5 ms·

We use the Backtype plugin on TheNextWeb (example here: http://thenextweb.com/2009/06/02/web-death-google/ http://thenextweb.com/2009/06/02/web-death-google/) a

We use the Backtype plugin on TheNextWeb (example here: http://thenextweb.com/2009/06/02/web-death-google/ http://thenextweb.com/2009/06/02/web-death-google/) and up until now, we have had no complaints and only requests for how people could do it themselves. Today, one person, a Hacker News reader Gojomo (http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=gojomo http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=gojomo) called us out then called us "sleazy" which frankly, whether comment syndication is a problem or not, is just out of order.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
icey 17y ago
What's irritating is the "Discussions" section on your front page. It makes it seem as though the user is commenting on your site; not that you're scraping it off of another site.
- zeedotme 17y ago
  I understand what you're saying but you gotta appreciate it's rather difficult to get round. Plus, I still feel it's discussion based on our content and rather reasonable to have there.
  - icey 17y ago
    So because someone talks about what you've written you feel it gives you license to do as you please with THEIR content (i.e. their comments)? By that logic, you give Google, Microsoft and everyone else you write about permission to reprint your content. That can't be your intention, can it? I'm saying that it looks misleading the way you have it on your page. I don't really care one way or the other, I'm just telling you what it looks like.
  - sho 17y ago
    "I still feel it's discussion based on our content and rather reasonable to have there" By that logic, any and all of the companies you discuss on your site have the right to republish anything you write, since it's "based on their content" (press releases/announcements). Is that "rather reasonable" as well?
    - zeedotme 17y ago
      absolutely! as long as they link back - for sure.
      - sho 17y ago
        Monetising your content with ads, and setting rel="nofollow" like you do? I have a hard time believing you'd be as delighted as you claim.
sho 17y ago
I agree, it's sleazy as hell. Who gave you permission to copy comments written here onto you blog? I don't care what they're "reacting" to, those comments were not written by you and you have no right to republish them. Example of this behaviour: http://thenextweb.com/2009/06/03/bad-news-ibm-apple/ http://thenextweb.com/2009/06/03/bad-news-ibm-apple/
gojomo 17y ago
(Because I've been called out here, and it pertains to this discussion, I reproduce here my response from http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=641001 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=641001 ) Zee M Kane of TheNextWeb asks me via Twitter: @gojomo regarding how your comments about us and "comment syndication" - why do you have to automatically go the ultra negative route? Because you've breached important norms: that I decide where my name and writing appears, and that content contributed to one site isn't bulk-republished at another site for commercial gain. If you wanted to take occasional hand-selected quotes -- "gojomo at Hacker News makes a good point when he says..." etc. -- that's fair and respectful, even flattering. But scraping and merging every HN comment into your own discussion threads is sleazy, barely a notch above the splogs that grab blocks of others' text unattributed for search-engine spamming. Attribution is not enough to legitimize the tactic at this indiscriminate scale. Also: Your presentation removes the threading and feedback mechanisms so important to HN discussions. You add 'nofollow' on the backlinks you do provide. Your iPhone interface includes a prominent YC commenter icon that (when it appears on 7-of-8-comments on your site) implies an affiliation or endorsement where none exists. The whole thing reeks, and that you don't yet perceive the problem justifies an even more "ultra negative" tone than I've already adopted.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

icey 17y ago

What's irritating is the "Discussions" section on your front page. It makes it seem as though the user is commenting on your site; not that you're scraping it off of another site.

zeedotme 17y ago
I understand what you're saying but you gotta appreciate it's rather difficult to get round. Plus, I still feel it's discussion based on our content and rather reasonable to have there.
- icey 17y ago
  So because someone talks about what you've written you feel it gives you license to do as you please with THEIR content (i.e. their comments)? By that logic, you give Google, Microsoft and everyone else you write about permission to reprint your content. That can't be your intention, can it? I'm saying that it looks misleading the way you have it on your page. I don't really care one way or the other, I'm just telling you what it looks like.
- sho 17y ago
  "I still feel it's discussion based on our content and rather reasonable to have there" By that logic, any and all of the companies you discuss on your site have the right to republish anything you write, since it's "based on their content" (press releases/announcements). Is that "rather reasonable" as well?
  - zeedotme 17y ago
    absolutely! as long as they link back - for sure.
    - sho 17y ago
      Monetising your content with ads, and setting rel="nofollow" like you do? I have a hard time believing you'd be as delighted as you claim.

sho 17y ago

I agree, it's sleazy as hell. Who gave you permission to copy comments written here onto you blog? I don't care what they're "reacting" to, those comments were not written by you and you have no right to republish them. Example of this behaviour: http://thenextweb.com/2009/06/03/bad-news-ibm-apple/ http://thenextweb.com/2009/06/03/bad-news-ibm-apple/

gojomo 17y ago

(Because I've been called out here, and it pertains to this discussion, I reproduce here my response from http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=641001 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=641001 ) Zee M Kane of TheNextWeb asks me via Twitter: @gojomo regarding how your comments about us and "comment syndication" - why do you have to automatically go the ultra negative route? Because you've breached important norms: that I decide where my name and writing appears, and that content contributed to one site isn't bulk-republished at another site for commercial gain. If you wanted to take occasional hand-selected quotes -- "gojomo at Hacker News makes a good point when he says..." etc. -- that's fair and respectful, even flattering. But scraping and merging every HN comment into your own discussion threads is sleazy, barely a notch above the splogs that grab blocks of others' text unattributed for search-engine spamming. Attribution is not enough to legitimize the tactic at this indiscriminate scale. Also: Your presentation removes the threading and feedback mechanisms so important to HN discussions. You add 'nofollow' on the backlinks you do provide. Your iPhone interface includes a prominent YC commenter icon that (when it appears on 7-of-8-comments on your site) implies an affiliation or endorsement where none exists. The whole thing reeks, and that you don't yet perceive the problem justifies an even more "ultra negative" tone than I've already adopted.