141–150 of 276 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What kind of migitations? How would you detect the poison fountain?
style="display: none;" aria-hidden="true" tabindex="1" many scraper already know not to follow these, as it's how site used to "cheat" pagerank serving keyword soups
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because of bots that don't respect ROBOTS.txt . If you want an AI bot to crawl your website while you pay for that bandwidth then you wont use the tool.
If bandwidth cost is a concern the maybe you should reconsider how you publish your site. Like, what if you actually post something that gains traction, is it going to bankrupt you or something?
It's not just some light bump in traffic. It's a headache that shouldn't need to be dealt with if they would respect ROBOTS.txt. Quite simple really.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So we should all just do nothing and accept the inevitable? I daresay rate-limiting will result in better outcomes than well-poisoning with hidden links that are against the policies of search engines. Lots of potential for collateral damage, including your own websites' reputations and search visibility, with the well-poisoning approach.
To be honest who cares about Google search anymore it's pretty useless these days.
I dunno... it feels like the same approach as those people who tell you gleeful stories of how they kept a phone spammer on a call for 45 minutes: "That'll teach 'em, ha ha!" Do these types of techniques really work? I’m not convinced. Also, inserting hidden or misleading links is specifically a no-no for Google Search [0], who have this to say: We detect policy-violating practices both through automated systems and,…
Also, inserting hidden or misleading links is specifically a no-no for Google Search [0] Depending on your goals, this may be a pro or a con. I, personally, would like to see a return of "small web" human-centric communities. If there were tools that include anti-scraping, anti-Google (and other large search crawlers) as well as a small web search index for humans to find these sites, this idea becomes a real possibi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you're totally right about not being theft, but we have a term. you used it yourself, "distributed denial of service". that's all it is. these crawlers should be kicked off the internet for abuse. people should contact the isp of origin.
Firstly, since this argument is about semantic pedantry anyways, it's just denial-of-service, not distributed denial-of-service. AI scraper requests come from centralized servers, not a botnet. Secondly, denial-of-service implies intentionality and malice that I don't think is present from AI scrapers. They cause huge problems, but only as a negligent byproduct of other goals. I think that the tragedy of the commons…
> If you have a public website, they are already stealing your work. I have a public website, and web scrapers are stealing my work. I just stole this article, and you are stealing my comment. Thieves, thieves, and nothing but thieves!
If someone hands out cookies in the supermarket, are you allowed to grab everything and leave?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, inserting hidden or misleading links is specifically a no-no for Google Search [0] Depending on your goals, this may be a pro or a con. I, personally, would like to see a return of "small web" human-centric communities. If there were tools that include anti-scraping, anti-Google (and other large search crawlers) as well as a small web search index for humans to find these sites, this idea becomes a real possibi…
It’s easy to opt out of being indexed by Google.
I dunno... it feels like the same approach as those people who tell you gleeful stories of how they kept a phone spammer on a call for 45 minutes: "That'll teach 'em, ha ha!" Do these types of techniques really work? I’m not convinced. Also, inserting hidden or misleading links is specifically a no-no for Google Search [0], who have this to say: We detect policy-violating practices both through automated systems and,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
how about this analogy: I created a most tasty cookie recipe. I give it out for free, and all copies have my name because I am vain person who likes to be known far and wide as the best baking chef ever. Is it ok to get the recipe, remove my name, and write in LLM-Codex as the creator? again, i'm ok with giving the recipe for free, i just want my name out there.
>Is it ok to get the recipe, remove my name, and write in LLM-Codex as the creator? again, i'm ok with giving the recipe for free, i just want my name out there. From a legal perspective, it's a pretty clear "no". The instructions in recipes aren't copyrightable. The moral question is more ambiguous, but it's still pretty weak. Most recipes are uncredited, and it's unclear why someone can force everyone to attribute…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you're totally right about not being theft, but we have a term. you used it yourself, "distributed denial of service". that's all it is. these crawlers should be kicked off the internet for abuse. people should contact the isp of origin.
Firstly, since this argument is about semantic pedantry anyways, it's just denial-of-service, not distributed denial-of-service. AI scraper requests come from centralized servers, not a botnet. Secondly, denial-of-service implies intentionality and malice that I don't think is present from AI scrapers. They cause huge problems, but only as a negligent byproduct of other goals. I think that the tragedy of the commons…