By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
459,299 Members | 1,422 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 459,299 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

script for google?

P: n/a
Hello everybody,
I am looking for a good script to work a searchprogram for Google .... How
can tel me? Not with a logo from google
THnx

--
-------"""-------
---([(0^0)])---
?----(_)-----?
| Greetz Mario|
-----------------
http://www.kluivie.nl
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
13 Replies


P: n/a
"Mario" wrote on 15/11/2003:
Hello everybody,
I am looking for a good script to work a searchprogram for Google ..... How can tel me?
You don't need any JavaScript code in order to use the Google search
engine. The page linked below describes how to add a search bar to
your site.
Not with a logo from google


You are using their service for free. They deserve to take the
credit. It doesn't matter which search engine you use, you should
display a "Powered by <Engine>" message, or equivalent.

Mike

--
Michael Winter
M.Winter@[no-spam]blueyonder.co.uk (remove [no-spam] to reply)
Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
Mario wrote on 15 nov 2003 in comp.lang.javascript:
Hello everybody,
I am looking for a good script to work a searchprogram for Google ....
How can tel me? Not with a logo from google


Gewoon uitproberen:

<form action="http://google.com/search">
<input name="query">
Enter search words and end with &lt;enter>.
</form>

Nothing to do with Javascript as such.

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
Evertjan. wrote:
Mario wrote on 15 nov 2003 in comp.lang.javascript:
I am looking for a good script to work a searchprogram for Google ....
How can tel me? Not with a logo from google


Gewoon uitproberen:

<form action="http://google.com/search">
<input name="query">
Enter search words and end with &lt;enter>.
</form>

Nothing to do with Javascript as such.


Using the Google Free service without the
Google logo violates the Terms of Service:

http://www.google.com/services/free_...uidelines.html
PointedEars
Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote on 18 nov 2003 in comp.lang.javascript:
Using the Google Free service without the
Google logo violates the Terms of Service:

http://www.google.com/services/free_...uidelines.html


But I do not use it, I point to it. [Theoretically]
It is the user that uses it.

It is like a shop prohibiting me to say: "There is a nice shop",
if I don't tell the name of the shop in the same breath.

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
Evertjan. hu kiteb:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote on 18 nov 2003 in
comp.lang.javascript:
Using the Google Free service without the
Google logo violates the Terms of Service:

http://www.google.com/services/free_...uidelines.html


But I do not use it, I point to it. [Theoretically]
It is the user that uses it.

It is like a shop prohibiting me to say: "There is a nice shop",
if I don't tell the name of the shop in the same breath.


The terms of service state that "The web search box on your site must
conspicuously display a graphic (see Branding section below) that
indicates that the search services are provided by Google. The graphic
should link to www.google.com or other addresses as Google may designate
from time to time." That suggests to me that the rule is more about the
existance of teh search box rather than who or what is using it.
--
--
Fabian
Visit my website often and for long periods!
http://www.lajzar.co.uk
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
Fabian wrote on 18 nov 2003 in comp.lang.javascript:
Evertjan. hu kiteb:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote on 18 nov 2003 in
comp.lang.javascript:
Using the Google Free service without the
Google logo violates the Terms of Service:

http://www.google.com/services/free_...uidelines.html


But I do not use it, I point to it. [Theoretically]
It is the user that uses it.

It is like a shop prohibiting me to say: "There is a nice shop",
if I don't tell the name of the shop in the same breath.


The terms of service state that "The web search box on your site must
conspicuously display a graphic (see Branding section below) that
indicates that the search services are provided by Google. The graphic
should link to www.google.com or other addresses as Google may
designate from time to time." That suggests to me that the rule is
more about the existance of teh search box rather than who or what is
using it.


Quite possible that they state that, but that does not mean they can
legally bind someone and forbid to prepare a string for searching in
Google, as the result is not returned back to the original site. So it
is just a pointer to Google.

