-
Website
http://www.inquisitr.com/ -
Original page
http://www.inquisitr.com/1101/why-has-keith-teare-gone-into-spam-blogging-seriously-dumb/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I think I explained privately sufficiently for you to know that EVERYTHING in this article is not true.
As you know seriously is an old - highly experimental - project that I was responsible for initiating. It remains HIGHLY experimental in investigating the concept of vertical aggregation for passion driven niche subjects.
Secondly, I ceased to be involved in it day-to-day some time ago. It is run by several people whom I trust to understand the difference between a splog and a serious product. seriously is NOT a serious product at this stage.
I think your post is designed to be a sensationalist link catcher, traffic bait, and not a serious post.
You recall that I said I'd be happy to ask the team to remove any blog - yours included - that didn't want to be part of the experiment.
You've really gone down in my estimation with this silly post.
Keith
feel free to continue spinning it which ever way you want, but ultimately you are republishing the full text of other blogs without permission. It's an experiment that includes you promoting other peoples content on this site via FF and seemingly via social sites as well. That Keith is called splogging, and it's something I've been writing about and covering since 2003 so I'm fairly well qualified in placing the label :-)
If there is truly a business or tech model beneath this then I would think the creators/authors of such sites would want to clear the air as much as possible before a recovery to a legit standing is impossible.
Duncan should have never ever PRIVATELY asked you to remove his blog, his job is to support the publics interest and by doing so support his site. Asking you privately for a back-channel solution would make his actions just as unethical as your experiment.
Yes I think Keith your project is unethical!
Also for the record your projects status as 'experimental' doesn't instantly relieve you of any ethical standards.
You are definitely spamming and reusing my stuff and your reputation has gone way down. Duncan might not have gotten all the little details right, but he's absolutely right that what you are doing is nasty and is not welcomed by me.
good point. It's one thing to steal the content (which is wrong) but to take it to the next level like this site has. I'm just disappointed it's Keith involved. I'm sure someone is giving him bad advice.
What about Twitter sploggers?
Check this one out: http://twitter.com/DigitalMoves
If only have 3 years working hard and slogging away on my own (mostly) at TechWinter I could have a small portion of your montly audience... Please sir :)
I replied to your comment on the youtube article.
FWIW, seriously sites are not splogs. There is no advertising or any attempt to monetize, there is clear attribution, the links all point to the original, the content is limited to what is in the rss feed. And anybody can opt out via email. For the record Duncan never asked me to take his content off - privately or otherwise. I have however done so after this blatant attempt to create interest in his blog amidst a fake controversy.
If anything ever comes from the seriously project (I'm not on the team) it will be very different to what is on the site today. But what is there today is not a splog.
Final point. I was very responsive to Duncan's emails earlier yesterday (which I will keep private), and in mid discussion he posted this idiotic piece. I'll admit, I was taken aback, and angry. So I counted to ten. Now 24 hours later, I just think he is wrong. Anybody who knows me - and Duncan does a little - would know I do not have a bad intention in my personality. It kinda sucks.
On a bigger point - distribution of content is central to any media. Attribution and reward are of course key (no disagreement from me). Duncan seems to think the very act of aggregation is a sin. Reminds me of a lot of bad actors seeking to preserve out-of-date models.
But maybe thats just me.....
Keith
In the vain hope that you still think I'm a nice guy, I wanted to let you know that the process that began in private 2 days ago, and spilled on to become public yesterday (where you told me what you didn't like and I tried to fix it) has continued.
As of yesterday the following things you didn't like are no longer on the seriously sites:
No more social bookmarking
No more poor credit-giving. Titles and links all use the uri of the original permalink. The credit line (which was lready in place) remains, under the title.
No more Friendfeed notifications, or comments, (I was actually using those for myself as a real-time news feed. It hadn't occurred to me that my followers were seeing it also - dumb I know, but an honest error). I turned that off and registered seriouslytech as a Twitter id. Now I am subscribed to that in order to get the same impact for myself. My friendfeed doesn't pull that subscription in. So your headlines are no longer in my FriendFeed stream.
I hope that addresses all of your issues. If there are more I'd like to know them.
For now I can't read Inquisitr's tech feed on seriouslytech. If you are OK with me putting it back on please let me know. I'd be happy to oblige.
Best
Keith