|
Nov
17
|
You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “What a steal: Les Rosbifs, Steve McClaren, Sky and the case of the lifted quotes”.
One Ping to “What a steal: Les Rosbifs, Steve McClaren, Sky and the case of the lifted quotes”
15 Responses to “What a steal: Les Rosbifs, Steve McClaren, Sky and the case of the lifted quotes”
-
1. M Says:
November 17th, 2011 at 12:41 amFirst, thanks for the piece, very well-written and enlightening.
Second, a link back should always be given. One excuse from TeamTalk was that their system was unable to put links in, because the articles are automatically used for mobile web (which may or not may be a plausible excuse, I don’t know). However, a website being unable to hyperlink is quite ridiculous, for whatever reason. It’s one of the most basic things a site should be able to do.
However, the ‘FAQ’ on Lesrosbifs says “Q: Can I use your data for an article/publication I am writing? A: Sure, so long as you credit me, preferably with a live link.”
That’s his owns words – he insists on being credited, and ‘prefers’ a live link. They should have done both by decent internet standards, but I think it’s tough to say they acted immorally when the site itself sees a link as an added bonus rather than mandatory, and insists only on ‘credit’ (ie a namecheck) which was given.
Not that the Sky sites would have read this! But the taking of quotes didn’t even go against the explicit code stated on the site, let alone a more vague unwritten ‘moral’ code.
-
2. SurrealFootball Says:
November 17th, 2011 at 7:31 amTerrible piece. Lesrosbifs getting more attention, just what the lad wanted.
-
3. Gary Says:
November 17th, 2011 at 7:57 amM, that’s a decent point, I think. Morally, it’s a grey area (and, by gosh, yes it is vague at that). You are right, they’re under no obligation to do so.
Perhaps it’s less ethically they were wrong and more they’ve gone against the spirit of the community that exists in blogging. Whatever that may be.
Still the hyperlink thing… It’s a bugbear of mine. If you can link, you should. And if you really don’t want to give them any SEO benefits, you can always do a nofollow link. That still points people to the original.
-
4. Mark Chalcraft Says:
November 17th, 2011 at 8:14 amThe argument about the mobile web is nonsense. I am using a mobile device and I discovered this article through the use of…a link!
What this all demonstrates is that a proportion of media outlets have a complete lack of understanding of how the web works. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the industry is struggling.
-
5. Online journalist Says:
November 17th, 2011 at 12:22 pmI have to say you’ve made some good points in the blog. It’s certainly a lot fairer than another one I read on the row recently.
Here is how I see it. Professional websites rarely, if ever, provide hyperlinks. It’s a sign of journalism today but a lot of stories on major news websites have come from another source previously.
Websites have always credited like newspapers, i.e. told ??? and the Les Rosifs interview was treated in exactly the same way. The problem is that bloggers do things differently hence there has been such an outcry at the way the LR interview was dealt with by the ‘big boys’.
Regarding the point about increased workload, bearing in mind my previous comment about most stories on websites having appeared somewhere else first, I think 10% extra workload is a reserved estimate. It would take time to trawl the internet for the original source for every story given professional sites publish 100s a day.
Furthermore, there are issues with syndicating to mobile platforms so it may involve syndicating a story without a hyperlink and then going back into it afterwards to add a link in, which I’ve already explained takes time given the amount of stories published each day. Plus it would still lead to the story appearing on the mobile platforms without a hyperlink, which may still have upset LR in this instance. So the only way not to have upset him would have been NOT lift his quotes, but surely that would have been even less beneficial to his site in the long run?
-
6. Chris O Says:
November 17th, 2011 at 1:18 pmFair enough, Online journalist, but think how much more time would be spent arranging and carrying out an interview with Mr McLaren featuring original content rather than searching the web for a URL? Doesn’t really match up, does it?
@surrealfootball – I think Les Rosbifs would have been happy with the smaller amount of reflected glory he’d have gained without the help of Sky, to be honest. I doubt he’s gone power-mad with the all the attention this story created.
