I have recently posted a question on . Today, I was again searching for solutions to the problem and found  link with exactly the same content. I'm not sure if this is wanted behavior, but to me this looks as if they use content from Stackexchange on their site to attract traffic. So, is this a known problem or an accepted partner site?
2831
of Stack Overflow, all content posted on Stack Exchange sites by their users (i.e. you wonderful people) has been provided to the whole universe under . For my fellow non-lawyers, that license basically means:   Anyone can use any Stack Exchange posts at any time without having to ask for permission Making money off of the copied content is permitted You don't even have to copy stuff from here verbatim; you can just use it as a starting point and make whatever edits you want There are just two rules you have to follow:   You have to provide . Simple links to the original post and author info are just fine. You have to  and allow other people to use your content, as long as they follow these very same rules. How meta!    (If you ever forget any of that, and want to refresh your memory, the license info is linked to in the footer of every page.)  There are, in fact, a lot of people who republish varying amounts of our content for assorted reasons. Unfortunately, there are some Stack Content Republishers Attributing Poorly and/or Excelling at Ranking (SCRAPERs, for short).  In this context, "attributing poorly" means any use that doesn't follow our attribution rules or make any other reasonable attempt at give credit. This can get pretty egregious; I've seen SCRAPERs that not only don't link back to SE originals, but also use fake author info and post dates to make it harder to find originals. By "excelling at ranking," I'm referring to copycat sites that end up higher in Google results than the original SE sites do for the same content. That's not necessarily wrong, but in some cases, it indicates inappropriate SEO hackery.  So, the question is: what can you do if you spot a SCRAPER?
62697
This is that type of question, but it's fundamental.  Information on Meta Stack Exchange states I can ask anything related to the Stack Exchange websites, its communities and some other stuff, but I have questions such as this about just asking questions which is not directly connected to Stack Exchange.  The FAQ doesn't satisfy me completely. Where were the FAQ asked? Was it here?  If this question is legitimate (Not the greatest questions you've seen... I know) in the Meta Stack Exchange community then I can be more specific. I'm new to this and just trying to get to know how and what I ask in here.
55936
I noticed that each site in the network has its own copy of the Terms of Service, e.g. , , , etc.  But the link to the terms in the footer of each site just goes to Stack Overflow's version, not the local per-site copy.  In the past, there used to be a single copy of the terms on stackexchange.com, but since the terms were recently changed in May 2018, the current arrangement of having a copy on each site was adopted.  What's the point of having a copy of the terms on each site if the footer link just goes to Stack Overflow's version?  (Side note: the old link to the terms hosted on stackexchange.com now redirects to Stack Overflow's version as well.)
90974
My question is that I asked a question on stackoverflow.com and  I want to share my question to all other technical stackoverflow linked sites like ,  etc.  I want to share my question on only selected sites related to stackoverflow. I don't want to post duplicates, I just want to make my question visible for the users on the related site, that may not necessarily be the members of the both sites, but may be competent to answer.  Is there any option in StackExchange network to perform this operation?  Can any one suggest me how I can do this?
99409
A search for domains like mysite.com provides thousands of results on  and hundreds on . I sampled some. Each and every one I checked was a post by someone ignorant about ,  and , as defined in . Other "natural examples" domains are abused pretty much too.  My request is - disallow these:   mysite.TLD site.TLD abc.TLD xyz.TLD [one letter repeated].TLD   When they are detected, propose  or . With old questions, use robot or find other way to edit them.    Even if SEO is not a problem, professional sites about Internet and associated technologies should not ignore RFC on such a large scale. Not to mention linking porn like about thousand links to xxx.com - I was already detected as one who visits "sites related to content forbidden here" by a firewall or two thanks to that.  I can assure you: you don't want to explain to your boss why are you searching for "adult content" in working hours, or agrotourism farm owner why that happens under his roof. Even WSODs are not nice. Now I think I have SE whitelisted, but anyway... Sadly, firewall was right, I did have xxx.com mentioned in my search results here and on Drupal Answers.
11770
It seems to me that two of the most helpful pages for introducing new visitors to the StackExchange network and methodology are the respective  and  pages of any StackExchange site.    However, if I go to  (where I have not registered), these two links are nowhere to be found!    No about or help here.  Oh, wait, here they are, relegated to the footer along with the privacy policy and advertising info links.    And we all know how often people look at a website's footer.  I mean, when was the last time you saw that footer?  If users had more of an opportunity to see the well-organized and important information on those pages before they were prompted to register for an account, we would see an improvement in the quality of posts and participation by new users.  I propose that these links be made more visible to new visitors who don't yet have a profile so they can get a better understanding of the website before being prompted to register for it.  Personally, I think that placing them next to "sign up" and "login" would be great, but increasing their visibility at all would be an improvement.