I could post a rule on my site forbidding people with pointed ears or
names starting with an "F" to read the texts on that site aloud. It
would be a genuine rule but outside my jurisdiction [= enforcable
rulemaking].
--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
Evertjan. hu kiteb:
Fabian wrote on 18 nov 2003 in comp.lang.javascript:
Evertjan. hu kiteb:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote on 18 nov 2003 in
comp.lang.javascript:
Using the Google Free service without the
Google logo violates the Terms of Service:

http://www.google.com/services/free_...uidelines.html

But I do not use it, I point to it. [Theoretically]
It is the user that uses it.

It is like a shop prohibiting me to say: "There is a nice shop",
if I don't tell the name of the shop in the same breath.


The terms of service state that "The web search box on your site must
conspicuously display a graphic (see Branding section below) that
indicates that the search services are provided by Google. The
graphic should link to www.google.com or other addresses as Google
may designate from time to time." That suggests to me that the rule
is more about the existance of teh search box rather than who or
what is using it.


Quite possible that they state that, but that does not mean they can
legally bind someone and forbid to prepare a string for searching in
Google, as the result is not returned back to the original site. So it
is just a pointer to Google.


If they feel it is being abused, they could include server instructions
to ignore process requests from specified domains. This would be a
programming issue, and, as I understand it, quite simple for a
knowledgeable person to do.
--
--
Fabian
Visit my website often and for long periods!
http://www.lajzar.co.uk

Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
Fabian wrote on 19 nov 2003 in comp.lang.javascript:
Evertjan. hu kiteb:
Fabian wrote on 18 nov 2003 in comp.lang.javascript:
Evertjan. hu kiteb:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote on 18 nov 2003 in
comp.lang.javascript:
> Using the Google Free service without the
> Google logo violates the Terms of Service:
>
> http://www.google.com/services/free_...uidelines.html

But I do not use it, I point to it. [Theoretically]
It is the user that uses it.

It is like a shop prohibiting me to say: "There is a nice shop",
if I don't tell the name of the shop in the same breath.

The terms of service state that "The web search box on your site must
conspicuously display a graphic (see Branding section below) that
indicates that the search services are provided by Google. The
graphic should link to www.google.com or other addresses as Google
may designate from time to time." That suggests to me that the rule
is more about the existance of teh search box rather than who or
what is using it.


Quite possible that they state that, but that does not mean they can
legally bind someone and forbid to prepare a string for searching in
Google, as the result is not returned back to the original site. So it
is just a pointer to Google.


If they feel it is being abused, they could include server instructions
to ignore process requests from specified domains. This would be a
programming issue, and, as I understand it, quite simple for a
knowledgeable person to do.


Only then the user would be excluded, or perhaps the referring webpage if
the users browser includes the referrer correctly, which is often not the
case.

And then again, that is quite something else as an enforceable rule.

Anyway the arriving request does not state that there is no logo in the
requesting page, so the search has to be done by hand. I think they have
beter things to do.

Then again, this was not about doing such a thing but showing the
feasability of doing it and showing it is not illegal.

If I hear you reciting this text aloud, I will perhaps remove your
ability to ue my website btw. ;-)
--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
"Evertjan." <ex**************@interxnl.net> wrote in message
news:Xn*******************@194.109.133.29...
<snip>
Anyway the arriving request does not state that there is no logo
in the requesting page, so the search has to be done by hand.
I think they have beter things to do.

<snip>

Google searching by hand? If ever there was a concentration of expertise
in automatically searching, and extracting information from, millions of
web sites world wide regularly and over a relatively short period of
time it will be found at google.

1. Search for opening form tags.
2. Compare the action attribute with relevant google.com URLs.
3. If found, check image SRC attributes on the same page to
see if they include an acceptable logo.
4. If found, check that the logo is wrapped in an A element
with the appropriate URL.
5. If the page does not appear to conform with the requirements
log the URL for confirmation/action by humans.

Maybe the worst action that google would take in response is to add the
page to a list of disallowed referrers and remove the site from their
search engine listings, maybe they could do more. But not being listed
by google is something that most web sites want to avoid.

