dagblog - Comments for "In Our Own Voices: Getting it Right While Blogging"

We probably should not be on

EmmaZahn — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 02:52:22 +0000

In reply to I don't know, I thought there

We probably should not be on the same juries. :-D

FWIW, my original link somehow compromised my twitter account so I changed it. Also had to change my twitter password in the process. Do not think it was anything malicious. Just some features between sites that conflicted. I am thinking it was something to do with the Forbes ad at the link.

Sincerely hope no one else was affected.

I don't know, I thought there

Ramona — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 02:03:27 +0000

In reply to A timely topic. Ongo:

I don't know, I thought there was plenty of info to pick a side. Lee "wrote" an entire piece using nearly every paragraph of another writer's work. That's a pure no-no and she deserved to be called out.

The page views weren't really the issue, just what I thought was an interesting aside. I'm not in the least tech-savvy, but on my own blog I think I can see when my blog posts are linked from another site. I assumed that he was talking about checking the link movement right after Lee's article was posted, but I could be wrong.

I don't know if Lee had done other things like this, but I think a suspension rather than an actual firing would be in order if this was actually her first offense.

But my point in beginning with that story was that even the biggies get caught doing pretty amateurish things. We have to be better than that. :)

A timely topic. Ongo:

EmmaZahn — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 01:14:55 +0000

In reply to In Our Own Voices: Getting it Right While Blogging

A timely topic.

Ongo: Aggregation So Good, You'll Pay for It. (Maybe.) via @forbes

With so much 'content' available online there is bound to be more and more demand for aggregators or some other sort of filter to weed out the worst of the worst. The ability to add intelligent and/or knowledgeable commentary to useful and reliable information will only enhance their worth. I hope to find one such someday soon. :-D

Inevitably there will be more and more disputes between original sources and aggregators, especially when the original is heavily excerpted. Even more so if also deconstructed. My preference is that these be resolved case by case rather than by trying to develop a hard and fast rule. I read through your links on the Dumenco / Lee dispute and still do not feel like there is enough information available to warrant picking a side.

Dumenco shares stats on his own page views driven from Techmeme and Lee's Huffpo article and seems to feel he should have gotten many more from Huffpo given its greater traffic. My question is does he know how many views Lee's article itself got before he gave it a bump by getting Ms. Lee fired? It may be true that Huffpo overall has more traffic than Techmeme but are tech savvy readers interested in all things Steve Jobs related more likely to follow a link from one of FlhuffPo's tech editors or Techmeme?

Also, did Ms. Lee make a habit of unprofessional borrowing because being ~~canned~~ suspended for one disputed article seems a bit of overreaction. Of course, it was a dispute with AdAge and since Huffpo earns its money from ads ....

I feel positively illiterate.

Ramona — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:04:24 +0000

In reply to Of course I did a blog on

I feel positively illiterate. I've never once hit the NYT's paywall. As you said, there are so many sources for news stories and commentary (including, ahem, my blog sidebar) I don't really feel the need to go to the Times every day. Someone is always quoting from them and I can link from someone else's page, which doesn't count against me.

Richard, I know you are thorough in your research, and it shows in your blog posts, all of which are full of remarkable esoterica (that's not a put-down, it's a compliment. I take it to mean "things I didn't know about", which in my case covers a wide range) rendered in such a fun way I find myself reading about things I never knew I was even interested in.

So you, my friend, are exempt from any remarks I might have made about bloggers who maybe aren't paying attention. You surely do, and then some.

"bunch of media companies to

NCD — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 18:19:23 +0000

In reply to Magazines tend to have

"bunch of media companies to get together behind a single subscription paywall" That was Murdoch's plan, after he buys them all.

The only problem is Murdoch doesn't have any real reporters, just blathering ideologues. Of course, few would notice the lack of on the ground reporters or facts. AOL used to have some good articles before Huffington took over, there is frankly nothing on Huffington I ever found worth a damn. I can also forgo the hour by hour twitterbuzz graphs, weiner stories, and any quote at all from a Republican.

Whoa, wait a minute! I don't

Ramona — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 17:46:14 +0000

In reply to I tell you what. Let's split

Whoa, wait a minute! I don't remember reading anything about that in my contract!

Magazines tend to have

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 17:31:29 +0000

In reply to Thanks for the information on

Magazines tend to have various rules for what they put behind a paywall. I'm not sure what The Nation's is.

What I would like to see, honestly, is for a bunch of media companies to get together behind a single subscription paywall. That way, everyone gets paid, but readers don't have to choose between the NYT and The Nation when they only read a fraction of the articles anyway.

Of course I did a blog on

Richard Day — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 17:25:00 +0000

In reply to Nice piece, Ramona, and I'm

Of course I did a blog on paywalls...

I did go ahead and order the Sunday NYT which gives me kind of full access to its site. Fifteen bucks a month aint bad.

But Variety and number of other 'real' publications want money from me and I aint got it.

I can get though to all of my State's Newspapers and I have not had that bad an experience with LA or Chicago...

Comparison shopping is the best i can do. I mean I check Huffpo and the Beast and Salon and TPM first to get a feel for whats 'in the news' but if I wish to blog something I am usually going to look for an in depth link referred to in those links.

Sometimes I am surprised. If Huffpo is really worth hundreds of millions of dollars why is 80% of their stuff merely fluff with a paragraph or two. But I am guessing that 10-20% of Huffpo's links are inaccessible. Not because of paywalls but because of a mistake made when the article was published. Might as well stick with Real Politics that can give me 100 links to a hundred different subjects all on one page.

Now Mediamatters has an agenda, an agenda I like and I usually check with it if I find some repub or Fox quote that seems incredible. And I can usually tap into some tape there.

And to triple check I will google and see if I missed something.

Which brings me to your blog.

Usually, there are not a hundred comments to a blog here. And usually I can get some response from the writer.

And I get links here I did not find at the huge sites.

I mean Donal will give us something about cars or energy that I do not see at the bigger more corporate sites.

So besides the political anger you find here, there is some specialization. There are people with specific interests who spent some time researching a specific issue and I actually learn something.

Sorry, I am meandering again.

The end

I tell you what. Let's split

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 17:21:19 +0000

In reply to Yes, I think the ongoing

I tell you what. Let's split the profits. Please send me a check for $217.49, for your share of our operating losses for 2011. ;)

Thanks for the information on

trkingmomoe — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 17:15:22 +0000

In reply to Nice piece, Ramona, and I'm

Thanks for the information on the pay wall. I was wondering about an article that I had stumbled across in The Nation and was blocked from reading it again. I find Huffpo tedious at times.