| > Someone has to explain to me exactly what we should have done differently here. Completely frank and sincere feedback: 1. The two paragraphs taken from the source should have been block-quoted 2. The first paragraph of the story should have established source 3. The first link should have been to the source, not your own blog 4. The links used to backup the story should have been part of the blockquote or via'd 5. Misuse of 'via'. You didn't find the story 'via' Joshua, rather Joshua's post was the story or options 2: 1. You realize that this is an interesting story for your audience, you check the license of the story and if it is permissible you republish it on your blog with Joshua as the author and a link back to the original Suggestions: 1. Have an editor check every post before it is published for fair attribution. It is common that a single person can miss an attribution in 1 out of 100 cases, but with two people checking that becomes 1 in 10,000. 2. Re-publish stories that you think may be interesting for your audience rather than re-blogging and wrapping them 3. Circulate something internally about standards of attribution and perhaps also publish a page about it on your blog with a contact email address if any problems arise. 4. Respond to criticism better, the customer is always right etc. It is cases like this that cause the media to constantly deride blogs. I really think you should take a step back and re-evaluate your response to this, and I say that in all honesty, complete sincerity and with absolutely no disrespect (there are writers at TNW whose work I follow and enjoy and I have been a long time reader). |
Keep in mind we're not paying for TNW - we're not "the customer".
(Having said that, without rewarding this poor behaviour with any more pageviews than necessary, it's not clear to me who _is_ paying TNW - I wonder if that 'cause their advertising roster is empty, or just 'cause they've geo-targeted me as being from the wrong side of the planet for their advertisers?)