3 ms·

You're conflating a lot of things here. The title of the original essay is "nobody cares about your blog" if I agree with the author in the sense he meant it, I

You're conflating a lot of things here. The title of the original essay is "nobody cares about your blog" if I agree with the author in the sense he meant it, I'm not sure where the problem is. Likewise, "the author's blog comes up in the first Google results" is exactly the kind of industrialization I'm talking about. Assuming positive intent, and that you're not a bot, thanks for the chance to clarify!

ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
The title is a quote from the person who responded to him rudely, not a statement of his own opinion, he spends the entire article arguing against that person. My understanding of your point, and the industrialization that you spoke of, is that it would strip or muddy authorship, you can't take this blog as an example of that when it's original research that comes up prominently along with its author in the medium the author intended. The stripping of the authorship was done willfully (allegedly) by a human, not by some algorithm that'd prop-up derivative content with unclear chains of authorship over original research.
- DanielBMarkham 4y ago
  Yes, I agree that the author that his work is important. I further agree that the sentiment expressed by his correspondent is common. Further, Google is just the first step in the internet repurposing machine. The tech is 20 years old. It drives newer industrial tech like the recent AI. All of it exists to gain a fractional value from thousands of sources rather than single source a work. The point here is not to research and cite a work, it's to scan and reassemble. It's great to have a traditional view of authorship and scholarship. I support that view. The internet engine of commerce does not support this and views such as those debated in this essay far outweigh those older ones.

3 ms·

You're conflating a lot of things here. The title of the original essay is "nobody cares about your blog" if I agree with the author in the sense he meant it, I

by DanielBMarkham 4y ago

ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
The title is a quote from the person who responded to him rudely, not a statement of his own opinion, he spends the entire article arguing against that person. My understanding of your point, and the industrialization that you spoke of, is that it would strip or muddy authorship, you can't take this blog as an example of that when it's original research that comes up prominently along with its author in the medium the author intended. The stripping of the authorship was done willfully (allegedly) by a human, not by some algorithm that'd prop-up derivative content with unclear chains of authorship over original research.
- DanielBMarkham 4y ago
  Yes, I agree that the author that his work is important. I further agree that the sentiment expressed by his correspondent is common. Further, Google is just the first step in the internet repurposing machine. The tech is 20 years old. It drives newer industrial tech like the recent AI. All of it exists to gain a fractional value from thousands of sources rather than single source a work. The point here is not to research and cite a work, it's to scan and reassemble. It's great to have a traditional view of authorship and scholarship. I support that view. The internet engine of commerce does not support this and views such as those debated in this essay far outweigh those older ones.