts containing ALL of
> the
> key words will be thousands of pages deep in to the return list.... and of
> course,
> Google's highly unique algorithyms are controllable... so subjects having
> to do
> with, shall we say, 911, can be conpletely turned into a clusterfuck of
> irrelevant
> responses, taking weeks to sort through.
>
> They won the lawsuit in order to maintain their privacy hold on searchers,
> but in
> exchange, virtually destroyed the effectiveness of their engine for use in
> 'sensitive'
> research subjects.
>
> DM
>
>
>
> "DemzRock" <DemzRock@rock.com> wrote in message
> news:J6SdnWF8nPcRRHTYnZ2dnUVZ_oOonZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Interesting site David. Thanks.
>>
>> Now, are there completely non-yahoo, non-google search engines that
>> people
>> like?
>>
>> I don't think I can give up yahoo and google/youtube completely, but it's
>> good to know alternatives.
>>
>>
>> "David Morgan (MAMS)" <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote in message
>> news:5mTFh.4338$854.160@trnddc04...
>> > Scroogle vs. Google (Article below)
>> >
>> > sent by Bill Koehnlein - Feb 28, 2007
>> >
>> >
>> > Scroogle vs Google
>> >
>> > Lost and forgotten in the deep trenches of the Internet is the
>> > mathematical origin of the word "google". It's a derivation of
>> > "googol",
>> > a word coined by Edward Kasner (or, actually, by his nine-year-old
>> > nephew, as the story goes), which is the number ten to the
>> > one-hundredth
>> > power, or the number one followed by one-hundred zeros. Most commonly,
>> > it is an abstraction connoting or expressing any very large number,
>> > even
>> > including infinity (though the question has been posed: is "infinity"
>> > really a number, or merely a concept? This leads to the next logical
>> > question: is any number really a "number", or merely a concept for a
>> > specific quantity, which self-expresses as an abstraction known as a
>> > number?). Some mathematical tricksters and game players once postulated
>> > that googol is the highest number possible or imaginable; one of them
>> > then created the concept of "googolplex", which is the number ten
>> > raised
>> > to the power of googol. George Gamow's classic One, Two,
>> > Three...Infinity
>> > is an entertaining read, delving into the bewildering beauty of very
>> > large numbers.
>> >
>> > The Google search engine is infinite, claims Google corporate hype--a
>> > bit of an irony since algorithms are finite sets of instructions, and
>> > it
>> > is Google's own unique algorithm that powers and makes its engine work.
>> >
>> > Be that as it may, Google returns some impressive results for most
>> > search strings. But it also returns a lot of useless crap, and tons of
>> > commercial garbage, including paid advertisements. If you have the
>> > patience you can wade through this mess and find some truly useful
>> > nuggets. As such, Google (and the many other search engines) are
>> > invaluable research tools.
>> >
>> > So other than returning useless trivia and advertisements, what's the
>> > problem with Google? What's the big deal? In a nutshell, Google is
>> > intrusive. It sets cookies that expire only well into eternity. It
>> > retains search terms that can easily be linked with a user's IP. Maybe
>> > you won't worry about it very much if your search string is "michigan
>> > fly fishing resorts" or "apple pie recipes" or "george washington" or
>> > "britney spears". But what if you're searching for "hamas"? Or "osama
>> > bin laden"? Or "nuclear weapons manufacture" or "police brutality"?
>> > What
>> > spy operation will those strings trigger? What police agencies will
>> > make
>> > a note of your query, and of you? When you do a search on Google your
>> > privacy is compromised.
>> >
>> > Scroogle, started by Daniel Brandt and Public Information Research, is
>> > a
>> > "Google scraper" (lierally, it "scrapes" Google's database) that
>> > searches the Internet, and gives a high degree of anonymity to those
>> > who
>> > search. It sets no cookies on your computer, does not keep IP records,
>> > and search terms are deleted quickly, never retained. Spies looking to
>> > find out who goes where will come up empty.
>> >
>> > The ubiquitous ads that show up following a Google search are
>> > conspicuously absent on Scroogle. But Scroogle, unlike Google, is not
>> > about making money. It's about research. And politics. The small group
>> > that operates and maintains Scroogle does so on a shoestring budget,
>> > but
>> > their persistence is a political act: the Internet is for research, and
>> > it is also a tool for open communication, a device for democratizing
>> > both knowledge and technology.
>> >
>> > The next time you do a web search, give Scroogle a try. Go to
>> > http://www.scroogle.org, then click on the Google scraper button (or
>> > Yahoo scraper, if you like), and then enter your search string.
>> >
>> > Scroogle is asking for a few small donations to keep it going. It's
>> > keepers make a compelling case for doing so (read the appeal below).
>> > You
>> > can donate online at http://www.scroogle.org/donatesc.html (follow the
>> > instructions and links given), or you can pay by check (made payable to
>> > Public Information Research). Send it to Public Information Research,
>> > PO
>> > Box 680635, San Antonio, Texas 78268. (PIR is a 501(c)3 corporation and
>> > your contribution is tax deductible.)
>> >
>> > Read on....
>> >
>> > - --Bill Koehnlein
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > *****
>> >
>> > Scroogle vs. Google
>> >
>> > Scroogle
>> > http://www.scroogle.org and http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm
>> > and http://www.scroogle.org/donatesc.html
>> >
>> >
>> > Why donate to Scroogle?
>> >
>> > There are two reasons why an ad-free scraper of Google's main search
>> > results is important. One reason is personal, and the other is
>> > political.
>> >
>> > On a personal level, your support for Scroogle says that search engines
>> > should not be tracking you and retaining this information indefinitely.
