5 ms·

Absolutely. I can't tell you how friggin' sick I am of inadvertently clicking on an "Experts Exchange" link in a google search set. The microsecond it takes m

Absolutely. I can't tell you how friggin' sick I am of inadvertently clicking on an "Experts Exchange" link in a google search set. The microsecond it takes my eyes to register an EE site and click back is one too many. I'm pretty sure EE owes me about 10 years of my life up to this point.

huhtenberg 18y ago
Member-only EE content is visible in Google's cached version of their pages. Just scroll to the bottom part of the page to see it. E.g.: http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:gRw9sjavhVAJ:www.experts-exchange.com/OS/Microsoft_Operating_Systems/Windows/XP/Q_21692879.html%3Fqid%3D21692879 http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:gRw9sjavhVAJ:www.expert...
- jonknee 18y ago
  It's available from the regular version of the page too--just scroll to the bottom like you do on the cache: http://www.experts-exchange.com/OS/Microsoft_Operating_Systems/Windows/XP/Q_21692879.html?qid=21692879 http://www.experts-exchange.com/OS/Microsoft_Operating_Syste...
  - OpenMIKE 18y ago
    Not for me. This 'trick' stopped working for me about a month ago, so now I have to use the cache links.
    - jonknee 18y ago
      Interestingly it seems to be based on a referrer. It worked when I clicked the link from Google, not when I clicked it from here. Why are these clowns still in Google's index anyways, cloaking isn't allowed.
  - huhtenberg 18y ago
    No, it doesn't work. Real answers appear in "collapsed" form, so they are not visible.
    - jonknee 18y ago
      It's contingent on a Google referrer. They should be removed from the index. Compare these: curl -e http://www.experts-exchange.com/OS/Microsoft_Operating_Systems/Windows/XP/Q_21692879.html?qid=21692879 > without_google.html curl -e http://www.google.com http://www.experts-exchange.com/OS/Microsoft_Operating_Systems/Windows/XP/Q_21692879.html?qid=21692879 > with_google.html
- aasarava 18y ago
  At the risk of getting downmodded, can I suggest that if you're getting helpful answers off EE, it would be nice to pay the subscription fee and help support the business?
  - mattchew 18y ago
    It is EE's choice to play sleazy games where they represent one thing to search engines and deliver something else to the users who arrive at their site. They can stop deceiving people about their public content and go to a standard gated subscription model any time they like. Until they do, the more people who work around their weasel tactics, the better.
    - eru 18y ago
      It's a freemium model in disguise.
    - aasarava 18y ago
      It's fair to be irritated by the search engine listings. I'm going to disagree that it's equally fair to swipe content that you find to be helpful from a subscription-based site without paying for it. I guess I see it like this: I'm irritated that there's a Starbucks on every corner of the SF financial district; but that doesn't mean I go in and grab a cup of coffee off the counter when no one's looking. Regardless of my irritation, if I'm going to consume the coffee, I pay for it -- or else I can take my business to a different coffee shop or go to city council meetings and try to stop Starbucks from getting approved to set up shop on every corner. I know a lot of us here have the skills to find workarounds to lots of business models, whether it's paying sub fees or viewing ads or whatever. But a lot of us are also trying to build our own businesses. And at some point, we're going to want our potential customers to play within our business models and do a fair exchange (of cash or ad views or whatever) if they get value out of the goods and services we provide. So it just seems like good karma to not go taking things you don't pay for from other businesses. As for EE's tactics, a more constructive way to get them to stop is to let them know you don't like it, let others know, and let Google know.
kogir 18y ago
Frequently EE has a solution, just not the best one. In many cases it has put me on the right track. Oh, and many people don't realize that you don't need to pay: Just scroll to the bottom.
- easyfrag 18y ago
  I have to say, the beta of Stack Overflow is looking real good. It has real good potential, I just hope it's not seen as only a .NET resource.

huhtenberg 18y ago

Member-only EE content is visible in Google's cached version of their pages. Just scroll to the bottom part of the page to see it. E.g.: http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:gRw9sjavhVAJ:www.experts-exchange.com/OS/Microsoft_Operating_Systems/Windows/XP/Q_21692879.html%3Fqid%3D21692879 http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:gRw9sjavhVAJ:www.expert...

jonknee 18y ago
It's available from the regular version of the page too--just scroll to the bottom like you do on the cache: http://www.experts-exchange.com/OS/Microsoft_Operating_Systems/Windows/XP/Q_21692879.html?qid=21692879 http://www.experts-exchange.com/OS/Microsoft_Operating_Syste...
- OpenMIKE 18y ago
  Not for me. This 'trick' stopped working for me about a month ago, so now I have to use the cache links.
  - jonknee 18y ago
    Interestingly it seems to be based on a referrer. It worked when I clicked the link from Google, not when I clicked it from here. Why are these clowns still in Google's index anyways, cloaking isn't allowed.
- huhtenberg 18y ago
  No, it doesn't work. Real answers appear in "collapsed" form, so they are not visible.
  - jonknee 18y ago
    It's contingent on a Google referrer. They should be removed from the index. Compare these: curl -e http://www.experts-exchange.com/OS/Microsoft_Operating_Systems/Windows/XP/Q_21692879.html?qid=21692879 > without_google.html curl -e http://www.google.com http://www.experts-exchange.com/OS/Microsoft_Operating_Systems/Windows/XP/Q_21692879.html?qid=21692879 > with_google.html
aasarava 18y ago
At the risk of getting downmodded, can I suggest that if you're getting helpful answers off EE, it would be nice to pay the subscription fee and help support the business?
- mattchew 18y ago
  It is EE's choice to play sleazy games where they represent one thing to search engines and deliver something else to the users who arrive at their site. They can stop deceiving people about their public content and go to a standard gated subscription model any time they like. Until they do, the more people who work around their weasel tactics, the better.
  - eru 18y ago
    It's a freemium model in disguise.
  - aasarava 18y ago
    It's fair to be irritated by the search engine listings. I'm going to disagree that it's equally fair to swipe content that you find to be helpful from a subscription-based site without paying for it. I guess I see it like this: I'm irritated that there's a Starbucks on every corner of the SF financial district; but that doesn't mean I go in and grab a cup of coffee off the counter when no one's looking. Regardless of my irritation, if I'm going to consume the coffee, I pay for it -- or else I can take my business to a different coffee shop or go to city council meetings and try to stop Starbucks from getting approved to set up shop on every corner. I know a lot of us here have the skills to find workarounds to lots of business models, whether it's paying sub fees or viewing ads or whatever. But a lot of us are also trying to build our own businesses. And at some point, we're going to want our potential customers to play within our business models and do a fair exchange (of cash or ad views or whatever) if they get value out of the goods and services we provide. So it just seems like good karma to not go taking things you don't pay for from other businesses. As for EE's tactics, a more constructive way to get them to stop is to let them know you don't like it, let others know, and let Google know.

kogir 18y ago

Frequently EE has a solution, just not the best one. In many cases it has put me on the right track. Oh, and many people don't realize that you don't need to pay: Just scroll to the bottom.

easyfrag 18y ago
I have to say, the beta of Stack Overflow is looking real good. It has real good potential, I just hope it's not seen as only a .NET resource.