Sunday, March 13, 2016

Blogger Etiquette: Don't Rob The Blogger Re-Up

By way of a reply, and a reminder, a re-up from 2010.

Blogger Etiquette. Don't Rob The Blogger Of His Pay (Expanded from the original)

For the vast majority of bloggers, that pay, the only pay, is knowing that they are being read.

If you take for example, any respectable blog, usually the American ones, for it is they that led the blogger revolution, you will find that the following code of practice is adopted by the majority.

Blogger Etiquette:

If a person/blogger spends a great deal of time and goes to extraordinary lengths researching, and then penning an article; it is neither mannerly nor morally correct for you to copy paste the COMPLETE article on your blog.

Post just enough to attract the interest of your reader and then link back to the authors blog.

The author deserves recognition for his work, and this is only achieved by traffic to the article/site.

It's only fair and it's only polite.

Which of course it is, and more importantly, the blogger who has produced the work gets recognised in his own right and his blog worthy of a visit. (or not)

If the complete article is posted, all the attribution in the world won't compensate for direct traffic. How many times do any of us click through to the original source having once read the complete article? Try putting yourself in the Blogger's shoes for a week; having spent X number of hours/days researching and constructing your article, you post it on your blog and then you sit back for a while with a cuppa and a ciggy, or your drug of choice, and wait. But more often or not you would working on your next little creation, but that's by the by. What isn't by the by however, is when that Blogger (you) takes a look at his site metre after a day or two and sees numbers that might be worthy of being described as abysmal.

How is he/her/you going to feel? pissed I shouldn't wonder, pissed and robbed. And then, in a worse case scenario, might think to themselves, why bother?

There is of course a practical side to doing this, if you are posting a dozen items or more a day, you don't end up with a blog a mile long, as you would do otherwise.

And I do practice what I preach by the way, it would only be under special circumstances or out of necessity that I do otherwise. And believe me please, it's not for my benefit that I write this, it's for the numerous authors who's work I see constantly plastered around the net like cheap wallpaper.

Stop please, I beg of you.


Anonymous said...


I don't know if it makes any sense or not, but just in case. M

Anonymous said...

M @08:11

Good morning.

Many thanks, it may be helpful to me.

The more the merrier!


Himself said...

Hi Maren

The very high resolution would be a nice thing to study, but the price definitely don't make sense!

Poor Madeleine, even her pyjamas are being pimped out.

Anonymous said...

Himself @08:49

(Still on the ‘the blue sofa’ page…)

“The very high resolution would be a nice thing to study…”

I wanted to say, but didn’t, exactly that in my earlier post.

“…but the price definitely don't make sense!”

Where could one find (buy) a high resolution image?

My opinion so far is that the pjs in question are Madeleine’s, provided the ‘pjs chapter’ in its various incarnations within the McCanns’ ‘story’ is not altogether fictitious (another possible untruth?).

The above ? seems to correlate somehow with your observations in your today’s posts @11:10, 11:13 on A Nightwear Job thread: “…it wouldn't matter what Madeleine was dressed in, Gerry McCann knew the professionals had taken care of things.” “hence it wouldn't matter (from an evidence point of view) what Madeleine was dressed in.”

Perhaps any ‘pgs story’, uncontroversial from the couple’s (and/or their co-conspirators’) point of view at the time of its introduction, which would induce public sympathy, and generosity into the bargain, could be told therefore.

Many thanks

PS Regardless of possible differences in our views on some aspects of presentation and editorial matters etc., I do and will stand by you in this undertaking as long as we both stand by MBM and M.R., please be sure of that.

Kind regards

Anonymous said...

Himself @08:49

“Poor Madeleine, even her pyjamas are being pimped out.”


Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

I don't know if it's known already or even relevant but just in case. M

(paragraph 12)

Anonymous said...

From another place (both literally and metaphorically).

Amelie will have reacted to Madeleine's pyjamas exactly how John McCann described. You either do not have children, or if you do, never really took notice of them.

It’s too ridiculous for words, I know, but is she saying that she knows how A reacted, because she took notice of her children? M

Martin Roberts said...

Anonymous/M @07:04

Good morning.

The key statement within paragraph 12 is one Nigel recorded for me years ago (together with a host of others). I referred to the Ian Herbert quote in the article, its being just a touch more explicit.

Thanks and regards


Anonymous said...

Martin Roberts said...

Anonymous @09:15

Thanks for pointing it out (that's all).


Anonymous said...

Martin Roberts said...

Anonymous @14:51

Thanks. Makes the point rather. What is it they say about pictures and 1000 words?

Anonymous said...
(page 21/22)

Photo pyjamas whooshed?

Anonymous said...

Correction, it's still there, on page 20.

Anonymous said...
6:53 PM - 11 Jul 2013