When I don't attribute a source to a link, it's because I either found it myself on one of my manic-induced 4 am explorations of the web, or I saw the link on so many sites that it's truly become public domain. Otherwise, though, I try to attribute everything I link. Bloggers are usually only rewarded for their work by other bloggers. And, for a blog that gets as few daily visitors as mine (600-800, compared to, for example, Fimoculous's 2,000), linking to others' blogs is a good way to get into referrals logs and be checked out.
When I do stumble across a blog that obviously copped lots of my self-found links, and copied my arrangements of pictures or text, I think: what the hell? It's so easy to attribute sources, and, if we've the same taste in links, I'd otherwise put you on my blogroll and probably be a fan.
Too bad you receive so few visitors (for a blog in English, that is), your blog is great! Let´s say you write "for the happy few" ;-).
Posted by: Ion on July 24, 2003 01:56 PMYour site is my home page. Whjen I sign on it's always you first. I knew nothing about blogs (blogging?) until I somehow stumbled upon yours about four months back. You provide me with many minutes of enjoyment daily and for that I thank you.
Posted by: Patrick on July 24, 2003 03:30 PMI olny recently learned to spell the word WHEN.
Posted by: patrick on July 24, 2003 03:34 PMAnd ONLY.
Posted by: Patrick on July 24, 2003 03:35 PM600-800 is a lot, really. I get about 1000, and have been at it a lot longer.
I agree, there is no excuse for plagiarising content. I also try to attribute links. Oh, sometimes I forget - or like you say it's "public domain" because it's been on Boing Boing and 100 other blogs already . . .
I think it's nice if someone attribute a link, but it's not a huge deal to me. I find stuff that inevitably is posted to MetaFilter or Sensible Erection or a few other places - it's not that big a deal. A minor weblog faux paux, I suppose. It kind of irks me that it's often the same person or two posting it to MeFi or whatever - but oh well.
Now if someone is ripping off your original commentary or graphics, that's just wrong. that goes beyond the happy-go-lucky, link-back-if-you-want world of weblogs and into just plain old plagiarism. I would totally call them out on it.
I think 600 visitors per day is a huge number! We don't get anywhere close to that amount (that we know of).
Curious. What site stats do you use? We turn on sitemeter sometimes but not with any regularity. I would like to try the one you use to see if it reports more (or less :-) )
Love your place here.
Posted by: meg on July 25, 2003 09:15 AMThank you everyone for the compliments. The more social my experience of blogging is, the happier I am doing it. Meaning: I like getting feedback, having people post comments, linking and reacting to other blogs, and having others link to me.
About others linking, or not linking, to me: the blog didn't steal any of my original drawings, or copy and paste long sentences. I’m guessing the blogger just started blogging, and, like me when I began this blog, hasn’t put much thought into link-attribution. So, I didn’t link to the specific blog I was talking about. I wanted to use my mild annoyance as a spring board for a more abstracted commentary on my own linking habits, and why I think sourcing links is a good idea (builds community, gets you noticed, etc.).
Maybe it was silly for me to be annoyed with the blog. On one hand, I like that its author is reading my blog, and thinking some of the links are worthy of being passed along. On the other hand, I found the proportion of the blog’s links that were taken from me to be overwhelming. A big percentage of its links came from my site (meaning, they were self-found links that I posted, and no other blog was posting them), and the blog chose exactly the same pictures I chose to represent linked sites.
So, not really a big deal. It just made me want to spread my opinion that attributing links is a good policy, and I like seeing my blog sourced on other blogs. I should probably become more poststructuralist, and start championing the "death of the author."
yeah - 600 is tons. I was feeling pretty pleased with my 300!
Posted by: Lisa on July 29, 2003 05:29 PMI meant, few by comparison to really well-established blogs. I'm very happy with my daily stats; I started off with something like 10 hits a day. But when I come across sites that get 1 or 2 thousand unique visitors a day, I can't tell if that's normal or extraordinary.
Posted by: Nathalie Chicha on July 30, 2003 01:00 AMHello Folks,nice site youre running!
Posted by: Preteen on October 12, 2003 11:32 AMNice site you have!
Posted by: lolita on November 4, 2003 03:22 AM