Well done, Gary. Great article, by the way!
-
7. Gav Says:
November 17th, 2011 at 1:20 pmHomzy,
I assume that is you on the quote (5) above? You did – in no way – enhance the traffic or reputation of my site by regurgitating my interview with Steve. I mentioned on the other article you mention that I gained, possibly, about 70-odd additional visits on the basis of you and your other syndicated sites mentioning my site. When I have about 1000 visits each time I put a new article up, you will appreciate how very small fry this is.
In terms of benefit to my site, there were none. Certainly not in terms of hits. in terms of CREDIBILITY, yours were destroying my Google page rank. Others have gone on ad infinitum about the effect on a sites’ SEO when one of the big boys uses content from a blog. In next to no time, my site was at the bottom of page one; yours was at the top. And this detrimental effect would have continued on any further article I posted, whether yours were pilfering it or not.
So any argument of being beneficial to my site in the long run is wrong and crudely put. In short, you have no idea of my motivation behind running the site, so have no idea of what would be beneficial to it. Don’t even try to judge or I will be threatening more legal action your way (that’s how we play it, right?)
10% extra workload argument is a folly really. In short, the damage to the reputation of your family of sites has been done, because you exposed yourselves as being battery farms, processing stories from sources you don’t control to meet your needs.
If it takes time to trawl the internet for a source – so be it. It takes time for me to produce a brief update on a player, but it is content I have taken the time – my own, free time I hasten to add – to put together. More credit to the sites out there that do this, rather than regurgitate the content that someone else puts together.
How you may work for, what is undoubtedly one of the oldest football websites out there, is up to you. But the crass way in which you ruined my article, damaged the reputation of my website, damaged the relationship I had with Steve (as well as causing me untold difficulties in my day job as a result) and other such stresses has destroyed my enjoyment of, what was, my hobby.
Result?
Just why did you pull the articles in the end? Was it because, as one copyright lawyer has told me, I had (and still have) a strong case against you?
[EDITOR'S NOTE: After checking the email address, and conducting a few other checks, I'm more than satisfied that "online journalist" isn't Mark Holmes. While I'll give criticism where it's due, it's also not entirely fair to castigate him for the comment above, hence adding a small note on this comment to make others aware of this. Gary]
-
8. Chris White Says:
November 17th, 2011 at 1:29 pmM Says:
November 17th, 2011 at 12:41 am“However, the ‘FAQ’ on Lesrosbifs says “Q: Can I use your data for an article/publication I am writing? A: Sure, so long as you credit me, preferably with a live link.”
“That’s his owns words – he insists on being credited, and ‘prefers’ a live link. They should have done both by decent internet standards, but I think it’s tough to say they acted immorally when the site itself sees a link as an added bonus rather than mandatory, and insists only on ‘credit’ (ie a namecheck) which was given.”
Quotes are manifestly not ‘data’.
-
9. Chris White Says:
November 17th, 2011 at 1:42 pmOnline journalist Says:
November 17th, 2011 at 12:22 pm“Regarding the point about increased workload, bearing in mind my previous comment about most stories on websites having appeared somewhere else first, I think 10% extra workload is a reserved estimate. It would take time to trawl the internet for the original source for every story given professional sites publish 100s a day.”
Sorry, what? Having the person who’d read the original interview on Les Rosbifs in the first place actually bother to copy and past the url would add 10% to the workload?
-
10. Chris 0 Says:
November 17th, 2011 at 2:04 pmI’m stunned that we live in a world where we’re even having a debate where journalists seemingly need the concept of “citing the source” explaining to them.
An internet citation is a hyperlink to the original content. It’s a maximum of four keystrokes and two mouseclicks (or can just be four mouseclicks) and is certainly less work than having to argue about it later.
-
11. Simon Barnett Says:
November 17th, 2011 at 2:24 pmGreat article, Gary.
I think the point about ruining the relationship that Gav had built with Steve Mclaren is a very good one.
