-
Website
http://www.inquisitr.com/ -
Original page
http://www.inquisitr.com/8158/study-stolen-web-content-sees-more-traffic-than-the-original/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
mollyfud
44 comments · 1 points
-
Kyle Brady
186 comments · 12 points
-
ontarioemperor
72 comments · 31 points
-
centernetworks
36 comments · 18 points
-
StevenHodson
272 comments · 65 points
-
-
Popular Threads
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...
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...
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.