DISQUS

DISQUS Hello! The Inquisitr is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.

Community Page

The Inquisitr

Jump to original thread »
Author

Study: Stolen Web Content Sees More Traffic Than The Original

Started by Duncan Riley · 7 months ago

Newspapers struggling to find an online life may not like the sound of this: When it comes to mainstream media sites, far more people read unauthorized online copies of stories than read the originals, according to some interesting new research being released today.
The study indicates con ... Continue reading »

5 comments

  • richiepear

    7 months ago

    Great point on blogs (disclaimer that I work for Attributor) - one of the new solutions we're proposing is for publishers to work directly with the ad networks and share in revenue made by others. The concept is that publishers should set their content free and be able to share in the revenue that others make from it.
    reply
  • JohnMcDonald

    7 months ago

    Something smells funny to me, and not just because of the obvious conflict of interest involved. Google is pretty smart about identifying an original vs. the copy, so if a publisher is having a hard time with knockoffs they might just need to hire an SEO or pay up a bit to get their content writers and designers up to speed on search engine best practices.

    Or, are we just talking about excerpts? Short quotes? If its sourced with a proper link, it could have value if someone reads a short quote from a third-party website: it helps establish the originator as an authority.

    Maybe its all going on where I wasn't paying attention (cars, movies, travel lol) but I'd like to hear some details about exactly what content counts for the purpose of this study. ie: Is a social bookmark on Digg that uses the same headline and a 250 character excerpt counted as an "unauthorized" copy even though it could send surges of traffic to the originator? AP seems to think so, so I wouldn't be surprised if the threshold here was set really, really low...
    reply
  • richiepear

    7 months ago

    Hi John,

    Actually it's not excerpts - the study excluded any reuse that was below 125 words or below 50% of the original article. All quotes are automatically excluded as well.

    We actually determine if links are present as well, and I agree with you about the numerous benefits - this wasn't the focus of this study but you can read a post on it here: http://www.attributor.com/blog/the-link-is-migh...
    reply
  • JohnMcDonald

    7 months ago

    Thanks for clarifying that, sounds like a pretty reasonable calculation... I have been hearing a few more complaints lately and certain sites in particular. I'm still kind of surprised but there is a lot more off-search engine traffic these days so maybe I should be recalculating my own view instead.
    reply
  • Rich Pearson

    7 months ago

    We definitely could have explained this better as it came out a bit skewed. We're trying to enable open syndication in which content creators let their content proliferate through viral or other means and collect a share of the revenue as it gets monetized.

    Lots of hairy questions about what qualifies for payment, but all the information is there. I think everyone realizes the whack-a-mole strategy won't work, and it's time to try something new.
    reply

Add New Comment

Returning? Login