From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Privacy issues?[edit]

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)


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

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 '') 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 search and a search will probvide the exact same results. -- 11:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge not delete[edit]

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)

The Register misinformaton[edit]

"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)

Opposing Views?[edit]

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 (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)

Some browsers do not need a Plug-in[edit]

This is not mentioned in the article, though I'm not sure if it should be. Firefox for example when you type a multi-word phrase or a single uncommon word directly into the URL bar will append what you type to the end of a google search, but this default behaviour can be changed via about:config in Firefox (Note: Some extensions such as "Tabbrowser preferences" and some DNS services such as OpenDNS override this pref so changes will have no effect). The default value of the pref named keyword.URL is currently:

Double-clicking that pref allows you to edit it to this value:

data:text/html;charset=utf-8,<!DOCTYPE HTML><html><head><title>Searching...<%2Ftitle><%2Fhead><body onload%3D"document.f.Gw.value%3Ddocument.getElementsByTagName('p')[0].firstChild.nodeValue%3Bdocument.f.submit()"><form name%3D"f" method%3D"post" action%3D""><input name%3D"Gw" type%3D"hidden"><%2Fform><p style%3D"display%3Anone"><%2Fbody><%2Fhtml>

This will generate and submit a form over SSL to scroogle each time searchterms are entered. Mardeg (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of the times this doesn't work for me. I get a blank page and that "data:textblahblah..." in address bar. :/ (firefox +noscript) (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Given that this data: uri needs javascript enabled to work, and that the noscript extension whitelists javascript by domain, I'm surprised this works for you at all. A data: uri is domainless (perhaps you can email the noscript extension author with a request to include the ability to whitelist data: uri containing javascript) Mardeg (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is an alternative to put in keyword.URL if you have noscript, it requires that you allow scripts for though:!Gw=

Mardeg (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Or you could just bookmark, which also avoids the need to allow anything else in NoScript, but that would require *two whole clicks* to enter your search term. Unimaginative Username (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


I propose this should be merged to Criticism of Google. The sources verify it exists, but don't really indicate a lot of significance, and they are only interested in this because they are interested in criticism of google.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


Someone added an external link to something called the Scroogle Scraper with no explanation of what it is or how it relates to the article. Does anyone know why, or what it is? --DocumentN (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's the actual search page for the service, which substitutes Scroogle's IP and cookie for yours, and returns the search result to you after scraping off the ads, cookies, etc. Since you mentioned it, I'll add a link to the SSL-secured version as well. Unimaginative Username (talk) 11:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Friends of Ryan Cleary and[edit]

Daniel Brandt accuses "Friends of Ryan Cleary" and Encyclopedia Dramatica for the alleged DDoS attacks against his websites:

Should this (or at least the information within the two Betabeat articles) be mentioned in the article? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

On March 31, 2012,,,, and were all redirected to On that same day, the following text was added to

Please visit the main page of this blog for more on Ryan Cleary and his friends who run Encyclopedia Dramatica.

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Press release by Daniel Brandt[edit] --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... It provides useful information about a historical service. People have a right to know scroogle existed, and why and how it ceased to exist. This article provides that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why this article should be deleted, or why anyone would feel it is important to delete it. I agree with the above. Scroogle is a specific subject. A person wouldn't necessarily think of going to an article called Criticism of Google to find this. What is the harm of this article? Would someone please explain to me why this issue is even being discussed? Abstrator (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. The article won't be deleted, but will be merged into the Criticism of Google article. See WP:Articles for deletion/Scroogle (3rd nomination). In fact the merge was done today and the Scroogle page was changed to be a #REDIRECT to the merged material. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Source Code?[edit]

So the source code was released? Where can I find a copy of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)