[netwatch]

Hi everyone. I normally just lurk here now and again (thanks to all, I enjoy it) but something has disturbed me enough to post. My apologies for my first post being a little negative, but...

Isn't it normal for web blogs and sites that report news to post links to their sources when gleaned from other sites? AFAIK, that's a very important part of internet journalism as well as common courtesy. Well, having followed iPodNN news for a while now, I have noticed that virtually zero links are ever posted to the source, despite it being blissfully obvious who wrote the original article.

Here's an example from today:

original story reported:

http://www.dapreview.net/comment.php?comment.news.1691

story correctly reported at the first iPod site:

http://ipodstudio.com/forums/showthread.php/t/1726

many hours later iPodNN reports identical story incorrectly:

http://www.ipodnn.com/news/05/06/22/ipod.mp4.knockoff/

I just found that most arrogant and unprofessional and thought I'd ask if others thought likewise.

[turtle777]

You complain that iPodNN doesn't link to the http://www.dapreview.net article, but to thge manufacturer / supplier ?

Why not link back to the mfg / supplier ? Just because someone else mentioned it before you ?

-t

[RAILhead]

That's it!! Screw it!!

I AM OUTTA HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

[netwatch]

Originally Posted by turtle777

You complain that iPodNN doesn't link to the http://www.dapreview.net article, but to thge manufacturer / supplier ?

Why not link back to the mfg / supplier ? Just because someone else mentioned it before you ?

-t

Because when you find a story on another website and re-publish the contents on your own site you always link to the site who originally ran the story. It's called giving credit.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by netwatch

Because when you find a story on another website and re-publish the contents on your own site you always link to the site who originally ran the story. It's called giving credit.

BS.

How do you even know that MacNN foundit on ipodstudio.com or www.dapreview.net in the first place ? And even if they did, iPodNN did not quote anything from either one.

They just announced that there is a "China-based manufacturer is offering what it calls the "Ipod MP4 Player."" Then they link to the original mfg. website.

WTF would they have to give credit to other news sites reporting it first ?
What news source always links to the first SECONDARY source, instead to the primary source ?

-t

[JHromadka]

I'm more annoyed by the macnn rel links instead of the actual link to articles. I prefer to know where I'm going to go when I click a link.

[ThinkInsane]

Feedback goes in.... are you ready for it?.... FEEDBACK!

[netwatch]

...and links to the original articles go....ready for it? .....in the article.

[netwatch]

Originally Posted by turtle777

BS.

How do you even know that MacNN foundit on ipodstudio.com or www.dapreview.net in the first place ? And even if they did, iPodNN did not quote anything from either one.

They just announced that there is a "China-based manufacturer is offering what it calls the "Ipod MP4 Player."" Then they link to the original mfg. website.

WTF would they have to give credit to other news sites reporting it first ?
What news source always links to the first SECONDARY source, instead to the primary source ?

-t

No! You quote the direct link to the manufacturer AND the source link. Otherwise sites could maraud all over the net just regurgitating other people's stories and pretending they were their own.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by netwatch

No! You quote the direct link to the manufacturer AND the source link. Otherwise sites could maraud all over the net just regurgitating other people's stories and pretending they were their own.

How about you answering my question ?

Originally Posted by turtle777

BS.

How do you even know that MacNN found it [their information] on ipodstudio.com or dapreview.net in the first place ? And even if they did, iPodNN did not quote anything from either one.

WhereTF do you get the idea from that iPodNN used them as their source, and not the mfg. press announcment ?

-t

[netwatch]

Originally Posted by turtle777

How about you answering my question ?



WhereTF do you get the idea from that iPodNN used them as their source, and not the mfg. press announcment ?

-t

Because this wasn't a press release at all. It was simply something DAPReview found on an Asian website.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by netwatch

Because this wasn't a press release at all. It was simply something DAPReview found on an Asian website.

Moron, show me proof that iPodNN used ipodstudio.com or dapreview.net as their source, or STFU !

-t

[netwatch]

Turtle777, if you have nothing better to offer this thread than one repetitive comment and a few expletives then perhaps you'd do us all a favour and crawl back under the rock in Berlin that you crept out from under.

I posted this thread in order to conduct a civilised debate, turtle777, as opposed to a slanging match with the local village idiot.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by netwatch

I posted this thread in order to conduct a civilised debate, turtle777, as opposed to a slanging match with the local village idiot.

Mwhahaha. Civilized discussion ? You made up that iPodNN copied from other sites, but you still haven't given ANY proof for your accusation of plagiarism.





-t

[netwatch]

turtle, think I'll just move you to ignore. If you can't work it out for yourself then I feel for you, buddy.

Now, perhaps this thread would be better served if moved back to the member's lounge being as no-one from the site admin appears to respond...

[netwatch]

Well this was just great: I posted a question in the lounge and it gets moved rapidly here because this is where you ask questions of the admin and site responsible persons. I get abused by the village idiot and not one admin even bothers to reply.

My conclusions:

1. The thread was quickly moved here to avoid the majority of members from seeing it.

2. The site knows full well it's in the wrong and has decided the best course of action is to ignore it and hope it will go away. In the meantime, let's publish more articles with zero source links because after-all, we're OK, Jack, so why bother playing by the rules?

3. The admin here doesn't give a flying .... what the members here think and if they don't like it they know what they can do about it.

4. The feedback forum is, therefore, redundant and those who post here might as well stand in the corner and beat themselves with something hard instead.

As I recall someone sent us a link to that product's page. Maybe it's the same person who sent it to you, and we took longer to react? Maybe someone saw it on your site and decided to send it to us? Either way it doesn't matter. Even if it's the latter, it's simply not our problem.

[netwatch]

Originally Posted by Nick

Even if it's the latter, it's simply not our problem.

Bingo! That's what I thought I'd finally hear. Thanks guys. Now my posting and lurking days can finally be over and I can head to a site that does give a ....

I don't make it my business to promote a competitor's site. If information is taken from a site, they will be cited. If that site happened to be the first on a story that I later report on, I am not going to make it known. Congratulations -- you beat us to a story. I'm not going to go out of my way to let the world know. If we had taken information from your site it would have been different, but we never even saw your article.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by netwatch

...and links to the original articles go....ready for it? .....in the article.

FYI, other than Nick, there is no overlap of the news and forums teams. No need to get snippy with us forum folks.

tooki

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by netwatch

Now my posting and lurking days can finally be over and I can head to a site that does give a ....

Yeah, please leave.

You are a moron that once in a lifetime reported a story before anybody else, and now you seek recognition. Get a life.

-t

[Zimphire]

I just found that this thread from the beginning was most arrogant and unprofessional

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

I just found that this thread from the beginning was most arrogant and unprofessional

Yeah. I don't know where he got the idea from that everyone on the internet had to link to the first SECONDARY source (HIM) instead to the original website. He might be new at teh intarweb...

-t

[netwatch]

OK, for those who really find this hard to understand, here it is: DAPReview spent hours sifting through various Asian websites finding some decent news. They find some and post it. Sites like this then come along, see it, and post it as theirs, without linking to the original source. That is simply stealing content and regurgitating it, AND taking full credit for work you did not do.

To the admin: once again, I'm not speaking here as a site owner; I am simply remarking as a reader here and asking for explanation of actions which, as a reader, I find ethically bankrupt.

I'm sure any site, confronted with such flagrant flouting of the rules of internet journalism, would ultimately say that the story was sent in by a reader and blah, blah, blah. Rubbish! Sites like this use that leafy shelter to hide their actions from the public and anyone here that says that doesn't happen either hasn't a clue about what's happening or doesn't care as they swather themselves within the blanket of fanboyism and simply stick their heads in the ground and scream that their favourite site would never do such a thing. They would and they do.

So whilst the fanboys here scream innocence and the admin arrogantly dismiss the charges with excuses that just won't fly anymore, the copying continues.
This isn't just confined to here, either. In fact, www.DAPReview.net has just published an article about it on their front page and I hope that www.ipodstudio.com does, too. Here's a direct link to that article: http://www.dapreview.net/comment.php?comment.news.1809

Oh..and if you guys decide to publish that article here...post a credit, please.

[netwatch]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

I just found that this thread from the beginning was most arrogant and unprofessional

Which part did you find unprofessional, Zimphire? Me pointing out what was happening or the response which I got?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by netwatch

OK, for those who really find this hard to understand, here it is...[
Bla bla bla

Originally Posted by turtle777

I don't know where he got the idea from that everyone on the internet had to link to the first SECONDARY source (HIM) instead to the original website. He might be new at teh intarweb...

-t

[netwatch]

Originally Posted by turtle777

Yeah. I don't know where he got the idea from that everyone on the internet had to link to the first SECONDARY source (HIM) instead to the original website. He might be new at teh intarweb...

-t

turtle777
Addicted to MacNN

Join Date: Jun 2001

...no fanboyism here, eh Turtle?

Blogging: If minds had anuses, blogging would be what your mind would do when it had to take a dump.

Yes, thankyou for those words of wisdom, turtle. Your signature is most apt coonsidering it's internet location.

[xi_hyperon]

Although I'd say it has potential, this thread is not really that entertaining. Needs a couple days more to percolate. I'll check back then.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by netwatch

Which part did you find unprofessional, Zimphire? Me pointing out what was happening or the response which I got?

You posting it in the forum, and not personally sending the owner a email about it.

You was just trying to get attention. And promote your site.

[netwatch]

I don't remember you ever asking me if I'd sent an email prior to posting this so how would you know?

You jump to conclusions and make assumptions that any true fanboy would be proud of..and with 30,361 posts to date it's not difficult to see where your ethics and even logics became twisted by blind loyalty.

Do yourself a favour: step back, look clearly and objectively at what is happening here (without making any assumptions of our own that later prove to be incorrect) and then ask yourself whether anything I wrote in my initial post could possibly be contrued as being arrogant or unprofessional.

Arrogant and unprofessional is taking credit for the efforts of others, the equivalent of my sending a friend to sit my degree course and exams at university and then claiming that degree as one of my qualifications.

[netwatch]

Lastly, those sites that are truly interested in what they write about tend to also have a respect for others within that topic's field. They have no problem linking to other sites and declaring their sources as they want the community to improve, and that means all related websites becoming better.

Those who regurgitate simply to create a page that can be sold to advertisers think a little different.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by netwatch

I don't remember you ever asking me if I'd sent an email prior to posting this so how would you know?

AGAIN the way you posted in this forum is STILL unprofessional. And it reeks of "PAY ME ATTENTION, and COME TO MY SITE!"

You didn't need to post this in the forum. It's none of the forum member's business. Certainly shouldn't have posted it in the lounge.

You jump to conclusions and make assumptions that any true fanboy would be proud of..and with 30,361 posts to date it's not difficult to see where your ethics and even logics became twisted by blind loyalty.

100% silly.

Do yourself a favour: step back, look clearly and objectively at what is happening here (without making any assumptions of our own that later prove to be incorrect) and then ask yourself whether anything I wrote in my initial post could possibly be contrued as being arrogant or unprofessional.

You continue to post and prove my point. Add pretentious to that list BTW.

You don't come to someone else's site, accuse, and personally attack and then expect to get respected.

You are only being treated how you are acting.

If you don't like the way you are being treated, I suggest lose that attitude you have had since your first post in this thread.

[netwatch]

You continue to post and prove my point. Add pretentious to that list BTW.

You don't come to someone else's site, accuse, and personally attack and then expect to get respected.

You are only being treated how you are acting.

If you don't like the way you are being treated, I suggest lose that attitude you have had since your first post in this thread.

LOL! "Captain, what planet have we landed on?" "I dunno, Sergeant, but I have a feeling they don't think like earthlings and their postures suggest they don't like us being here.."

Zimphire, are you seeing turtle777's posts or do they just show up for me?

AGAIN the way you posted in this forum is STILL unprofessional. And it reeks of "PAY ME ATTENTION, and COME TO MY SITE!"

..I must be typing in invisible pixels...which of the two above mentioned sites have you assumed I own? Attitude? I'm losing the will to live, here..

[Zimphire]

[netwatch]

OK, now let's see: the site T3.CO.UK was today publically denounced on DAPReview's FP:

http://www.dapreview.net/comment.php?comment.news.1810

Mike, who runs that site responded with the following: (this is posted publically at the above link, BTW, and is not private correspondence.)

"Hi Austin,

I’ve just seen the story you posted on your website and obviously felt compelled to reply. Having sifted through all the emails sent to T3 and my personal email account I have found no record of any emails being sent. If I had I would have certainly replied before it got to this.

We get our stories from various sources and make every effort to credit sites that originate stories. Sometimes it doesn’t always happen, for one reason or another, and that’s the case here. T3 never knowingly ‘steals’ news stories from other sites and always attempts to track stories back to their original source, to prevent matters like this happening.

We have a policy of sending a link to every article we post to Gizmodo - and other select sites – which is why it was picked up by them.

I have nothing but respect for DAPreview and in future will ensure every story we run that originates from your site will be credited to you." (end quote)


OK, to judge from that reply, Mike at least understands and acknowledges that posting source links is, indeed, important and that by not doing so he screwed up. Judging by DAPReview's response they don't seem to believe him, but that's neither here nor there for the purposes of this discussion.

What is here or there is that this site does not even acknowledge the presence of a set of online journalistic ethics which require regurgitating blogs to state their sources. Even more worrying is that it hasn't, since it's founding date, managed to work this out for itself and even when questioned in a thread like this defends the indefensible.

[netwatch]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Yep, that should solve it, eh?

[Zimphire]

netwatch What are you after? And apology?

If so, you wont get it.

[tooki]

Yah, considering that the news staff has already given you its response, you really can't expect any more.

tooki

[netwatch]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

netwatch What are you after? And apology?

If so, you wont get it.

Source links posted in the articles here would be a great start for me. Words mean little, anyways, especially when you have no idea who actually wrote them..

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by netwatch

Source links posted in the articles here would be a great start for me.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by netwatch

Source links posted in the articles here would be a great start for me. Words mean little, anyways, especially when you have no idea who actually wrote them..

You already got your response from a news editor. He got the link from an informant. That's it, there is nothing more to the story.

Now drop it. You are beating a dead horse.

tooki

[netwatch]

Originally Posted by tooki

You already got your response from a news editor. He got the link from an informant. That's it, there is nothing more to the story.

tooki

And you, dear Tooki, already have yours:

I'm sure any site, confronted with such flagrant flouting of the rules of internet journalism, would ultimately say that the story was sent in by a reader and blah, blah, blah. Rubbish! Sites like this use that leafy shelter to hide their actions from the public and anyone here that says that doesn't happen either hasn't a clue about what's happening or doesn't care as they swather themselves within the blanket of fanboyism and simply stick their heads in the ground and scream that their favourite site would never do such a thing. They would and they do.

So whilst the fanboys here scream innocence and the admin arrogantly dismiss the charges with excuses that just won't fly anymore, the copying continues.
This isn't just confined to here, either. In fact, www.DAPReview.net has just published an article about it on their front page and I hope that www.ipodstudio.com does, too. Here's a direct link to that article: http://www.dapreview.net/comment.php?comment.news.1809

Oh..and if you guys decide to publish that article here...post a credit, please.

Now drop it. You are beating a dead horse.

Actually, I seem to be beating a dead news editing staff!


Beam me up, Scotty! Now!

A very basic concept seems to be lost on you. Readers send us links all day long. We were given a link to a manufacturer's site which MAY or MAY NOT have been found on your site by that reader. We subsequently used the manufacturer's site to write a story. Whether you reported the story first or not is of no consequence. We did not use information from your site -- we did not even read your article or know it existed -- so we are in no way obliged (legally or "morally") to cite you.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by netwatch

And you, dear Tooki, already have yours:

I don't want an answer! I don't even care about your little crusade. What I was telling you is to DROP IT.

tooki

[netwatch]

Originally Posted by Nick

A very basic concept seems to be lost on you. Readers send us links all day long. We were given a link to a manufacturer's site which MAY or MAY NOT have been found on your site by that reader. We subsequently used the manufacturer's site to write a story. Whether you reported the story first or not is of no consequence. We did not use information from your site -- we did not even read your article or know it existed -- so we are in no way obliged (legally or "morally") to cite you.

Yes, thankyou Nick...except there was no manufacturer's website, was there? Click on the link in my initial post. The only link went here:

http://yich.en.alibaba.com/product/0...P4_Player.html

...and the only site reporting on it at the time you posted was DAPReview. So forgive me if I find your story hard to believe. That and the fact that there are virtually zero source links on any of your news stories. Do you also employ a psychic backstage, Nick?
You're the only site I know that has source links quoted in less than 10% of their articles. How is that Nick? How do you do that when all other sites including www.ipodlounge.com , www.ipodstudio.com and the others can't? Last question: if you employ a psychic how come your stories are always posted after they are first posted elswhere? I'm sure no-one would mind if you were first with every story, but...

Some sites walk the net with respect for others and employ professional integrity. Other sites have deemed themselves to be above all others and therefore no longer answerable for their actions as they steam roll through without concern. Funny thing is, that's normally reserved for larger sites than ipodnn that's relatively small and new on the scene, as far as I'm aware.

[netwatch]

Originally Posted by tooki

I don't want an answer! I don't even care about your little crusade. What I was telling you is to DROP IT.

tooki

Tooki, if you careth not for my "little crusade", what under God's roof is it that forces you to repeatedly enter this thread? Whenever I personally find "one of those threads" I simply stay out of it..

..and BTW:

Originally Posted by tooki

No need to get snippy

..no kidding..

Ok, so it wasn't a manufacturer site, it was a distributor. That's not the point. The link used in the story is the link we received. I'm fully open to the possibility that someone saw it on your site and then sent it to us. Please explain why we should link to your site? What information did we take from your site?

As for there only being 10% "source links" in macnn/ipodnn articles, let's see some examples. Much of our news comes from press releases.

[EdGein]

netwatch while I would LOVE to sit here and make fun of NN and tooki et all, they both have a point,

They are under no such obligation. It may not be "nice" or "proper" but you wont get that here.

[netwatch]

I think I've made my point now and don't see any benefit in going over something we've covered 3 times in this thread already, so I'll bow out at this point. My thanks to those who've listened.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by netwatch

.....
...and the only site reporting on it at the time you posted was DAPReview. So forgive me if I find your story hard to believe. That and the fact that there are virtually zero source links on any of your news stories. Do you also employ a psychic backstage, Nick?
You're the only site I know that has source links quoted in less than 10% of their articles. How is that Nick? How do you do that when all other sites including www.ipodlounge.com , www.ipodstudio.com and the others can't? Last question: if you employ a psychic how come your stories are always posted after they are first posted elswhere? I'm sure no-one would mind if you were first with every story, but...

Some sites walk the net with respect for others and employ professional integrity. Other sites have deemed themselves to be above all others and therefore no longer answerable for their actions as they steam roll through without concern. Funny thing is, that's normally reserved for larger sites than ipodnn that's relatively small and new on the scene, as far as I'm aware.

Except iPodNN is linked to MacNN, which has been around for the better part of a decade, has tens of thousands of readers always looking for mac related news, and isn't limited to being only a mp3 player site. How on earth does Mac/iPodNN ever possibly scoop the smaller sites or get their own independent sources?