Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scroogle Has Been Blocked

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the well-that's-not-very-nice dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Scroogle, the secure third-party Google search interface, has been blocked by Google. Scroogle was an SSL-based search proxy that enabled one to search for and receive Google results over an SSL connection in a pseudo-anonymous manner."

22 of 281 comments (clear)

  1. Scroogle by sopssa · · Score: 4, Informative

    While I would love to see a good rant towards Google and while I also myself use Scroogle, the summary isn't really being truthful. Google hasn't blocked anything, they just changed the page that Scroogle scrapes and they're throwing a hissy fit about it.

    From the Scroogle announcement:

    We regret to announce that our Google scraper may have to be permanently retired, thanks to a change at Google.

    That interface was at www.google.com/ie but on May 10, 2010 they took it down and inserted a redirect to /toolbar/ie8/sidebar.html. It used to have a search box, and the results it showed were generic during that entire time.

    Now that interface is gone. It is not possible to continue Scroogle unless we have a simple interface that is stable. Google's main consumer-oriented interface that they want everyone to use is too complex, and changes too frequently, to make our scraping operation possible.

    Google changing something isn't exactly "blocking" a third party service. Even more so, it's just a few lines of code to get the results from main Google search too. All the search results and links have approciate html ID's associated to them and it's been the same for years already.

    I have no idea why Scroogle is bitching about this.

    Oh well. I changed to use ixquick, which also has the added benefit of being located in the Germany rather than US and a lot better and useful interface.

    -sopssa

    1. Re:Scroogle by sopssa · · Score: 5, Informative

      From the FAQ:

      European Privacy Seal
      On July 14th 2008 Ixquick received the first European Privacy Seal from European Data Protection Supervisor Mr. Peter Hustinx. The Seal officially confirms the privacy promises we make to our users. It makes Ixquick the first and only EU-approved search engine. Both EU Commissioner Viviane Reding and Dr.Thilo Weichert, German Privacy Commissioner complemented Ixquick on its privacy achievements.
      You can find the press release here.

      Since I am in EU, it also means US can't just randomly get data that doesn't belong to them, ie. for people from other countries. Frankly, EU and European countries take privacy a lot more seriously, for historical reasons too.

    2. Re:Scroogle by Jer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What's more, the link they were scraping off of [www.google.com/ie] seems to be related to Google's support of Internet Explorer. Since it's been replaced with a "go get IE 8" page, it's probably been dumped to encourage people to dump their older versions of IE and get something newer.

    3. Re:Scroogle by cmiller173 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You sir are absolutely correct. Anyone who writes an application based on screen scraping should expect changes to happen and not act surprised when they do. Besides doesn't Google have a freaking search API? http://code.google.com/apis/ajaxsearch/

    4. Re:Scroogle by JustinOpinion · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed. Scroogle sounds like a good idea... but it's a service that exists parasitically to Google proper. I'm not trying to imply anything unethical by using the word "parasite", but this really is a situation where Scroogle uses Google's capabilities/services without contributing anything back to Google. This is fine to the extent that Google tolerates it. But they are under no obligation to make accommodations to keep these third-party services running smoothly. TFA says "It's not as if Google needs the money" which seems rather uncharitable given that Google has put up with Scroogle's operations for many years now without any complaints or blocking attempts (that I'm aware of). And Google does need some money (they would have to shut down if everyone used their services through Scroogle...).

      Scroogle needs to either adjust their service to keep up with Google's changes, or make a business case to Google for why it is in their best interest to provide a stable interface/API for third-party redistributors like them. The implication in TFA that they are somehow entitled to this interface/API/access is really silly.

    5. Re:Scroogle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A couple fun facts about Scroogle:
      1. Since Scroogle hit multiple Google IPs, it used to be possible to search the same keywords 5 or 6 times in a row and see the variation in page rank. Great for web site owners to see how they ranked.
      2. Scroogle dot COM is NSFW at all, so when telling people about Scroogle it was usually CRUCIAL to emphasize the dot ORG part of the domain. At a previous job I made the mistake of telling my boss about it without emphasizing the dot ORG part and, well... he got an eyeful of the wrong type of "org"...

    6. Re:Scroogle by Jer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The linked article does use the title "Scroogle has been blocked" when, really, they haven't been blocked at all. They're free to change their code to work with the various other methods of accessing Google - like perhaps using the publicly available API that Google provides. Since I've never used the API I'm not sure exactly what technical limitations it imposes that make screen scraping a better alternative to the API for privacy concerns. Anyone have an idea why they would need to use a screen scraper to anonymize connections instead of using the API?

    7. Re:Scroogle by logjon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not sure which US you live in, but here in the US I'm a citizen of, the government has unfettered access to communications, digital and otherwise. The patriot act took the last of American privacy, and with a hearty chuckle, wiped its ass with the remainder of the fourth amendment.

      --
      The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
      Only fools would take it as fact.
    8. Re:Scroogle by _xeno_ · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because if they did that, they'd be forced to abide by the search Terms of Service. And they appear to be violating Section 1.4.

