« Give me a couple of minutes please | Main | The future of teambuilding »
Happy is the link whore
I seriously wish people would stop bitching and moaning about The Scobe's link blog.
The few times he's linked here, our stats went through the roof. What was nice is each time a few people seemed to hang about. Isn't that what this is all about?
There really is no down side here, even if he posts your full post. The way I see it, you're not losing anything, the worst that can happen is that someone that didn't visit your blog in the past, may not be interested enough to visit it now.
If you don't want to get linked, it's real easy - get the fuck off the internet...!
Posted by Rich...! | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83452464069e200d83444da8e53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Happy is the link whore:
Comments
he really needs to fix his CSS in his template adding a line of overflow hidden to get rid of long links wacking out his layout, like this for example:
.narrowcolumn {
float: left;
padding: 0 0 20px 45px;
margin: 0px 0 0;
width: 450px;
overflow: hidden;
}
he also needs to add a contact link.
Posted by: ivan raszl | 22 Mar 2005 14:22:44
Sheeesh Ivan, you're talking a pay grade above me mate.
But sure, umm, that sounds about right. Robert, if you happen to read this, do what Ivan says...!
Posted by: Rich...! | 22 Mar 2005 20:58:51
I agree with you in terms of traffic - as I have said over and over, I definitely appreciate the traffic when he links to me.
That said, there is something everyone needs to understand here: linking is very different from republishing, and republishing something in its entirety is very different from republishing a small portion. Scoble's link blog acts more like a full-text aggregator than a "link" blog.
I wrote a bit about this here: http://slashstar.com/blogs/tim/archive/2005/03/20/SyndicationCopyright.aspx
The key point I made there was that "the content's medium alone does not eliminate the author's rights in that content".
"Getting off the internet" is not the answer either. Just because content is served digitally (XML or otherwise) doesn't mean we can use it in a way that violates license and/or copyright. (See the music analogy in Scoble's comments).
Posted by: Tim Marman | 23 Mar 2005 21:59:46
I must say Tim, I find your logic difficult to dispute, what you say makes perfect sense. I'm just not sure why you're concerned.
You see the link blog always accredits the author of the post, if enough people see "posted by Rich...!" on the link blog, my hope is that eventually they'll say "who is this Rich...! bloke anyway?" and visit this site.
I also agree with the music rights issue you pointed me to in the comments. However it's a tough comparison to make, the record companies aren't offering their content for syndication in the first place, bloggers are.
One of my fundimental problems with blogging is I tend to read the same guys every day, even the people they link to tend to be the same, a link blog like scoble's introduces me to new content providers that I would otherwise not have found. The way I see it, the link blog offers a link between writer and reader, that's a good thing.
Cristian's argument that Scoble was using his content to drive traffic his way was a bit weak.
Lastly, sure getting off the internet was a bit of a daft statement, but the point I was making is that we choose to play this game, we need to respect it's rules.
Pop back sometime...!
Posted by: Rich...! | 23 Mar 2005 22:22:30
Yes, I think Christian's argument was weak. Scoble has good intentions - he has the traffic and is actually trying to share it with others. Of course, there are plenty of other sites out there in the opposite situation.
The point is, it's not Scoble's decision to decide if it's an acceptable use; it's the AUTHOR'S decision. So, as I said, I'm using an Attribution-NonCommercial license - he's not commercializing my content and he's linking back to me - so it works with my license. I imagine you would want a similar license. Others might not feel the same way, though, and it's their right to offer a feed that has more restrictions on how it is used.
Syndicated doesn't mean free. Syndication is just a means to facilitate distribution.
syndicate (v. syn·di·cat·ed, syn·di·cat·ing, syn·di·cates)
1. To organize into or manage as a syndicate. 2. To sell shares in. 3. To sell (a comic strip or column, for example) through a syndicate for simultaneous publication in newspapers or periodicals. 4. To sell (a television series, for example) directly to independent stations.
Posted by: Tim Marman | 23 Mar 2005 22:53:02
It is indeed their right to offer their feed with as many restrictions as they want, however at the moment that's tricky, I have a CC license on this page (dedicated to the public domain) but I doubt anyone reads it.
At the moment "the system" doesnt allow for this easily enough, the one thing people could do would be to offer truncated feeds, then the post would be truncated in the link blog too, but I doubt that this would benefit anyone.
I believe that this is going be one of those great "watch this space" issues.
Here's hoping...!
Posted by: Rich...! | 23 Mar 2005 23:39:08
