Using another search engine is not an option? On Thu, 21 Sept 2023, 05:55 The Wanderer, <wande...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 2023-09-20 at 16:50, Tom Browder wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 13:36 Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> > > wrote: > > > >> Tom Browder (12023-09-20): > >> > >>> What if you used an equilavent script but increased and > >>> randomized time > > > > ... > > > >> We can try to exercise some common sense, in particular by > >> comparing to similar situations. For example, if you take something > >> that does not belong to you, but do it at night, when everybody is > >> sleeping and being very careful you do not make a step squeak or > >> break the laser beams, is it still stealing? > > > > I apologize. I was not referring to stealing, and I haven't read the > > details in the terms of use. What I should have asked was: "is a > > single query in the script okay?" If so, how much time would have to > > pass before the next query in order to adhere to the terms of > > service? > > You'd have to refer to the TOS to be certain, but based on the way > they've been described here, it isn't a question of amount of time. It's > the fact that you're applying scripts and automation at all, vs. having > each search be individually triggered by (and, I suspect, the results > sent/shown to) a real-person user. > > Yes, this is horrific in light of the fact that automation is what > computers are *for* - but it also makes sense from Google's likely > perspective, and it's entirely plausible that they might care enough to > try to detect even minimal amounts of automation. > > In principle, it probably *would* be possible to script doing such a > thing in such a way that it would not be sufficiently distinguishable > from human access patterns for them to be able to tell. (Varying time > between accesses almost certainly would not do it; among possibly other > things, you'd need to specify the accessing program, etc., in a way that > is doable but not necessarily obvious.) > > That said, you'd be taking a gamble that your ability to obfuscate such > things is better than Google's ability to detect it. Who would you > prefer to bet on in a competition like that? > > -- > The Wanderer > > The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one > persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all > progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw > >
