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

[Mark Riffey]

Valeria,
I fully understand your anger at having your stuff reposted as someone else's on Posterous.

OTOH, the Twitter part of your rant just doesnt wash.

Should the folks who follow me be offended that I thought enough of them to say "hey, check out what so and so said today"?

Many of them dont read Brogan or Seth or heaven forbid - you - every day. They get to see you in your best light (from my perspective) because I noted that "this content rocks, you should check it out" (what a RT *really* means).

Meanwhile, you get a link to your page (not sure if Ive sent anyone your way or not, the "you" is a euphemism for "someone I've RT'd") and you get @'d which notifies you that not only did I read your stuff, I complemented you by passing it on to those with whom I have some level of influence with.

@Otto - Are you calling Brogan a dick too? After all, he RT's tweets all day long with "old school RTs". Thats one of several reasons why he has 100k+ followers - he finds good stuff and shares it. An RT is attribution and notification - the link and the @. No one is stupid enough to think all his RTs are his original thought (is there such a thing anymore?), nor do we think he's a thief.

Do we really live in an age where passing along a link to good (or great) content is the equivalent of stealing it? Give me a break.

[Kunjal Kamdar]

Great post Valeria. I guess at the end of the day it's all about Passion for writing and sharing your thoughts to the world out there.
Nothing can change or copy your thoughts, your creativity.

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Mark - had to look up OTOH. We don't have acronyms as much in Italian and I never got used to using shortcuts that way ;) I think we're on the same wavelength and know you're an original writer, just like Brogan and many others I read. What I'm talking about is tweeting a link to a site that publishes that link without context or additional input. There are many sites created for the sole purpose of rerouting traffic. They do that by publishing links to links. That's what I'm talking about. I do what you do as well: point people to great content, either by tweeting it with or without specific recommendation of why, or by building on the ideas in a post, where I might quote a particularly good part to convey a thought in the author's words. Just like you'd do in book writing. I'll send you a link to some of those link farm sites when I come across them, so you can see exactly what I mean. I didn't want to give them a link in the post. Thank you for reading - and for contributing.

@Kunjal - indeed. Thank you for stopping by.

[Heidi Cool]

It's interesting to watch this debate evolve. I look at this from 2 perspectives, 1 regards copyright/plagiarism, the other regards clarity of communications.

From the copyright perspective ( http://www.heidicool.com/blog/2006/10/20/a-writers-obligations-ethics-law-and-pragmatism-part-1-law/ ) I think many people are either naive or just don't care when they copy other people's work. We just have to keep reminding people that copying another's work is illegal unless the original site stipulates otherwise--either via Creative commons or some other means. If you can't find the rules on the site, assume it is fully protected by copyright.

My blog has been scraped numerous times. I've built the link to my posts into my headline and also try to include links to other content from my site within posts so that I'll get a pingback when my content is re-purposed. The evil-doers are less likely to remove all of the links unless they scrape only the text.

From a communications perspective naturally most of us would like to be mentioned on other blogs. This can be done via links in the content, including a quoted excerpt and link (with full attribution) or through other means that don't include full re-posting.

I also think there is still room in our life for link blogs, but bloggers who do that will gain more if they include a little explanatory paragraph explaining why they are sharing the link. That shows that they've put some thought into their role as content curators and aren't just lazily posting links. This is what I do on my Facebook Fan page (http://www.facebook.com/heidicool ). I'll post a link and include a little paragraph about the topic. I try to approach Twitter in a similar manner, though with the space restrictions this may involve merely a few words.

As to whether I link to the original post or a secondary post that depends. If I found the link via a secondary post AND that post offers useful explanatory material then sometimes I will link to the secondary post. This also gives that person credit for discovering the original source. But usually I post to the original.

As for RT's I personally prefer the old style and don't see how this removes anyone's credit. I've found that most people like to be ReTweeted so Otto's perspective is one I'd not heard. I make sure to include at least the first ReTweeter (more if space allows) to credit them for finding the content, the link itself credits the original author, and this let's me add a comment at the front explaining why I'm RT'ing. Until Twitter improves the feature to include that option I'll stick with the old way.

[Tim Jahn]

Agreed! I can't stand when I click a link to end up to a site that simply writes a sentence or two about a story and then links to the full story.

What's the point in the middleman there, other than to steal traffic and ad revenue? Sites like Gapers Block do this all the time and it's definitely annoying.

[Andrew Peel]

I generally send the scraper an email to take the post down and they are committing copyright infringement. I also add I will check in two days they have done this. If they fail I leave a comment on any of their social media sites that they have copied and put the link to my original for people to compare. I have yet to have anyone fail to remove copied content when I directly approach them.

[aureliano garcia]

I am quite surprised by the comments of some bloggers not feeling "robbed" when Posterous is used or when someone doesn't give credit to their content in other sites.

I think we are missing ONE SINGLE POINT that this article is all about: "We can use some DECENCY on the blogosphere."

Decency doesn´t hurt anybody and we can continue to feel confident of sharing ideas with the world without the distrust of not knowing who is gonna steal from you. Yes guys, it is stealing.Happy someone called it like it is.

best regards

AG

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Heidi - people also need to read creative common licenses, as Jonathan shared, and attribute the work properly using them. Thank you for the links to examples of your online presence and ideas on blog content use and RTs. Amazing how passionate people can be about ways to use a function. It makes for good learning.

@Andrew - that is if they have a listed email. In some cases, you have no email and no contact info/name. Often those sites moderate comments. It's set up on purpose, of course, so you and everyone else don't see the comment appear. So the only option left is to share the instance publicly to see if someone comes forward. Early days, things will settle down.

@Aureliano - civility and respect are worthy of attention. Because behavior is addictive and once people start getting away with a certain type of disregard online, they will not think twice before they transfer that to other areas of their lives and relationships. A slippery slope.

[Paul Gucar]

When I post a video I'm not trying to make people belive that it's me singing,... Same when I post something from another blog and put a link from the original post. That is called lifestream , I share what I do or like , welcome to web 2.

[Valeria Maltoni]

Paul,

I think we're talking about two slightly different things. Sharing what you like is a common practice and, as you indicate, providing proper attribution and links.

My concern is with the mindless republishing (some, let's be frank, do it to sell ads/get traffic, and not to share and be generous). I also hope that we start minimizing ecochamber stuff and doing more original thinking.

I'd rather be known as author than re-poster.

[Barb Chamberlain]

What a great set of comments. I'm completely annoyed when I follow a link on Twitter and find a tiny scrap of someone else's longer post. I've started sending an @ message to people who do this and/or commenting on the blog to let them know what I think of the practice. They're not adding value.

I don't follow Otto's comment about the "real" RT feature though. I *hate* the RT button on the Twitter web interface because I don't get to add any comment about why I think it's worth the RT. It's mechanical and impersonal and I think it encourages junk RTs.

For me the value of an RT comes in someone's comment about WHY I'd want to follow that link, why they found it worth sending to their followers.

I often have to edit the RT text slightly to make room for my comments, or else I write my own comment, provide the link, and credit the source account(s) that brought it to my attention.

Since a good RT is a form of curation, I fail to see how it's a bad move or "stealing content." When I'm linking to the actual content someone else created, I'm certainly not stealing that--I'm driving traffic.

If I'm doing an RT just because someone's tweet is so wonderfully written I want to share it, I use the RT button.

@BarbChamberlain

[faryl]

You raise a lot of good points - although without a specific example, I'm not sure I'm completely on board.

If folks are copying the majority of your content in an attempt to increase their SEO or claim the content as their own, clearly there is an issue.

That said, many blogs (e.g., hobby, personal, industry blogs) exist chiefly for the purpose of helping to aggregate & share the most pertinent/interesting links with their readers. In those cases, I think a link to your post with one or two sentences is harmless.

Although one might argue this should go away now that we have Twitter & Facebook to help share information, I think we lose sight of the fact that not everyone knows how to/wants to/is comfortable with/has time for using Twitter to access information. For those folks, the aforementioned blogs serve a purpose of exposing them to new blogs & sites they may be interested.

Frankly, I don't care whose link gets tweeted - if it leads a reader to my blog, I'm grateful for the new connection. Granted, I view my blog as more of a hobby, so am not concerned with monetization or else I might feel differently.

With respect to posterous & tumblr - personally I use my tumblr account as a repository/archive for interesting posts I've encountered that I think others might enjoy. Those posts are posted to Twitter because it's the quickest, most streamlined way for me to help share the info.

Bottom line (for a lengthy comment!) I think at the end of the day it boils down to intentions be ethical and to "do unto others as you'd like done to you".

[Raj]

Hi Valeria,

I'm a new wannabe blogger on the block and I can understand the pain which you have explained. Its absolutely ridiculous if someone steals the content posted by someone and claims it as theirs. All the hardwork, efforts put by original poster is gone for toss. I hope you'll get your due credit, but since internet and blogging is so wide now, I don't think if we should be really worrying about all these and feel bad or just ignore and move on. There will be always loyal followers and good people who will give you due credit. All the best and keep up the good job. And hey, wish me luck too :)

[BLOGBloke]

I've discussed the issue of plagiarism in depth on my blog if you are interested.

http://www.blogbloke.com/what-is-original-content-copyright-infringement-plagiarism/

Just to add, I agree about the RT issue. But at first blush it's not always apparent which is the original and which isn't. I'm not sure if folks are going to make that kind of effort to differentiate for short tweets.

But as for blog posts .. that is a completely different matter ;-).

Cheers,

..BB

BLOGBloke

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Barb - given that sometimes links take time to load, it is doubly annoying to land on a link of a link. "a good RT is a form of curation" if you're around tomorrow, you will also see what a good tweet can be in my upcoming post ;)

@faryl - "many blogs (e.g., hobby, personal, industry blogs) exist chiefly for the purpose of helping to aggregate & share the most pertinent/interesting links with their readers" why? I challenge that. Add something from you that has value or not do it every day, all the time. I like, for example, how Tim O'Reilly does a post a week of interesting links with a bit of a write up of why. They balance out longer and meatier posts and are curated extremely well to match the direction of the blog. Which is by the way part of my Twitter strategy for content sharing. Highly curated, they follow a logic. If I tweet a post agreeing with a thesis, I also tweet one that disagrees with it (if it exists). In the O'Reilly collection case what I do is tweet the direct link to the story with hat tip to the person who found it and aggregated it. We have proper attribution in off line research and publishing, why is it such an issue online. Entitlement? As for Posterous, they should not have an automatic way for people to lift the whole post. It encourages scraping, even not intentional. Although when people take the copyright info I have in the post (at the bottom) off, I know they have edited the content, so...

@Raj - it concerns me that we are seeing less decency and civility/respect. Good luck with your blog!

@BLOGBloke - when I tweet or RT a link, I've checked it out and read the post. Sorry, but I don't agree on passing on potential crap because there might not be time to verify. Thank you for the link to your post.

[Thomas Chai]

How true especially when I go thru those blogs that are clutter with all the ads and basically they are writing what has already been said to the point of just copying and paste and have no original contents or thoughts of their own whatsoever. Perhaps ads provider like google should also consider this before allowing their ads on such blogs. They are nothing but just to fill up their blogs to get more hits and possibly making money out of people's idea.