>> > Not only does Google scrape much of the web, but they keep records of
>> > who searches for what. If information about your searching is
>> > accessible
>> > by cookie ID or by your IP address, it is subject to subpoena. This is
>> > a
>> > violation of your privacy. Someday Google's data retention practices
>> > will be regulated, because Google is too arrogant to do the right thing
>> > voluntarily. In the meantime, you should not be leaving your
>> > fingerprints in Google's databases.
>> >
>> > There are other proxies that can protect your privacy on the web.
>> > Almost
>> > all are general-purpose proxies that cloak all of your web activity
>> > behind an IP address that is not easily traced to your service
>> > provider.
>> > One is Anonymizer.com. A possible problem with this one is that the
>> > founder, Lance Cottrell, has connections with the FBI and the Voice of
>> > America. It also costs money for a reasonable level of service. Another
>> > is Tor, which is much more secure. But it is also slow, because Tor is
>> > a
>> > complicated system that needs networks of volunteers to run server
>> > software. Juvenile surfers from video pirates to rogue Wikipedia
>> > editors
>> > tend to clog free services such as Tor, which slows them down even
>> > more.
>> >
>> > Since Scroogle does just one thing, it is fairly fast and simple. But
>> > because it does only one thing, it is vulnerable to action by Google.
>> > They could block our IP address, which would require that we relay
>> > requests to other servers that are more difficult for them to locate.
>> > They could also centralize their system more in order to better detect
>> > and throttle any outside address that does too many searches per
>> > minute.
>> > Finally, they could make minor changes in their output format on a
>> > regular basis, which would break our scraper and require frequent
>> > reprogramming. Any of the above might quickly get too complex and
>> > expensive for us, and that would be the end of Scroogle.
>> >
>> > One action that Google is less likely to take is to serve Scroogle with
>> > a cease and desist letter. This introduces the second reason why
>> > Scroogle deserves support. As a nonprofit with a history of activism on
>> > privacy issues, it would be difficult for Google to sue us on the
>> > grounds that their search results and rankings are copyrighted. The
>> > main
>> > reason for this is that we are noncommercial. None of our sites has
>> > ever
>> > carried ads, we have zero employees, and our gross annual income is
>> > about $10,000. Our lack of commercial intent strengthens our claim that
>> > we have the right to scrape Google. It's obvious that we are doing it
>> > in
>> > the public interest.
>> >
>> > Showing Google's results without their ads is another political
>> > statement. About 99 percent of Google's total revenue comes from ads,
>> > and these are ruining the web. Thousands of "Made for AdSense" domains
>> > are spewing garbage. Since these sites need content to trigger Google's
>> > ads, they steal it by scraping legitimate sites, or generate their own
>> > by purchasing junk from bulk writers. Meanwhile, click fraud is
>> > rampant.
>> > Zombie botnets are used to click on ads. If you cannot afford to buy a
>> > botnet from some shady character, then you can contract with someone in
>> > a country where labor is cheap. They will hire people to click on ads
>> > all day at below-minimum wage.
>> >
>> > It's time to stop pretending that Google's revenue model is anything
>> > more than a temporary bubble, and it's time for Google to start
>> > developing more socially-responsible sources of income. Showing
>> > Google's
>> > results without the ads amounts to more public-interest advocacy. It
>> > says that the web spam situation is intolerable.
>> >
>> > We remain vulnerable to blocking, throttling, or breaking by Google,
>> > which unfortunately is legal if they decide to stop us. But the longer
>> > Scroogle exists and the more our traffic grows, the stronger our
>> > statements become. We cannot survive many more months without at least
>> > one more server, even if Google leaves us alone. While we could apply
>> > for foundation grants, our experience tells us that foundations are
>> > about ten years behind on Internet and other high-tech issues. Any
>> > funding proposals we send out would strike them as bizarre and
>> > incomprehensible. It's not worth our time to send out proposals to
>> > foundations.
>> >
>> > That leaves us asking lots of Scroogle users for small contributions.
>> > Searchers who prefer Scroogle are making a unique statement about
>> > important issues. Nothing else we know of is making the same points as
>> > effectively.
>> >
>> >
>> > *
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>



David Morgan \MAMS\
2007-03-03 18:10:11 EST

"DemzRock" <DemzRock@rock.com> wrote in message...

> You know, I've noticed that it was getting harder to find stuff on google
> for a while. Some things seem to get a bunch of irrelevant stuff, other
> searches seem to result in zip.

It's all about the new algorithm failing to prioritize returns based on returning
all references to the total number of key words used, first. Now they're just
scattered all through the total return list.... varying, of course, on the national
'sensitivity' of the subject matter.

> And their news search is pathetic.

Use this link for searching 'newsgroups'....
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search

However, usually at the top of the first return page on a normal search, you
will see an option for searching newsgroups with the same crtieria.

> If you put +bbc +wtc7 into acoona you get 11 news responses, granted 4 of
> them are German, but is that bad?

Yes... that sucks... you can get 50 responses on YouTube... but a better
search string would be to add 911 and comma delineate.



> Here's a link to a list of 100 top alternative search engines....
>
> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/top_100_alternative_search_engines.php


Page: 1   (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron