Scroogle is M A D !!!

I'm with HM on most points.

The part that gets me is copying the work of others and criticising them in order to promote use of the "copier's" version.

 

That's my issue as well. edit: Or a big part of it.

They provide Google's results and then actually have the nerve to be ~ Snipped as per TOS ~ about it.

If you don't like Google use Yahoo, Bing, whatever. At least they have the decency to do their own indexing and not use someone else's servers while simultaneously insulting them.

 

Just use https://startingpage.com/ gets you google results without the ip logging that google likes to feature also recommend ixquick,duckduckgo as alternative search engines that respect users privacy.

 

This really isn't that difficult. I'm not talking about simple searches on Google. Of course business wants to be linked to by the big search providers. A click on Dell from Scroogle means the same to Dell as a click from Google. Here's my problem: the hypocrisy of Hungry Man who thinks that Scroogle is "stealing" when Google does things like this: http://news.google.com Does Google have a newsroom full of correspondents all over the world? Of course not, they just "steal" the content of others and voila! "Google News."

Apparently, that's perfectly okay with you, but Scroogle is worth getting mad at for "stealing." (!) Believe me, the multi-billion dollar Google doesn't get hurt by Scroogle, but newspapers and and other media are under siege and most certainly are hurt by Google's "collation" of work by reporters paid for by the news organizations - not Google.

But, you choose to be angry with Scroogle. What a hypocritical double-standard.

By the way, it's hard to take you seriously after you admit to things like this. 4000+ posts in seven months? And you admit some of them is to be inflammatory just to be inflammatory? Really? 4000+ posts in seven months?

 

Aggregating content suddenly = stealing.

The Google news is pretty funny though. Simply clicking a link on Google news will take you to the news website to read the article thus giving them an extra hit on their site.

Darn that Google! Once again stealing from corporations by linking to their websites and thus increasing revenue!

 

It's actually really clear you have no idea what you're talking about considering that the major criticism of Google news was that it wasn't linking to other news sources enough. Instead if was linking to Google's own articles.

Good job though you're making this really easy.

EDIT:
I'm just goin to summarize this situation...

1) Scroogle uses Google
2) Scroogle tells everyone Google is evil
3) Google doesn't like this, stops Scroogle from using their servers
4) Scroogle whines! Why would mean old Google stop them?!

 

Show me a Google article. Link to just ONE. You don't know what you're talking about, Mr. 4000 posts. The controversy was cut n pasting articles and only crediting the news organization and not linking directly. None of it is original Google content. You think you know everything, 4000, you just blather.

Your just here to disrupt as the double-standard is clear and you're siding with a multi-billion dollar company who uses others work on a far larger scale than Scroogle. (Really? 4000+ posts in seven months?)

 

This has become really hilarious.

What I meant was that they were linking to the articles but it would stay on the google news site ie: not go to cnn.com.

That isn't the case anymore.

No, just considerably more than you.

 

Regardless of how one feels about scroogle. I hope we can all agree there are concerns in regards to Google. First the fact that they were willing to censor search results in China. The fact that they gathered data from peoples home wifi networks etc... Not to mention I have a hard time trusting anyone that says: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines—including Google—do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities."

Call it paranoia or whatever but I for one do not like huge databases being kept of my online activity due to the fact that this could be misused by government.

 

There are definitely privacy concerns when it comes to Google search.

I don't think anyone is going to contest that.

The issue is that there's so much FUD it really detracts from the actual issues.

 

Why does it disgust you??

They are keeping peoples searches PRIVATE FROM GOOGLE!! (Google doesnt know what IP searched for what)

I love Scroogle and have them set as my default search engine!

 

This makes Google upset...

It makes even more up$et the...
always-happy & satisfied with the Google products "Home Users".

Unless they are so... to defend Google for free...

 

Google News has nothing to do with fun of course. It's nothing more than an icecold business opportunity. For Google primarily.
It's a rather simple roundup of news sources. Nothing exciting, nothing revolutionary, nothing new. And certainly pretty far from fun.

Several news papers in Europe have won court cases against Google News because Google was copy/pastinglinking news and pictures without any prior consent/legal agreement and Google has been handed it's bottom in these legal cases. And when Google appealed.
I don't see what's so funny about a company breaking laws to make more money.
Arguing that newspapers should be glad for the hits they receive is either simpleton thinking or worse; hypocrisy.
It's pretty clear by now you've got a blind spot regarding Google due to some inexplicable infatuation but are you really blind to the hypocrisy of Google News and how it started out?
As in, if I were to steal intellectual property from you, distribute it in order to make money for me and then argue, when you would oppose; "I'm making you well known, what's the problem?"
How would that not be hypocritical? Perhaps if you just don't give a damn about laws. And just enjoy the pot and kettle blaming game.

 

It's a news aggregator .These exist for chat protocol, blogs, feeds, loads of things.

Yep, they were definitely breaking laws before. And those companies (cnn, etc) deserve to be protected.

Pretty sure I acknowledged earlier that they used to just copy/paste, which isn't allowed. They don't anymore.

HEre's the quote from earlier where I clarify that I was referring to exactly what you're talking about:

Google absolutely deserved to get their ~ Snipped as per TOS ~ handed to them for that one.

No blind spots, I like to argue about Google specifically because it really brings out the worst in people. So much of the stuff discussed about Google in respects to privacy is just made up BS. There are people who take that earlier short story way too seriously.

I think that people and companies have rights and that people like to pretend that companies don't.

EDIT: And websites compete to get onto Google search. You can bet that if Google blacklisted CNN that CNN would sue Google for excluding them because they'd lose out on tons of hits. The problem with Google not linking to the sites definitely does not stop news from wanting to be linked to.

 

Why? Because they tell the truth?

 

Case and point.

 

Get help.

 

From some anonymous source

 

Sometimes...

a word comes to mind when reading some comments in a thread...

pettifoggery... case in point.

Duelling Banjos, anyone?

 

I dunno, it can be pretty foggy at this time of year in my country.

 

There is a cure for bubble tracking.

 

Foggy Dew > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foggy_Dew

 

@Hungry: If you're not concerned about such issues or think we're all nutjobs...don't reply? I'm not against you, I think in your area of knowledge, you're damn smart. You've got a business mind, that's as obvious as a flashing neon sign in the middle of the night in a forest. You really don't care that much about privacy and don't believe a lot of things, I get that. But if you're closed minded to it, why bother getting into a multiple post argument with others about it?

Google does a lot of things with the search data, and they do a lot of things to get it. If one chooses to take a route around those things, you're in no position to chide them on it. Scroogle has done nothing but cut out the data collection, they've "stole" nothing. And if you're going to get mad at Iron, get mad at Palemoon and other forks. And let's get serious here, how many damn people use Scroogle? Come on, smarten up and quit whining about ripping off things. Scroogle doesn't make a scratch at Google's ability to do anything or make any money.

You keep up all this Google championing you're so good at, and I swear I'll pack your bags, put you in a car and send you off to Eric Schmidts' house to become his adopted son

 

The existence of Scroogle is enough to Expose -but not Threaten- Google.
That is enough to upset Google's $upporter$...

 

And Google has many, many less vocal, but more threatening supporters, That's why they get off rather easy every time their hand gets caught in the cookie jar. Scroogle only threatens the very practices that should be threatened.