What is Digg?238 Comments
- shimamoto, on 10/12/2007, -8/+101you can check out a copy of the article on fark's comments:
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=1969978
The story about the Ubiquitous Multimedia Informator originated from DAPreview and can be seen HERE. We were the first to find and write about this device, which we discovered at the CeBIT 2006 convention.
As you can see, the original post on Engadget (as it appeared briefly on the front page) included a link to DAPreview and the picture from DAPreview, including a blue version of our logo. We had no problem with this. In fact, we appreciate the support, since it sends traffic our way and brings new people to DAPreview.
However, on the revised version of the same story, the link to DAPreview was removed and it has a chopped version of our picture with the DAPreview logo cut out. We do have a problem with this. They have deliberately circumvented a credit to DAPreview. Instead, the story now links to another blog (mobilemag) that covered our story. This is equivalent to ripping us off.
Why they would do such a thing..? Why would they even bother to revise the news story, removing all reference to DAPreview, after the fact?
The reason is simple: DAPreview is blacklisted at Engadget. Somehow, the reference to DAPreview slipped through before Peter Rojas or Ryan Block could veto the credit.
We know this because DAPreview has a long, turbulent history with Engadget. Or more specifically, with two of the editors - Peter Rojas and Ryan Block. We have no quarrel with the other writers.
Click on the link below to read more about the history between DAPreview and Engadget...
We got off on the wrong foot with Engadget starting with THIS news post back in July of 2004. Engadget reported that the Creative Zen Touch had just starting shipping to customers, when in fact it had not. We verified this with several vendors. The title of our news post, "Creative Zen Touch now shipping? Or has Engadget lost its Touch?" was meant to be funny, but Peter Rojas took great offense to it in an email that he sent to us. Soon after, Engadget changed the news story so that it reads, "Creative taking pre-orders..." but you can tell from the user comments that it wasn't like that originally. The edited version can be seen HERE, and a later news item about it can be seen HERE, where they admit, "We sorta bungled this first time around..."
Anyway, not a big deal, right? Or so we thought.
Over the next couple of weeks, Engadget used a number of our news items, but without giving credit to DAPreview. At the time, we were the only blog that was digging up news about obscure digital audio players from China, Korea, Europe, etc so it was obvious where the news originated.
The problem appeared to be deliberate, since it was consistant and it only affected news from DAPreview. Peter Rojas was doing most of the news items back then.
We gathered evidence - taking screen shots and time/date comparisons between our news blog and theirs, and then we challenged Peter Rojas about it. Either they needed to give us credit when they used our news or we would take it public. It was obvious that he was stealing news from us, and it would be hard to deny.
Ryan Block stepped in and said that they would fix the affected news items and that they would credit properly in the future.
Everything seemed fine for awhile. They routinely used news from our blog, several items per week, and we enjoyed the influx of traffic.
But eventually they fell back into the same pattern, where they would neglect to credit us, time and time again. We would send emails to get things corrected, and sometimes they would. Sometimes they wouldn't respond, so we'd leave a comment in the news item with a link back to DAPreview.
Apparently, they didn't like that approach, because they went and deleted many of those comments. In late July (2005), we got a nasty email from Ryan Block saying that we "shouldn't air our petty grievances" in the comments. Mind you - we didn't put any nasty stuff in thier comment system, just links back to the place where they got news from - since they couldn't be bothered to do it themselves half of the time.
A couple of days later, in early August, Engadget made some kind of policy against DAPreview. They would no longer link to us directly. If they wanted to use something that came from DAPreview, they would wait for another blog to pick up the story and link to them instead.
Just like they did recently with our news item about the Ubiquitous Multimedia Informator.
See for yourself. Search Engadget for "DAPreview" - HERE. Over 100 items link to us before August 2nd, and only 3 since then... it seems that a couple of items made it past the Rojas/Block filter.
Of course, the people at Engadget can print whatever they want. If they don't want to use our news, that's fine. But they do use our news, and we have a problem with the deceitful way in which they avoid giving us credit. Basically, they're willing to rip us off because of some personal vendetta against Rob and me.
So here we are, making sure as many people as possible know what these guys are up to.
If you recall, we had a similar problem last year with T3.co.uk, and we ended up having to bust them on the front page of DAPreview in order to get something done about it.
In the end, all we're looking for is fair treatment. Engadget, and anyone else, is welcome to use our content as long as they do the responsible thing and give credit where it's due - including a link back to DAPreview.
On a side note, the CEO of Weblogs Inc., Jason Calacanis, has been known to get upset at CNET for stealing news from Engadget. He's complained about it several times on his own blog.
CNET doesnt give credit to blogger (again)
Bringing CNET into the tent, Step One: The Hat Tip
CNETs editorial elitism evaporating?
Feel free to let him know what you think about this mess. His contact information is HERE or you can send him an email at jasoncalacanis.com.
