Posting full article requirement?

[Smith]

I know the mods have a lot to look for as it is, but could you make it a requirement in news threads to actually post the content of the article and not just the link? My thinking is I hate bumping the CA or Tennesseans viewer rating by clicking on the links. Just a thought.

[strickj]

It grinds my gears too.

Doesn't matter to me what site the link is for...I usually won't click it.

I;m just lazy and don't like the occasional virus' that get you from lesser sites\blogs that people post links to.

[Oh Shoot]

I tend to agree, but a lot of the web formatting makes some places quite difficult to paste from without a lot of previewing and cleanup.

- OS

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Am ignorant of myriad copyright details, but some forums are skittish about users pasting entire contents of articles from other sources due to copyright infringement hazards.

However, such skittish forums often deem it safe allowing links plus relevant short quotes from the source article. Fair Use or whatever. Fair Use is different from plagarism <g>.

[Smith]

As long as the link to the original article and proper recognition is given copryright is served.

[Guest mosinon]

I know the mods have a lot to look for as it is, but could you make it a requirement in news threads to actually post the content of the article and not just the link? My thinking is I hate bumping the CA or Tennesseans viewer rating by clicking on the links. Just a thought.

Then it isn't worth it to you to read the article. So don't. The way this works is simple. If the article is interesting enough to read you'll read it. They get the hits.

Reposting an article is robbing them of hits. Don't do it. I've been ripped off plenty of times by people reposting instead of linking. Writers appreciate it when you read it at the original source.

[Smith]

Then it isn't worth it to you to read the article. So don't. The way this works is simple. If the article is interesting enough to read you'll read it. They get the hits.

Reposting an article is robbing them of hits. Don't do it. I've been ripped off plenty of times by people reposting instead of linking. Writers appreciate it when you read it at the original source.

I don't think you understand the point.

[Guest mosinon]

yeah, I understand the point. I don't see how I could miss it.

you said

"I know the mods have a lot to look for as it is, but could you make it a requirement in news threads to actually post the content of the article and not just the link? My thinking is I hate bumping the CA or Tennesseans viewer rating by clicking on the links. Just a thought."

So basically, you want the stuff other people have written to be reposted so you don't have to give them hits. That was your point right? Are we good so far?

Assuming we are on the same page, a dangerous thing I'll admit, what you want is a rule that says you want to repost the entire text of an author's article. And you won't give that author a lousy hit for it?

Do whatever makes you feel good and all but if you don't want to read the content of the Commercial Appeal or whatever then don't read the stuff they publish.

The way I read your statement it seems like you want to read it, you just don't want to give them the hits.

[Guest Ae-35]

Do like I do, if it links to the CA, or Tennessean, I skip it, knowing if it's from those two, it's some kind of BS.

[DaveTN]

Mouse over the link; if it’s from the CA and you don’t like that, don’t click it.

I usually try to put text in the thread but like OS says, sometimes it just requires too much formatting.

Also, there are some pages that do not allow you to copy and paste.

[Smith]

yeah, I understand the point. I don't see how I could miss it.

you said

"I know the mods have a lot to look for as it is, but could you make it a requirement in news threads to actually post the content of the article and not just the link? My thinking is I hate bumping the CA or Tennesseans viewer rating by clicking on the links. Just a thought."

So basically, you want the stuff other people have written to be reposted so you don't have to give them hits. That was your point right? Are we good so far?

Assuming we are on the same page, a dangerous thing I'll admit, what you want is a rule that says you want to repost the entire text of an author's article. And you won't give that author a lousy hit for it?

Do whatever makes you feel good and all but if you don't want to read the content of the Commercial Appeal or whatever then don't read the stuff they publish.

The way I read your statement it seems like you want to read it, you just don't want to give them the hits.

Partially. Difference is that news is not intellectual or literary personal property in the traditional sense. If it were the AP would be suing every news outlet in the world. Newspapers crosspsost articles in exactly the same way i suggeted above. Now intellectual property I agree, but news does not fit that criteria, even in their own usage.

[Guest mosinon]

Partially. Difference is that news is not intellectual or literary personal property in the traditional sense. If it were the AP would be suing every news outlet in the world. Newspapers crosspsost articles in exactly the same way i suggeted above. Now intellectual property I agree, but news does not fit that criteria, even in their own usage.

heh, you might be surprised:

fair use=four words

they aren't sharing articles for free. Newspapers and so forth work deals out. Deals like "you run our ads and you can run our stories"

I used to get bonuses for getting something I wrote on Digg (or other big sites). One day I noticed one of my articles was getting a ton of hits. Turns out some other site had copied and posted the bit of drivel I had written. Digg was linking to that site so I didn't get the bonus.

I apologize if I came off as harsh earlier, it was not my intention to malign you in any way. If I could do it over, I'd do it differently.

[Smith]

heh, you might be surprised:

fair use=four words

they aren't sharing articles for free. Newspapers and so forth work deals out. Deals like "you run our ads and you can run our stories"

I used to get bonuses for getting something I wrote on Digg (or other big sites). One day I noticed one of my articles was getting a ton of hits. Turns out some other site had copied and posted the bit of drivel I had written. Digg was linking to that site so I didn't get the bonus.

I apologize if I came off as harsh earlier, it was not my intention to malign you in any way. If I could do it over, I'd do it differently.

HaHa, the AP thing was pretty funny. No ill intent taken on or given. Just a thought. I hate artificially boosting readership to some of the drivel out there. This site probably does a good bit of boosting to the CA and Tennessean over there normal ratings . Then again maybe they will start looking at where their ratings are coming from and change course ..... but they haven't yet.