I’m sure that most football people would rather not be interviewed by “mainstream” journalists as they are well aware of the likelihood of their words being misconstrued (deliberately or otherwise) , leaving them reflected in a bad light.
If relationships such as this one were able to thrive and not be destroyed by the likes of Sky and Team Talk then those that are reluctant to speak their mind to the big media outlets would go to the bloggers for interviews such as the one in question here.
In turn, this would mean a better working relationship between the media and the people they write about as the large media outlets would find themselves isolated once the ‘responsible’ bloggers until they treated people like Mclaren with a little more respect.
The way things work at the moment is producing a race to the bottom where no-one wins.
-
12. Mark Chalcraft Says:
November 17th, 2011 at 3:54 pmThat @homzy (blatantly him) and his cohorts are hiding behind this “standard media practise” argument shows how ignorant and arrogant they are. The internet simply doesn’t work this way, it was built upon links as a fundamental tenet of the way the whole thing works.
What gives the media the right to tear this up and declare their own rules?
Oh, and if he could also kindly explain to me, an SEO, the difference between a link on a PC and one on a mobile device, that would be great. As it stands, I’m none the wiser.
-
13. Gary Says:
November 17th, 2011 at 5:48 pm@5 Online journalist
Can I pick you up on a few points here – some things I think you’ve misunderstood, others I disagree with.
Re: Professional sites rarely link out, you say. Firstly, as somebody who used to work for the BBC, we always made a point of linking out, where possible. ITV, another previous employer, are pretty decent at linking out as well, possibly because their web journalist, well, understand the web.
So if professional journalism sites rarely link out, my question is why? You can always include a nofollow link if you don’t want to pass on SEO benefits (The Guardian does this from time to time). What is the reasoning for not providing a hyperlink if you KNOW where the story comes from?
I take your point about stories rarely originating from the site that published them (and indeed made a point of mentioning this in the post). That’s fine, I accept that the industry is, sadly, geared towards this – and always has been to a point. It was the same 10 years ago, it’s moreso now.
I think you misunderstand the point about trawling the web for a link on every story. Fine, plenty of stories get passed around or come from multiple sources and it’s quite hard to pin a definitive originator. Nobody’s asking you to do this.
But where you know where the story originated from, and that one of the journalists in the organisation you work was the person who originally lifted the story, where on earth is the problem here? That won’t add 10% to your work. That’s just good practice. End of.
One other point around this – I’m assuming as this is a copy and paste job by a Sky journalist that they did a bit of fact checking, and checked the story was valid, accurate and stood up? And if they did, then surely it’s no trouble to provide a link to highlight the source?
You seem to think that hyperlinking is such a radical move for bloggers and shouldn’t be the case for mainstream media. Why is this? It’s fairly common practice across the web, both from bloggers and pretty major websites and established media companies. I’m failing to see that this is anything particularly radical or subversive. Why should Team Talk and Sky be above linking to their sources if, like Les Rosbifs, they’re pretty obvious?
As for the mobile claim, others have picked up on that, so I’ll just say – as somebody who does a LOT on smartphones every day, that’s utter and total nonsense.
-
14. CoalvilleFox Says:
November 17th, 2011 at 6:56 pmI just can’t believe somebody who is paid to do a job is complaining about the length at which he is expected to reference the work of somebody who commits their time voluntarily. Your paid to do it, he’s not, so do it. If you don’t like it bother to take the time to do the interviews yourself.
Lunacy.
-
15. Gary Says:
November 17th, 2011 at 11:53 pmJust a quick note (which I actually meant to put in my previous comment, but forgot), from the email and other details left, and other checks, I’m pretty satisfied that Comment 5 is not Mark Holmes. As I’ve added into a comment above, I have no problem criticising, but I also strive to be honest, transparent and fair, and it’s not fair to Mark that he gets blamed for the comment above (regardless of how close it is to his original remarks on Twitter).
November 17th, 2011 at 11:51 pm
[...] A guide to internet etiquette – when mainstream journalists lifted quotes from the aforementioned EXCLUSIVE interview with ex-England boss McClaren. [...]