We can be reached at austindapreview.net & robdapreview.net.
Copies of our email correspondance with Peter Rojas and Ryan Block, along with all the evidence we've collected in the past, is available for other publications to review. - rm999, on 10/12/2007, -3/+46The problem isn't copying stories - all blogs do that and we expect them to. It's removing the source information and cropping a stolen picture to remove the original website's logo. That is pretty serious IMO.
- rm999, on 10/12/2007, -2/+40As I pointed out to someone else, the problem isn't redundant information - it is purposefully removing who your source is. They went through the trouble of opening up an image in photoshop and cropping it so you can't see the logo of the original website. Only jerks do that...
- eXity, on 10/12/2007, -1/+37"LOL, I wonder if you internet geniuses even bothered to check if the DAP pic was accredited correctly in the first place - given the track record of those hacks, they probably stole the pic and added the credit after the fact."
Tetrachromatic - no - I was reporting for DAPreview from the CeBIT. I was the person that took the picture. We own the copyright on that image. Please stop making false accusations - thanks a lot. - rm999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+34the evidence:
http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/nainworks-ubiquitous-multimedia-informator-pmp/
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:OccyLSan4_YJ:www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/nainworks-ubiquitous-multimedia-informator-pmp/+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
Notice the cropped photograph. - DennisP, on 10/12/2007, -11/+43This should get more attention though, because it seems Engadget is systematically ripping off DAPreview (it's not a one-time incident).
- weirdone, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29you're an amazing troll...
looking on your submission history, you've made 4 submissions.
1 is to engadget and was a dupe no less
1 is a dead link
1 is just a single pic that has nothing to do with your article
and finally the last one is a spam that launches a swf that flashes "PORN" into the window.
You'd be banned in under a minute if there were mods on digg. - Kebie, on 10/12/2007, -8/+32What do you expect? the website is a blog, with random reporters and no real editorial staff. It isn't like all the writers have any real inside information, or get real products over and above other writers. All most bloggers do that report anything, is re-spew other news that they read with their own bias and words added. Real stupid ones just CTRL-C and CTRL-V.
Writers who write for Weblogs Inc are paid a monthly salary baised on the overall length of their articles or number of articles they have written over time. They receive higher salaries the longer and more articles that they have written for their respected blogs. This can lead to people getting lazy and wanting to meet their monthly quota of writing, and thus just straight up copying articles. - andru, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24I just did some searching on Engadget - looks like Gear Live (www.gearlive.com) is on their blacklist too. I remember Rojas emailing me about 8 months ago or so, upset with us about posting something. Gear Live broke the TiVo KidZone story, and Engadget linked to it. Now, that story is gone. I found another story, here:
http://www.engadget.com/2004/07/29/free-sony-wega-really/
That used to link to us. Now, the "Read" link is gone. It still mentions Gear Live by name, but no link. This is too funny. What is going on, Engadget? - kokoshuko, on 10/12/2007, -8/+29Plagirisim Serious business
- TedTschopp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23The site was down earlier... so in order for us to read the article is was mirrored here.
- ryanblock, on 10/12/2007, -6/+26Hi guys,
Ryan from Engadget here. When I was reviewing some posts recently I mistakenly changed the source attribution from a "via MobileMag" to them as our source, since it was my understanding that they were the originators of the news. I erroneously did not double check with the author of the post, Paul, when doing so, which was error number one (error number two was acting on that assumption, and three was removing the watermark, which is outside our policy except in cases of watermarks on press photos). Thus I can completely understand why DAPreview's editors feel like we were trying to bite their content, and I must apologize for any wrongdoing, and hope they and you understand my intentions were not ill natured but were just being rushed and distracted.
To correct my error and prevent confusion as to the originator of the news I have since moved the post back to its original form and updated it with a memorandum regarding the error. I and hope this sets things right; if DAPreview and its editors request, we can remove the post entirely, as the image in question is, of course, entirely under their copyright. Thanks, and sorry for any trouble I've caused! I appreciate your understanding. (I also left this comment on DAPreview's site and personally sent their editors an email that's more or less the same.)
Best, Ryan - fusioned, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25I've worked for both Engadget and Gizmodo.
Engadget sucks, Rojas is an ass, and they flip over the dumbest *****. ***** them.
Gizmodo was pretty chill, but had their own Rojas in the form of Noah Robischon. Total jerkoff to me. Gizmodo is more open, laid back, and chilled out though so I suggest you stick with them out of the two. They credit properly 90% of the time and only dont do it when they miss something by accident. - weirdone, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25ha, does your last name happen to be Rojas?
Because I've never seen anyone so adamently defend a blogging site... - DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Yeah, they're stepping into Ebaum territory by doing that.
- roguepirate, on 10/12/2007, -10/+28Is it me or is it that since AOL got engadget it was all downhill from there?
- foxhoundadmin, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23lol, i love the way the description opens--totally off-topic. "remember how engadget and apple were butt-buddies? well, engadget's up to no good, again! ..."
