Be a Blogger, Not a Thief: Link Where Linkage is Due

Don't you hate it when someone at work steals an idea from you, then calls it their own? Of course. So why are you stealing from your fellow writers?

Yes, stealing: robbing someone of traffic. Of recognition. Of the conversation which should surround their work. And that's what a lot of people are doing. Maybe not you, but you've seen this sort of lazy writing all around the web.

Last week, after noticing the increase in the number of blogs tweeted that are just shells publishing links to posts written by others, I issued the call to content originality on Twitter.

This is a call for people to only link to the primary authors of blog posts.

So if Blogger Bill posts just a link to a Chris Brogan article with no effort to add his special sauce or original thinking that would make you sit up and notice, you don't link to that: you link to Brogan. Call it your Unblogging Resolution or something: a drive to write and link to more original content, rather than blog-style summaries of other people's material.

We don't need "blogs" like that anymore -- we have search engines which do the same thing, better. We also don't need Twitter accounts that tweet links posted on shell blogs. And most of all, we don't need the indignant attitude of the folks who go on the offensive when called out.

If a blog is but a collection of links to original posts written by others on their blogs, why tweet and - worse - retweet (RT) a link to that blog?

By refusing to tweet or RT a link to a link blog and instead using the link to the actual original post in your RT, you will contribute to cutting down on the level of noise and, frankly, look like you have actually read the post and are recommending it personally. It will boost your own credibility to vet the content you pass on.

To Posterous or not to Posterous?

Posterous accounts merit a special mention. In the past few months, many have clipped entire posts off my blog and reposted them to their Posterous account, then tweeted that. Folks, make no mistake, that is the equivalent to scraping. It's content theft. I don't care if you think it's not. It doesn't change the facts.

You could easily tweet a link to the original post.

Instead, you choose to highlight your action of taking the content and passing on a link to your Posterous account. Take a look at this Twitter account created to tweet many posts written by others and reposted on a Posterous site. [Note: The issue with the Twitter account was cleared as a mistake on both parts. Although I made attempts at figuring out who owned the account and contact them, I probably should have tried one more time before publishing.] Copying is copying - off line, online. Just because it's easier, it doesn't make it right.

If you need to review copyright laws and Creative Commons guidelines, please do. Jonathan Bailey talked about those issues in our conversation on plagiarism today, which is the name of his blog.

So before you make your next tweet, take that extra step to double check the content. Here are some specific suggestions for you to think about:

• Refrain from reblogging other people's ideas without adding value
• Attribute sources and respect their wishes regarding copyright 
• Before linking to a piece, ask yourself if its publisher is also its true author
• Strive to produce original content worth other people's links

Consider this advice, and make the signal ratio in your stream stronger and with it your credibility.

© 2006-2010 Valeria Maltoni. All rights reserved.

Comments

[Stuart Foster]

It's a battle with Posterous.

However, most content sharers don't set out to intentionally scrape.

Couple of things you can do to prevent it fairly easily:

Always place a picture at the top underneath the title tag. (Posterous picks this up first for some reason)

And? Just send a note to the guilty party asking them if they can tweet the original article...not the teaser on their own site.

[Ivan Walsh]

Valeria,

The cream rises to the top.

Don’t waste time worrying about these clowns scraping your stuff. Send a message to mgt at Posterous and get them to sort it out. Such petty crime is an unfortunate fact of life…

And if you link to the source, you're ‘voting with your links.’ Again, the cream rises.

The web removes these pretenders in time; I’d ignore them and keep doing what you're doing.

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Stuart - Check on both. If you go back to my Twitter stream, you will see that I request that and whenever I find contact info on the site, which is rare, BTW, I contact the Posterous owner directly, off line. The response I get? "Doing it this way is easier for me". We do need to respect others more online and those of us who understand this stuff should not get lazy and let it pass.

@Ivan - it's a good coachable point. At the end of the day the ability to create original content is prized, but only if people notice it and I'm observing a certain laziness online these days. So my point is to be more deliberate in the choices we make ;)

[Chris Myles]

There are a couple of things that could be done both in posterous AND by educating their users (I've seen the same issue with Blogger).

By default, the bookmarklet title should make it clear that content is being quoted/shared from another site (the user does have the option to change the resulting post title), This will flow through to the resulting tweet. A couple of times I have seen the entire page appear as a "snippet" .. that is NOT ok and should NEVER be an option. I also think the amount of text that can be quoted should be limited, maybe even based on the amount of comments/value the "writer" adds.

Yes people are getting lazier these days but readers are also getting pickier. I'm certainly not going to follow a scraping splog. The authoring tools should help enforce basic standards whenever possible.

BTW I use posterous all the time and find the bookmarklet extremely powerful. I ALWAYS try to add value and additional content/thoughts about the page and hopefully add value to my readers AND the original author.

[Ryo]

I welcome everyone to use posterous with my content. It helps to gain popularity and I don't feel "robbed" at all.
Don't speak for everyone!

I put everything under CC 3.0 BY-SA.
Your statement is so old media like.

[Ryo]

I almost forgot.
Do you know how I was reading this article?
Even know you and your blog exists?
Someone shared the complete article on GReader.

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Chris - thank you for taking the time to share some advice on how to use Posterous. In a couple of instances, the people I spoke with, admitted to not having taken the time to figure out how to post links and adding commentary yet. To me relationships are furthered and people learn from each other when there is building on ideas and content. Of course, there are no original ideas out there or not as many ;)

@Ryo - I respect your opinion and choices. They are not mine and this is my blog. Yes? Now if you go back and read my post, you will see that what I recommend is actually thinking for yourself. Which is what you're doing in this comment. So kudos for that. Let me see if I understand correctly: are you saying that I'm writing a GReader "share" is akin to republishing the content? Where do I say that, please?

@Everyone - set me straight on the GReader challenge here. Happy to learn from you.

[Chris Baskind]

Ryo: I also license most of my stuff under CC SA 3.0. But that's my choice (glad you agree CC is where it's at).

I think Valeria is right about respecting the choices of others, though. Additionally, the Creative Commons isn't the same as disowning copyright: It licenses the use and distribution of content.

Google Reader is a special case. Valeria provides a full-content feed for the convenience of her users, and GReader is basically still an RSS client. Fair game. When you read her stuff on GReader, you know it's her work, presented as the author intends. GReader's new sharing features are moving it into more of a grey zone, but it's not the scraping and wholesale republishing -- often unattributed -- that she means in the article.

As for Posterous: It's being misused. People are thoughtless when they republish the full text of people's stuff without checking to see if it's in the Creative Commons first. The fact that Posterous makes republication so simple doesn't mean it's always appropriate.

[Eric]

I've been thinking a lot about the lack of true added value to most twitter accounts. I think the idea of making sure there is some original input or even content to bloggers tweets is definitely a start. Spreading information is important, but it should be the responsibility of the distributors, not those acting as content creators.

[Duane Storey]

Part of the issue is that up until recently, it's been hard to know how each blog was licensed. Some people have the CC license in the footer, some in the about page -- it's hard for a content reader to know the rules. I believe the new CC licenses have electronically readable tags in them, so ultimately one day (I hope) each browser will show the license of the content while you read it. Until that happens that it's not hard to see why people don't respect the licenses on sites, same as it's not hard to see why people never do proper attribution for Flickr photos (since most of the time they have to hunt on your profile to find out who you are).

Not sure how you can battle Posterous, but I know lots of Vancouver bloggers had problems with their RSS feeds being used to scraped content -- most of them added a plugin that puts a Copyright notice right in the feed. It doesn't stop people from stealing the content, but it does put a big copyright notice on the scraped site, which basically shows they stole it.

[John Gideon Howard]

I'm one of the Tweeters you mentioned that linked to a story you wrote that was culled from your blog. Namely: We The 'Bistro "Conversation Agent: The 7 keys to social branding" http://bit.ly/4YTJUg

You quickly sent me a reply "@jg_howard correct link to my post http://ow.ly/Trpb"

I thought that strange at the time, so I'm glad to see you expanding on the idea here. But, I have to disagree here.

As a marketer, I understand your desire to establish as direct a connection with the customer as possible. But you shouldn't overlook the value of other bloggers and tweeters helping to build your brand by their very selection. Sure, you would prefer if people would use your direct link, but insisting on it is like biting the hand that feeds you, and going against the grain of what the era of sharing is all about.

It is not as if someone claimed they wrote your content. In fact, the attribution is both in the headline and at the bottom of the posterous (via conversationagent.com)

In this case, Tamsen McMahon of the media bistro community is giving you props by deeming your content worthy enough to be included in her stream. If her audience agrees, it helps build both of your brands. It just seems mean spirited for one to disparage free press.

I tweeted the link as I did because I want to help both of you succeed, as well as build my own brand and demonstrate the art of selection. We already follow each other on Twitter, and if I haven't already, I'm sure I will retweet your content. But I also find great value in the media bistro community, and I'm delighted that both Tamsen McMahon and I appreciate your content. By linking to her post, I connect the three of us in some small but significant way. Oh, and I should mention that by using my own bit.ly link, I can track what my audience likes.

[Brian Driggs]

One of the biggest issues I have with the many wonderful people I follow on Twitter is that so many of them are in the same industry. As such, when big events happen - such as the North American International Auto Show #NAIAS going on this week - I get to see about 2/3 of them tweet the same exact thing.

I hate to break it to them, but when a full HALF of you are posting the same "EXCLUSIVE," it's not.

Fortunately, there are a couple in the community who have caught wind of how refreshing it is to be original. While others blindly RT specs and comments from PR talking heads at the show, these individuals are interviewing the girls who stand next to the cars, sharing that they really are twins and they're from Minneapolis, or sharing how that new Lotus makes them feel, for example.

HT: @joelfeder
http://twitpic.com/xsq0c
http://twitpic.com/xsukp

I am fully on-board with this idea for 2010 and I'm going to commit to only passing along links to original content. 2010 is the year we make contact (wink), and I think that means more concerted working together towards a better world.

Here's to original content.

[Rayna Fagen]

Valeria, I agree with your position and appreciate that you're attempting to create an important dialogue (and educate) about this. You and others (one that comes to mind is @markwschafer) are trying to elevate the level of discourse (and hopefully the ethics)in social media. I appreciate when someone adds their insights and their 'special sauce' when posting a link in their tweets or posts. I feel comfortable linking just to that poster if I know they are including the original author's link. Always try to link to both. But what I think is most important here is the consideration of authorship and required credit and the responsibility that must accompany handling other's content.

[Ari Herzog]

Posterous has nothing to do with it and is getting a bad rap. You could say the same about blogs powered by Tumblr, Wordpress, or Drupal. Splogs have existed for years. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_blog of which Posterous users are merely the latest incarnation to beat on.

Valeria, both you and Chris mention Creative Commons. I suggest folks head over to the CC site and reacquaint themselves with the licenses available for blogs.

I also point fellow self-hosted Wordpress bloggers to a plugin called RSS Footer. By adding some text and links, this is embedded in the RSS and can not be removed. So, if it is proved down the road that a splogger falsely stole your content, you can show the source RSS with footer attached. http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/rss-footer/

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Chris - thank you for pitching in on the CC license and GReader. I wrestled with the full feed question but know that people find it more convenient to read in the feed and I am myself happier with full feeds from others. Since I don't use Posterous, I appreciate the commentary on how to best leverage the tool. So thank you for that.

@Eric - I love learning about different points of view and ideas. Alas, much of what I see some days is rehash by dummy Twitter accounts. I believe in people and in their ability to surprise, inform, and teach and look forward to people believing more in themselves to do that original thinking.

@Duane - very good point. Thank you for bringing it up. I discovered the feed flare on a blog a while ago and added it promptly to help with that issue. However, I then saw that many blogs set up to take the content of others cut it out. Which is the reason why I moved the information above the fold on the sidebar and add it in the blog post. Well, wouldn't you know it? People delete it in their clippings. So it the clipping innocent or intentional? My posting of the copyright was to test that ;)

[Paulo Henrique Lemos]

Valeria, I could not agree more with the point you're making. Operationally speaking, links are a de facto web currency, and honest people are happy to give credit and recognition to others.

However, the number of jerks out there and their infinite availability of time strongly suggests that this is a lost battle.

As sad as it looks, I guess there's nothing we could do but to focus on the people who are willing to contribute to the conversation. They're the ones who can help the causes move forward.

[Sascha]

never ending story...

Actually I don't agree with you at all. As long as someone keeps a note (e.g. via @sayfun) or something like that on it's post when he posts my stuff, I'm more than happy with that. Actually I hate it much more if someone tries to rewrite my stuff to make it look like it's his own. That really sucks.

But anyway, you (and me and everyone else) should stop whining and simply continue generating great content. It's better to be the one who's copied, than to be the one who has to copy.

[Valeria Maltoni]

@John - thank you for pressing your take on the issue. And nice to meet you in long form so I can absorb more of your thinking. I have no idea who's behind that Twitter account and Posterous site. I love the Mediabistro community and know they handle links and tweets properly. Getting to know people online is great and I agree with your point. Now I'd like to actually meet who is behind those accounts so we can do that.

@Brian - that is the reason why I pay attention to what the great thinkers in my networks are posting about. In the beginning, I joined many more of the same conversations. But now I feel I can be more helpful to my readers if I tweet links to their posts and focus on writing different content on most occasions.

@Rayna - we don't have to agree all the time, of course. Acknowledgment helps us achieve the respect and consideration part.

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Ari - the tools change, it's what we do with them that matters. I know that. But I do see many Posterous accounts with challenges on the use of the tool. Thank you for pointing us back to the Creative Commons site. Jonathan also provided really good pointers in our conversation.

@Paulo - I'm glad you separate the point or issue from the people matter. I love people and I hope this post will help us learn from each other. Yes, there are rare occasions of malicious or intentional misuse. There are DMCAs for that. This is a conversation around proper credit and use, as you say so well with your term "operationally".

@Sascha - and I will fight for your right to have your opinion, but not with my content ;) I agree, it's a never ending conversation. Thank you for arguing, but I respectfully disagree with your judgment; this is not whining. This is a call to action. And I do take action where action is warranted. We both know the answer to the providing original content that is helpful question.

[Seamus]

Valeria,

Regarding @WeTheBistro...

The sharing of entire posts was our error when choosing which sharing option to use when tagging content with the Posterous bookmarklet. Those posts have since been deleted.

All other content is original and is submitted specifically for that blog.

Seamus
Mediabistro.com

[Otto]

Also, please stop using "old-style" RTs. All major clients support the new Retweet feature, use that instead.

Why? Well:

a) When you use an old style RT, you're basically stealing somebody else's content (tweet) and posting it as your own. Even if you give attribution, you didn't get that person's permission to repost/reuse their content. There's nothing linking back to that person except possibly their @name. All in all, it's a pretty crappy way to behave.

b) If you're wanting to comment on their tweet, then use a Reply. *That is what it was invented for*. And if you use a proper Reply (instead of just manually typing their @name), then Twitter adds a bit of metadata that links back to their original tweet. This lets all major clients show a link back to that tweet like "in Reply To". Heck, some twitter clients like Tweetie will follow these links back and show the entire conversation with one press. Use the features the way they were intended, and everybody benefits.

c) If you use a real Retweet, then again, metadata gets added. Not only do your followers see the Retweet, but they see the original person's photo and information without having to click that person's name, find the tweet, etc. If somebody else Retweets it too, their followers get the same nice metadata information along with it. Everybody benefits, and the original author gets the credit, *like they deserve*. Sorry, but you should not get any real credit for a RT, you're just saying other people's stuff is good, not coming up with good stuff yourself.

All in all, using old-style RTs is kind of a dick move. You're stealing content and credit from other people, no matter which way you slice it. You're also eliminating the usefulness of all the metadata, making it much harder for your followers to use Twitter as a whole. It's not a good way to behave.

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Seamus - I double checked to see if there was any contact info on the site and it didn't seem from Mediabistro. I also contacted the Twitter account last week, but received no response. You know I love you guys. This conversation is much broader than any one account, of course. I will amend my post. Thank you for clarifying.

@Otto - wow, thank you for your frank comment, such a level of detail. Just to clarify, are you using "you" as "one" or as "me"? For Twitter I rely on HootSuite and always use the RT button they provide for links and for our weekly chat, etc. when I retweet. I confess I RT rarely, just because of bandwidth issues on my schedule.

[Otto]

Valeria: I was speaking generically, not aimed at anybody in particular. That sort of thing just irks me, and reading your post reminded me of that for some reason.

[Jonathan Bailey]

A few points.

First off, to everyone who is touting CC licenses and saying that Valeria is being closed-minded, I disagree completely.

I use CC licenses on my sites. Everything I've ever posted on my own pages is under one license or another. I choose my license because it's what makes sense for me personally, financially and ideologically. However, I know that my choice is not right for everyone, perhaps not even most.

Creative Commons isn't a contest to see who can be the most "free" or "open". It's a tool to help you pick and have the right licensing structure for you. Whatever that is, and it requires that others respect your choices for it work, including if your choice is to not have one at all.

You would also be surprised how few people actually complete the terms of a CC license when they use a work. Go look at my most recent article and see if you've been using CC licensed works correctly:

http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/01/12/how-to-correctly-use-creative-commons-works/

What I'm trying to hit at is that CC licenses are very often misunderstood and misused. Sometimes intentionally, usually by accident. So there are risks with using a CC license.

Getting back to the case at hand, I'm not that familiar with Posterous directly but after looking at it I can see why its a concern. It's an interesting idea but worrisome in that it encourages people to essentially scrape content without realizing. I may write the makers and see what they think.

Thank you for drawing my attention to this site and, as always, let me know if you have any questions I can help with! That offer goes out to anyone.

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Otto - thank you for clarifying and for trusting this community with your thoughts.

@Jonathan - thank you for picking up on the CC license issue. Good to know about providing a copy of the license itself, that is illuminating. Indeed, as a society, we don't read anymore, we scan. This here is your money quote:

"Creative Commons isn't a contest to see who can be the most "free" or "open". It's a tool to help you pick and have the right licensing structure for you. Whatever that is, and it requires that others respect your choices for it work, including if your choice is to not have one at all."

We're now fascinated with Posterous in a number of places, so let me know if you write about it and I'll make sure to get the word out.