11
\$\begingroup\$

I just discovered that this question posted here on Electronics StackExchange, as well as its answers, including an original illustration I created for the answer, also shows up on a site called rqgg.net, under Home > Science > Electrical Engineering.

Basically they seemingly mirror all content from EE.SE and many other sites.

I could not find any attribution of actual source for the question or answers (names are carried through), nor any official link to StackExchange. Further, and this is what irks me, clicking on contributor names on that site does not take you to a profile of said contributor.

In other words, that site is providing information mirrored from EE.SE without the contributors gaining even the hypothetical benefit of having their profile / contact information visible to people reading the posts.

What is the best way to either have such a site taken down, or if it is somehow licensed content, ensuring that contributor profiles are also mirrored?

http://www.rqgg.net/topic/pzxzx-how-to-measure-velocity-of-a-closing-door.html

\$\endgroup\$
  • 10
    \$\begingroup\$ This Q should have been on the normal EE.SE, and not in Meta. That way it would be automagically copied to RQGG and people there could see what a bunch of losers RQGG is ran by. Subversion -- it's what's for dinner! :) \$\endgroup\$ – user3624 Jul 21 '13 at 15:10
  • \$\begingroup\$ @DavidKessner ROTFL! Sneaky! \$\endgroup\$ – Anindo Ghosh Jul 21 '13 at 15:24
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Scumbags happen. Against the letter and spirit of this ste's licence. FWIW. \$\endgroup\$ – Russell McMahon Jul 30 '13 at 11:33
11
\$\begingroup\$

That site seems to violate the attribution and linking requirements of the StackExchange network, so I think the answer is to report the site here on Meta.SO:

Report sites that use Stack Exchange content without following attribution rules here

\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Thanks for the link. As it turns out, that site has already been reported. \$\endgroup\$ – Anindo Ghosh Jul 18 '13 at 11:06
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ That site is quite a laugh. "Rqgg is a free question and answer website where you can get answers to your questions or you can help other people in the community by answering their questions. The site is made in Earth, and powered by PHP, Mysql, Debian, Xunsearch, we also get many benefits from the open source community." \$\endgroup\$ – Adam Lawrence Jul 19 '13 at 15:07
2
\$\begingroup\$

They have about 120+ of my answers on there too.

They do give the name of the answerer (Anindo Ghosh or Russell McMahon etc)

On the front page they say:

Site Design / Logo © 2013 Rqgg, user contributions licensed under CC BY-SA with
Attribution required.
We does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any user post content.

" ... we does not ..." may say much :-).

I am unaware of the level of attribution required by CCSA...
This may be enough.

I have long been unhappy with Stack Exchanges execrable policy of gutting names and other IDs out of posts. If they did not do so then copying as this lot are doing would at least carry with it such attribution as each autho[u]r deemed appropriate - or a standard rigorous version.
As it is we are mayhaps hoist on our own petard , or that of this site's policies.

As Aragorn said when he saw the petard lighter running - "Kill him ! ...".
He, too, was too late :-).

http://staticmass.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/features_towers.jpg

\$\endgroup\$
1
\$\begingroup\$

New answer due to being more complete (and being correct) :-)

Short:

  • Following the cc-by-sa licence rules including attribution per Stack Exchange rules is the only requirement for reusing the material in any way desired.

  • "We All" should watch for sites that do not attriobute and report them to SA for action. Joining the said sites and noting that they are thieves may or may not help the process :-).


Longer:

The site does not attribute posts correctly BUT the widespread dissemination of material on such sites is formal and active Stack Exchange policy.

The SE policy requires that the originators name be shown AND that clicking on it should direct one to the originator's profile. Apart from that and noting that the CCA... rules apply its open slather

[This site "eefreedom" {indeed]](http://efreedom.com/) has many SE answers on it - probably all of them BUT they direct seekers to the SE profile page and they say on their home page that they are entirely gilded with our feathers (sounds wrong, but memory says that is how The Bard [tm] put it.).

They say

  • The questions, topics and answers come from technology related content via a stackexchange.com public data dump and are licensed under the cc-wiki license.
    Logo, design and layout © 2009 eFreedom.com

Nice to see they added something.

BUT note the Stack Exchange Data DumP comment.

Here are the details of Stack Exchange's Data Explorer

They make it clear that ANY use is allowed so long as attribution rules are followed. So the only 'gripe' any of us can have with any use at all is non attribution. Specifically:

  • Visually indicate that the content is from Stack Overflow, Meta Stack Overflow, Server Fault, or Super User in some way. It doesn’t have to be obnoxious; a discreet text blurb is fine.

  • Hyperlink directly to the original question on the source site (e.g., https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12345)

  • Show the author names for every question and answer

  • Hyperlink each author name directly back to their user profile page on the source site (e.g., https://stackoverflow.com/users/12345/username)

  • By “directly”, I mean each hyperlink must point directly to our domain in standard HTML visible even with JavaScript disabled, and not use a tinyurl or any other form of obfuscation or redirection. Furthermore, the links must not be nofollowed.

And, if you look at the bottom of EVERY Stack Exchange page, you'll find this link:

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ In summary, then, the site I pointed to, breaks the rules by not directly linking either questions or contributor profiles on parent site. I presume someone on StackExchange staff should be giving them a scolding. \$\endgroup\$ – Anindo Ghosh Aug 5 '13 at 14:06

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .