mirror of
https://github.com/laylavish/uBlockOrigin-HUGE-AI-Blocklist.git
synced 2026-08-06 02:12:35 -04:00
[GH-ISSUE #292] Add geeksforgeeks.org #200
No Assignees
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: DYNR/uBlockOrigin-HUGE-AI-Blocklist#200
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
Delete Branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Originally created by @CalAlaera on GitHub (Nov 22, 2025).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/laylavish/uBlockOrigin-HUGE-AI-Blocklist/issues/292
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/python/how-to-play-random-mp3-from-a-folder-in-python/ stinks of slop
@0x7700e6 commented on GitHub (Dec 9, 2025):
Mixed on this one. Seen tons of their articles over months, not once have they ever cited an actual author for any of them, and many of them have this sort of style where the writing doesn't seem to actually say anything.
But at the same time, there are some pages like this: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/web-tech/web-technology/
...which certainly must have had some amount of effort put into them, judging by the animated diagram they've got going on there, but other articles definitely feel empty. Assuming they have some that actually write articles and then an LLM to write some others, but no way to tell.
Wouldn't be bothered if they got added to the list.
@matthew-salerno commented on GitHub (Dec 13, 2025):
Afaict authors are listed at the bottom of the page, and being an author is fairly easy, something like medium or dev.to. So you'll see a wide variety of quality. The slop article listed is by Pratima Mishra, who's presumanly generated dozens of articals all on the same day. Obvious AI slop. The Counter example is by Kartik who, while certainly prolific, posts articles a few days apart and has a history dating back to 2017.
@mudkipdev commented on GitHub (Jan 24, 2026):
Geeksforgeeks is fully slop (regardless if it was human written or not) so add it anyway
@matthew-salerno commented on GitHub (Jan 25, 2026):
This is exactly what the nuclear list is for. There is human made content on GeeksForGeeks, regardless of personal feelings about the quality of said content. If it shows up much more in my results I'll be adding it to my personal blacklist, but blocking it in the main AI list would be surprising. This isn't a "low effort SEO garbage" blocklist, or a "sites I don't think are good" or a "slop" blocklist. It's an AI blocklist. GeeksForGeeks is provably not entirely AI, so it should go on the nuclear blacklist alongside deviantart and such. That's my two cents.
@Friendly-user-beach commented on GitHub (Jul 5, 2026):
It's generally better to block the specific AI slop contributor than to block the whole site entirely, if possible. That said, it may not be possible here, so the next best thing is to block the problem articles.