I just ran into the following link http://mob.rqna.net/qna/rxquhz-creating-large-aspheric-lens-profile-for-cnc-cutting-out-of-acrylic-plastic-for-huge-camera-obscura.html which seems to be a exact copy of the question-and-answer from earlier today on physics.se : Creating large aspheric lens profile for CNC cutting out of Acrylic plastic for huge Camera Obscura

Is this a known problem? Is it even considered a problem? I was quite surprised!

  • $\begingroup$ Out of curiosity: how did you manage to find that first link? $\endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Jun 13 '14 at 17:22
  • $\begingroup$ @KyleKanos - I googled "2000 mm plastic lens" because I wanted to see whether there was a commercial product that might help OP. I was very surprised to see not only the question (sometimes people cross post), but my answer! And no attribution to SE. $\endgroup$
    – Floris
    Jun 13 '14 at 17:23

When you posted you licensed your content under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license. See the legal link at the bottom of each page.

Use of content so-licensed without proper attribution is a network wide issue, and is addressed in Updated procedure for reporting SCRAPERs.

Short version: Report violations directly to the Stack Exchange team using the contact us link at the bottom of the page.

At one time the team was also interested in hearing about copiers who meet both of

  • They do provide proper attributions
  • Have their content rank higher than the original Stack Exchange content on Google

for SEO purposes.

I can't prove to myself that they still want to hear about such cases.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer. In the past I considered "posting on meta" to be equivalent to "contact us" but after considering your answer I recognize there may be times when one is better than the other. For what it's worth, the search term was "2000 mm plastic lens", and their site was (much) higher than SE in Google's results. $\endgroup$
    – Floris
    Jun 13 '14 at 12:19

I reported them. (details)

While your content is licensed under CC-BY-SA and can be used on any website provided they follow certain attribution rules (see section 2 here), this site doesn't do so.

  • $\begingroup$ The fact there was no attribution (that I could see) was the reason I was calling it "stealing". Interesting that there was no tag "plagiarism" on this meta - and you can't create one from the mobile site, apparently. Thanks for your answer, and for reporting them. $\endgroup$
    – Floris
    Jun 13 '14 at 12:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .