[rant] Agreed. As someone who runs a (completely nothing to do with sport and almost certainly of no interest to anyone here) website which has a number of people creating content for which I pay them, I get extremely annoyed when I find that other people have decided that they're within their rights to simply copy the work which I have commissioned and paid for and put it on a messageboard (that's not a shot at the messageboard owner by the way, I realise that it's very difficult to police). I pay for that content because I want people to visit my site, because for every person that visits my site I get paid a very small amount of money by my advertisers. If someone just copies the work that I've commissioned and I own and pastes it elsewhere, even with a link, then I get no money because people don't need to visit my site to read it. So in the end, I have to either make my site subscription-based (as a lot of the newspapers are starting to do with paywalls), or I stop commissioning those articles. Kelly is doing absolutely the right thing by only posting the link, so those of you who complain about it, I suggest you learn some basic netiquette and stop assuming that everything on the internet happens for free. [/rant] Edit: I've no real issue with someone posting a small taster, say the first paragraph of an article, if they must, but given the choice I'd rather they didn't all the same. I'd like someone to come to my site and find out for themself whether they want to read it, but that's just me being a click-whore........
General 'netiquette' dictates that when you post an article, you should at least post a paragraph of it. At least that's how I've always seen it done. I hate clicking on an article and not knowing what to expect from it.
Not without permission, it isn't your content to reproduce in part or entirety. One would hope that on a messageboard such as this the veracity of the poster would determine whether you click on a link or not; Kelly posts lots of links to Jets-related articles and to my knowledge has never posted links to promote a specific site or to spam, so I don't see why you wouldn't follow her links and then decide for yourself whether you want to read the full article. By all means post opinions of the article and a synopsis if you wish, but don't cut content. I'm not charging you to read the article, but I get paid by you doing it on my site.
You are allowed to post a paragraph of a published article as long as you link back to the site. If the article is (i think the number is 2) 2 paragraphs or less, then you may post one or two sentences before linking back. For example: This article: http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/WHAT-AN-AIRHEAD-HOLMES-MUST-START-GROWING-UP-13423085 It would be fine to post this to go along with it.
And just to add, I don't read every single article any one posts. I judge whether or not I actually want to read it. It's not that I think it might be a spam site, or some personal vendetta against Kelly, I just prefer a taste of the article, to see whether or not I want to read it or not. For example, I probably wouldn't read the article I posted because it's assinine faux news crap, but at least I know I don't want to read it before hand, and I'm not breaking any laws by posting it in the manner I did.
OK, but the end result - as I said - is that content providers end up either introducing paywalls, or cutting back on the amount of content they create. If you want to keep getting content for free, then treat the content providers with respect - which Kelly does, and gets grief for. We're somewhat off topic here for which I apologise, but as you can tell it's a topic near and dear to my heart.
I totally understand, but as a reader, if someone posts a link, I'd at least like a few lines from the article for me to judge if I want to continue reading or not. Again, I really do understand where you are coming from, but it's fine to post a paragraph or a couple lines with it, unless it's an extremely short article.
But the point is that you can click the link and judge from the original article whether you want to read the whole thing; is a click really that onerous? You aren't being charged for it, you know. By asking someone to post a paragraph so you can decide if you want to read it you're costing the content creator and owner money because a single click is just too much for you? I would have thought that it's the least you can do to thank them for the effort of creating it, even if you don't agree. And if after you've read a couple of their articles and you decide you don't like the tone or the subject of the site, then just don't go there again.
Well with the whole net neutrality thing going on, it may be with content caps and shit like that, but that's a whole different story alltogether, and we've already strayed far enough I think. The thing is, by linking to a site (I'm going to assume the majority of us don't visit said site) they are making more money off of the link back to the site then they would have to begin with, and I'm sure it's going to kill nobody by posting a few lines of the article. If I'm considering reading something, I want to be enticed into reading it. Sometimes the article's title will do it , but if it doesn't, and I open the thread anyway, maybe a few lines out of the article will sway me to actually read it
That's a fair comment about the additional clicks from the link, and like I said although I'd rather there wasn't any copying I can live with a paragraph to give a flavour and certainly wouldn't consider taking action over it.
Agreed. Ideally, people would put the most relevant part of the article on here, the main reason why you wrote the post, or post a quick summary about it, and provide a link. As someone who runs a blog, I want people to click the links, so advertisers can give me a penny or something every 50 clicks. That said, as a reader and message board frequenter, I do like reading a teaser about the article. And if I like it, I'll click the link to find out more. TGG has more lax rules about posting articles than a lot of sites. We'll allow you to post a link and the entire article, which you're really not supposed to do, but it keeps you here, so whatever:up:. When people don't even provide a link, that's just a whole bunch of BS to whoever wrote it.
