11 comments

• 

  Louis Gray

  7 months ago

  ZDNet was also the major perpretator of all the Twitterater rumors yesterday, which could have been diffused with basic journalism. I guess we should be pleased they responded to you at all?
  reply
• 

  samuelwells

  7 months ago

  I never have liked zdnet, because i have noticed similar occurances in the past, and this just puts me off them even more.
  reply
• 

  Mark 'Rizzn' Hopkins

  7 months ago

  Wouldn't it make sense, if that's their rule, to call up the writer or you Duncan and say "hey, wanna be my source? give me some quotes." I mean, if it has to be sourced, why not go that route?
  reply
• 

  nicefishfilms

  7 months ago

  This isn't the first time you've been the "breaking source" and I know it won't be the last. Faithful readers will continue to rely on you to get the info out first. When you do finally get the credit you deserve, we will celebrate with you. Keep the passion burning.
  reply
• 

  Duncan Riley

  7 months ago

  thx Nicefish.
  I don't break or get as many exclusives as I did in the TC days, but I still try, which is in part why I guess is when I do land one, I'm doubly pissed that bottom feeders like these guys rip without credit
  reply
• 

  Andre

  7 months ago

  They are a part of CBS? You'd think cbs would have better internal guidlines wouldnt ya?
  reply
• 

  JohnMcDonald

  7 months ago

  I'm guessing that their internal guideline is "don't link to anyone but our own internal articles." I just checked out a random story and it had five internal links - no source, no external validation, no love to the commenters crowd-sourcing their discussion (registration required and again, no links)...Of course, you have to get past the full-screen framed ad to get that far in.
  
  Its like they don't want to be a blog yet enjoy the benefits of it. Well, simple enough for me, I just won't link out to them or bookmark them or participate in their debate (not like I ever did)
  reply
• 

  Mike

  7 months ago

  I think Crikey.com.au suffered from this for a long time until they got established. I now see Crikey getting quoted often now on media websites. Not that you don't have the credibility, but it takes time to build. The growth of Inquistr since its launch, I think you are on your way there.
  reply
• 

  adamogiovane

  7 months ago

  Huh I can smell a boycott coming along. Watch their traffic dwindle! I'm boycotting ZDNet and will not use their site
  
  If I come across a pesky TinyURL linking to them I'll skim the article and then go look for the original source since any of their 'breaking news' stuff isn't really that good. In fact I can't even remember them being first in any news of the few minutes that I've used their site in the past 5 years.
  
  When I went to ZDNet recently I could help but notice their site is full of redundant Micro$oft crap and bias anyways.
  reply
• 

  centernetworks

  7 months ago

  same thing I got from CNET (zdnet's parent) when I asked about links - they are more than happy to provide 400 links in a story to other CNET sources but rarely (if never) outside. of course we can say the same thing for lots of top tech blogs as well.
  reply
• 

  andyr

  7 months ago

  "We also WERE the primary source."
  
  Wouldn't Kevin Rudd's Twitter profile have been the primary source? I understand that linking is often an issue, but I wouldn't have called this story an "exclusive" just because you got it up first.
  reply