      By using the generic web robot approach, they're allowed to scrape Google based on the same concepts that allow Google to scrape third party web pages in the first place.

      From Google's robots.txt:
      User-agent: *
      [snip]
      Disallow: /ie?

      Well, OK, so they're not obeying robots.txt in the first place. But ignoring that one pesky fact, uh...

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    9. Re:Scroogle by clone53421 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It’s not a fully-automated tool, therefore not a robot. It scrapes the page only once at a real user’s direct request.

      As such it is no different from a browser (which also scrapes – downloads, parses, and translates into useful format – a page once at a user’s direct request)...

      or, for that matter, any different from the IE search interface that the /ie path was meant to support!

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  2. They didn't block it... by stagg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you RTFA you'll notice that Google didn't block Scroogle, they just upgraded without consideration to its functionality. As soon as someone can explain why Google WOULD have Scroogle on a dependency chart we can all put our conspiracy hats back on.

    1. Re:They didn't block it... by enaso1970 · · Score: 5, Funny

      They WOULD because if you change some letters in Roswell and add one, you get Scroogle! Isn't it obvious???! It should be to the aliens who run Google. Clearly the government has you in their clutches - only an upgrade to TinFoilHat 2.3 will save you.

  3. The Summary Lies! by dancingmilk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What a horrible summary. Google didn't block anything, they just changed the page that Scroogle scrapes off of. Scroogle claims that they need a "simple" interface to scrape off of. Sounds to me like they are too lazy to adjust their service.

    1. Re:The Summary Lies! by natehoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Scroogle has the absolute right to a refund for any and all money that they have paid Google because Google isn't living up to the contract where Scroogle pays Google for a stable connec... wait, what was that? Oh, I see. Never mind.

      Scroogle may be providing a service that people value, but they are still using Google to do it, and not paying Google for that access. Google is tolerating this, which is all well and good, but they are under absolutely no obligation to make sure the connection is unchanged. Sites change all the time, and anyone who employs scraping technology as part of their technological solution should not be surprised when they do.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  4. Duck Duck Go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I used to use Scroogle for privacy reasons, but switched to Duck Duck Go a few weeks ago. It is quickly becoming a great privacy-respecting alternative to Google and often gives more relevant results than Google.

  5. Umm by mindstrm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When google wants them to stop, they'll be hearing from lawyers........ not just finding that google changed their page layout.

  6. Ah, Don't be evil? by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They are being Evil. They have a perpetual obligation to keep every single feature in a time-freeze so that third parties can use them as they see fit!

    Ah, wait, no they don't.

    There is an assload of meta-search engines out there. Scroogle seems to be the only one that has been affected. That's because they were saving bandwidth, processor usage, and programmer's time by using the same fucking simple interface for the last 5 years. So, they've been using an old interface that existed for the SOLE PURPOSE of being compatible with shitty old IE versions .... now that google pulls it out, they bitch about it? Come on ...

    Here is what I hate: Everyone is complaining about the privacy concerns with many services, but nobody stops using them! Everyone feels they have the right for every service to work they way they want it to. Guess what, you don't. You don't like google? Stop using it!. I don't like microsoft. I Don't like anything from them. So, I don't use ANYTHING FROM THEM. Not their software, nor their services, nothing. On the other hand, we have people cracking their software and complaining when they are evil. They ARE evil? stay the hell away from it.

    I'm really tired of this privacy-concerns constant circle-jerking. Stop using the shit you don't like. Simple, huh?

    --
    WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
  7. Need for anonymous search engine by Enderandrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is this the same company that started anonymizing search logs sooner and refused to hand over search data to the US?

    Is there a reason why you NEED a more anonymous search engine? And can you trust the other party you're going through isn't logging your search inquiries?

    Ultimately it comes down to who you trust more. I just don't understand why no one trusts Google when they have the cleanest track record out there.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  8. Seriously, change the header by valadaar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No other comment - this is simply factually wrong. Let me know when Scroogle can't even resolve Google servers, then they are truly blocked.

  9. www.google.com/ie gone -- also used by the blind. by bpechter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The wife used the www.google.com/ie interface for accessability reasons. It worked much better for her with her screen reader. She's totally blind. She'll miss the interface and I know there were others using it for the same reason.

  10. Re:I don't get it - why "scrape" at all? by MartinSchou · · Score: 5, Informative

    Doesn't that one require a key that only supports 1,000 searches per day?

    That kind of thing would make Scroogle useless. And since Scroogle has no interest in paying Google for the results, they aren't going to purchase the kind of access they'd like to have.

  11. Re:www.google.com/ie gone -- also used by the blin by mea37 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm legally blind (but not to the extent that I require a screen-reader) and certainly I advocate for accessability features. But, just like the /ie interface wasn't intended to be a stable screen-scraping interface for Scroogle, it wasn't intended to be an accessability feature. That's the problem with using things in unsupported ways. Sure, they may work now - but you have no assurances going forward.

    I'd suggest your wife, and anyone else who finds Google's support for low-vision users lacking, contact them and start lobbying for a proper solution that they will then have proper knowledge of and reason to support.