40016
In preparation for the eventual deployment of full HTTPS support on Stack Exchange, and also to make the currently available "alpha" HTTPS support more usable, all links from Stack Exchange sites to other Stack Exchange sites should be .  Currently, at least the following places still feature links with explicit http: protocol prefixes:   the page footer, the "Hot Network Questions" and "Community Bulletin" modules in the sidebar,  (the site switcher menu is OK, though),   and, of course,   lots and lots of user-supplied links in post and comment content.   I've posted this feature request with the intent to provide a single central place for tracking these issues, rather than having them scattered across multiple meta threads.  If you find more places on SE where protocol-relative links should be used, please report them below.  I fully expect this request, in its full sense, to be treated as  for the time being; however, these issues do need to be fixed at some point before our HTTPS support is ready for "prime time".  Ps. Yes, the next release of  (v1.10) is going to include a general client-side fix for most of these issues.  In the mean time, the  plugin effectively provides the same functionality, and much more besides.
421
I asked a question almost as soon as I got my account. I got a few decent answers, but none of them helped solve my problem. The question has long since become buried by newer questions, and there's still no accepted answer. Unfortunately, because there are quite a few answers with votes, to a casual observer it probably looks like the question was answered and I just neglected to mark an answer as accepted, and the system does not consider it "unanswered".  Or, I asked a question that was a bit more difficult to answer. After waiting for some time, I received no answers, little or no comments, and only a few views. The question does show up in the "unanswered" list, but no one has answered my question.  In either case, what's the protocol for me to try to get this question answered?  I see several options:   Post the question a second time, possibly linking to the original, to get attention for the original question. This is encouraged on sites like Reddit.  However, it's probably not appropriate here, since we're encouraged to check for duplicates and not submit a question that's already been asked by someone else, so this probably falls under that heading. Wait for some kind of wiki-like talk page to be implemented, then post a plea on the talk page for input and hope that activity on the talk page bumps up the question. Edit the question, but do nothing further on the Stack Exchange site. If I edit my post to say that I haven't accepted any of the current answers but am looking for more, then the question might get answered eventually by people browsing through old questions to find something they can answer. Post the question on other sites, but link to my original question on Stack Exchange. People will either answer here, or they'll answer on the other site and I can post the accepted answer here myself.  This might be considered spamming, so it might be better to do this without the link.      For more information, see the "" page in the .
43092
Is it okay to repost a question from another Q&amp;A website/forum that was never answered there? Is that plagiarism?  I came across  that is very similar to a problem I am currently encountering, and would really like to see an answer/response. Would it b e appropriate to copy and paste that question into a question on Stack Overflow?
41425
I've just asked six questions on , and one has been referred to this site.  Looking closer, I realized that this meta site is not just for Stack&nbsp;Overflow, as it seems from its name.  I think I'll need to transfer a couple of my questions over here.  Why are the two metas (the one for Stack&nbsp;Overflow and the one for all sites) merged into one instead of being separate?
116136
Isn't StackExchange a network to build a knowledge base for Google? Or to help people?  Yes, it is. So why is there the Programming Puzzles &amp; Code Golf website? What problems are solved there? What questions are asked there?  None.  Therefore, I think Programming Puzzles &amp; Code Golf doesn't fit into the philosophy of StackExchange. It should or   get it's own domain be removed (though I wouldn't do that)   I would love to hear your thoughts on this!
97173
I am working on a Web application, and I was looking for a reasonable implementation for one of its backend services. I wanted to ask the community if they have done something similar and if so how does their implementation work?  This is a subjective and possibly open-ended question, hence Stack&nbsp;Overflow is not the right place to ask this question.  Is there a Stack&nbsp;Exchange community in which one can ask suchlike questions?
44470
When I'm on, for example, the secure SO site, and then open the "StackExchange" drop-down, links to other SE sites include their "https" equivalent as well, which is expected. (If I'm on the the regular http site, then the links are all http.)    But links to questions via the "Inbox" and "Achievements" drop-downs lead back to the insecure, http equivalent, even when I'm on a secure page.      Can those links be generated in such a way that we're kept on the secure version of the site?
98494
This  looks to be written correctly, however the link that should read "this page" is extended to include all text in the question up to the next link. I can't see any error in the question, am I missing something?
59148
More than often I get a lot of itch when I see an answer which contains only a link. For example .  Check this link, it will solve your query..   This answer does not explain in any way why and how it solves the OP's concrete problem without the need to click the link. Also, if the link ever goes down, then the whole answer is completely useless. I am very tempted to flag this as &quot;not an answer&quot; and hope that the moderator understands the hint and converts it into a comment. Can I flag them as such? Related:
64203
The bug appears, with my account, in every post that haven't any answer yet. At the bottom just above the "Your Answer" section, I always see:     Know someone who can answer? Share a link to this question via email,   , , or .   In my mind, there should be a link to share to Twitter, Facebook, or other social networks, but I'm on any of these.
51310
Should posts be self-contained; that is, should questions and answers avoid linking to outside material?  For example, I  to inline code the author had put in a paste bin.  Was that appropriate?