Talk:Scroogle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 23 April 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Privacy issues?

Doesn't using Scroogle make you vulnerable to being tracked by the Public Information Research admins? They can index all search terms according to source IPs, just as google would do without the proxy, can't they? This would raise the question, who do people mistrust more - Google or Daniel Brandt?? -- Marcika 13:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You should look at the source code. Considering that this has already gone through court, and been proven to be safe, I think that you can trust it. lol. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] tag

I've tagged this article as unsourced. It needs references.--Isotope23 16:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] www.scroogle.org

Per WP:EL#What_should_be_linked_to, the scroogle site should be listed in external links. Somehow the url got listed in a "blacklist," perhaps because of scroogle's founder's criticisms of wikipedia. Just a guess. -- Perspective 00:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's in there because Brandt is redirecting all requests which have Wikipedia as a referer. His choice. Rhobite 01:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
This is no longer true. I tested this with curl (curl -e 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroogle') and with a link in a preview of this talk page. In both cases I saw the Scroogle home page. White 720 04:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Nowadays a google.com search and a scroogle.com search will probvide the exact same results. --59.167.80.91 11:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge not delete

This stub needs to be merged rather deleted under the notability issue - SatuSuro 03:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree, SqueakBox 22:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Register misinformaton

"In January 2007, The Register reported that Microsoft's Messenger "bans" references to Scroogle."
it, erm, doesn't, tho. do we have to wait until a secondary source contradicts this? i'm for just taking it out, really. tomasz. 15:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Either take it out or comment that it is unverifiable. I tried it recently and it seemed fine. GuyInCT 00:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
screw it. done. tomasz. 15:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opposing Views?

Great, because we all know activist's lives and homes are -never- monitored. :) This is one thing to consider, another would be that of this being a perfect way to lull people into using Google with an outside way of logging Google requests, since Google has been in the news for not turning over information about visitors using the search engine. I would not use Scroogle unless you're using it through Tor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.142.22.202 (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Like Brandt doesn't bring enough kookiness to the table already. If you can't find a reliable source for paranoia about the paranoid's pet toy, then it doesn't belong in the article. John Nevard (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)