Richard.
Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
Evertjan. hu kiteb:
Anyway the arriving request does not state that there is no logo in
the requesting page, so the search has to be done by hand. I think
they have beter things to do.
You appear to be saying that Google, the company, might be forced to
search the web by hand. Is this actually what you are saying? Please
excuse my mirth, butI think Google, of all companies, has better ways of
searching for stuff on the web than by hand.
If I hear you reciting this text aloud, I will perhaps remove your
ability to ue my website btw. ;-)


Feel free. If I wasn't a hit-whore for my website, that line of yours
about Google searching by hand would be my new sig.
--
--
Fabian
Visit my website often and for long periods!
http://www.lajzar.co.uk

Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
Fabian wrote on 19 nov 2003 in comp.lang.javascript:
If I hear you reciting this text aloud, I will perhaps remove your
ability to ue my website btw. ;-)


Feel free. If I wasn't a hit-whore for my website, that line of yours
about Google searching by hand would be my new sig.


Please call me on a land line or send a wav file, I cannot hear you
reciting, and furthermore I seriously doubt you have an interest for or a
link to one of my profession-specalized Dutch websites.

Anyway, I think you are hitting the wrong tree. No one suggested to make
such a link to Google, I only showed that it is possible javascript code
wize and on your all secondary point tried to convince you all that it is
not illegal.
And I showed you a ridiculous example which you seem to take seriously.

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 01:51:41 -0000, "Richard Cornford"
<Ri*****@litotes.demon.co.uk> wrote:
1. Search for opening form tags.
You thing they do that rather than use a DOM of some sort? How
depressing :-)
Maybe the worst action that google would take in response is to add the
page to a list of disallowed referrers and remove the site from their
search engine listings, maybe they could do more. But not being listed
by google is something that most web sites want to avoid.


Sure, but that's seperate of course to any legal problems that the
author might face, and that's likely none of course.

Don't google still let you rebrand their own page, by a carefully
crafted url, in fact, you certainly used to be able to hijack the
actual results of all google requests to your own page with some
javascript insertion attack - I think it's still there, but may not
be, and I'm interwebless right now, so couldn't check - see
uk.net.web.authoring archives for demo IIRC.

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
"Jim Ley" <ji*@jibbering.com> wrote in message
news:3f**************@news.cis.dfn.de...
1. Search for opening form tags.
You thing they do that rather than use a DOM of some
sort? How depressing :-)


Depressing that that they would do that or depressing that I may think
that they do? ;-) I haven't got a clue as to the mechanisms behind
Google's searching techniques (If I were asked to write such a search I
probably would choose parse the HTML into a DOM-like tree structure
(especially as I probably wouldn't have to write that part myself)), but
I am confident that if the information is in the HTML Google will easily
be able to extract it.
Maybe the worst action that google would take in response is
to add the page to a list of disallowed referrers and remove
the site from their search engine listings, maybe they could
do more. But not being listed by google is something that
most web sites want to avoid.


Sure, but that's seperate of course to any legal problems that
the author might face, and that's likely none of course.


Yes, why bother with the trouble and expense of having legal rights
enforced when you are in a position to impose a significant sanction on
the transgressor without much expense of effort (or external standard of
justice)?
Don't google still let you rebrand their own page, by a carefully
crafted url, in fact, you certainly used to be able to hijack the
actual results of all google requests to your own page with some
javascript insertion attack - I think it's still there, but may
not be, and I'm interwebless right now, so couldn't check - see
uk.net.web.authoring archives for demo IIRC.


Personally I think that if Google do the work (for free) I don't see why
they shouldn't get the credit for the results. It looks like Google are
working on a SOAP based searching API that, if it becomes commercial,
may eventually provide an easy way of getting search results without
having to credit Google (on the assumption that if you pay for the
service you pay for the right to brand the results any way you want).

Richard.
Jul 20 '05 #14

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.