3 ms·
This is true in my experience as well. Originally there was the concept of reblogging where one site would publish something original and others would publish
by stevesearer 11y ago
This is true in my experience as well.
Originally there was the concept of reblogging where one site would publish something original and others would publish a small excerpt with a clearly defined link to them.
From there came the idea of the [via] link where another site published its own article based on information from the original publisher and attributed a small link.
And from there it seems like there is just so much republished content that sites think of the information as just public information and glean from wherever without any sort of attribution.
- lexicalscope 11y agoI find this amusing because I'm generally suspicious of sites that don't include some form of reference to wherever the information was retrieved - perhaps a habit from when I did more stuff in academia. Things don't exist in vacuum except things that are basically pure opinion articles - just about everything else is based on something and should probably be showing it. Maybe that's just me though.
- benologist 11y agoI think AOL pioneered "discrete attribution", years ago their content farming strategy leaked and one of the big priorities was "recirculating traffic" by ensuring as many links as possible go to their own properties - http://www.businessinsider.com/the-aol-way?op=1 http://www.businessinsider.com/the-aol-way?op=1
- Retra 11y agoThroughout most of human history, any information you could find was always public. Private information is a social construct, and not one that often advantages individuals to concern themselves with.