- rm999, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23Wow, that is terrible (if true, the site is down so I can't check their links).
it sounds like the engadget people are really untrustworthy. I used to be a casual reader of engadget, but I am not going to visit their site at all anymore until they get their act together. There are plenty of other tech blogs with the same information (like digg) that I can waste my time on. - eXity, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Yup, our poor little server ...
Here is "proof" that we own the image. Not that I really need to give any ...
http://www.pmpz.net/eXity/cebit_pics.jpg - weirdone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14you can even see the slight blue on the very bottom from the crappy crop.
That is pretty damning evidence. Taking sources and copying info is one thing, but that is just straight up plagiarism. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+24Those guys are nazis on their comments that's for sure!
- ownedbytheman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Just in case some of you aren't aware, the international "do not" symbol beside each user's name in their comment allows you to ignore (make invisible) a user's comments from all stories.
Not saying who to use it on but if someone is not playing nice and consistantly making comments with little value to stories and you simply went to make them go away, this is the symbol to click. You can always "unignore" them from your profile page.
You can even ignore me if you want. Heaven knows I contribute little of value. - disillusioned, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18While Jason may have a firm grasp on the concept of out-linking in the blogosphere, even to competitors, it is a grasp that Peter Rojas has let entirely slip from his own consciousness.
Take, for instance, Gizmodo. You will never see Engadget link to Gizmodo, despite the fact that Gizmodo has on numerous occasions linked straight to Engadget. Even if Gizmodo has obviously scooped a story, (albeit a rare event when only one gets a scoop, instead of both sites) Engadget will go out of their way to wait for a hat tip from a reader, or post to another site covering the story as their VIA.
This all came to a screeching awareness of the real matter at hand for me when I was in the CES Press Room and overheard the following:
Jason Calacanis: "Oh, just set up that link and post it."
Engadget Writer: "Um... Peter [Rojas, editor of Engadget] doesn't like us to directly link to competitor sites like that."
Jason: *stunned silence, slowly acknowledges the situation*...
Jason: "Oh. Okay."
Engadget does indeed have an internal blacklist. They'll post via's to sites that aren't at the same level or sites that they simply don't perceive as a threat. But if the source for a scoop or new piece of news is someone they dislike or have banged heads with before, they'll do whatever they can to avoid a direct link to them.
Jason, tell Peter to lighten up with this idea of "blacklisting" even your competitor sites. You should know well enough how transparency and the concept of the "blogosphere" works. Just like editing a Wikipedia entry on Engadget is a terrible idea, so is blacklisting your competitors. You're supposed to be a progressive, intelligent company that isn't so petty.
Engadget's a big boy site now. They can handle linking out to competitor sites. Think "Miracle on 34th Street," where Santa Claus sent shoppers across the street to another department store. Good will, happy customers, return visits. Trying to lock everyone into the pantheon of WIN sites serves your purpose fine, and intra-linking makes a lot of sense. But perhaps you should talk to Peter about seriously letting go of his preconceived notion that you're benefiting significantly by avoiding link-outs to certain sites.
Just sayin'. - weirdone, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15he's a textbook troll. ignore.
- ronan1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Jason err Tetrachromatic, its funny how you delete peoples posts off your blog for not using their real name..why not use yours here?
- antipasta, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13That really doesn't make any sense. How is it a mistake that you went out of your way to crop an image, after it was originally posted in its unaltered form?
I think the community appreciates the apologies from the involved parties, but some more explanation is necessary. As it is you guys are coming off looking like total liars... - element, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15"credit sources"? A "Read" link is not credit. One of my blog articles made in on Engadget several months ago, guess how many clicks I got from the "Read" link?? 45! Thanks for ripping off my content, and no, a tiny link that says "Read" is not credit!
- ownedbytheman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12This isn't just an oversight. Someone at your operation went to the trouble of pulling a published story from your site to remove accreditation and image watermarks. That isn't simply a mixup, someone was directed to do that.
Who directed that the existing article be edited to the format we saw earlier today where the links and image credit were removed and what reason would you cite for that decision? - eXity, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Because it was probably edited by Rojas (speculation). He was one of the guys responsible for "blacklisting" DAPreview. If not it was edited by someone abiding to the "DAPreview is blacklisted" law.
- jdawg, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18Jason (www.calacanis.com) from Weblogs, Inc. here. It was a mistake and we fixed it. When you do thousands a post a month based on hundreds of thousands of tips you can make mistakes--it can happen on the best blogs including Engadget. It was certainly not done maliciously.
Every month we do 10,000+ posts across our entire network (tuaw.com, tvsquad.com, cinematica.com, joystiq.com, etc), with about 5x that mount of outbound links. In fact, our whole business is based on sending people to other sites and highlighting the best of what's out there--we are far from an echo chamber (find me one out bound link on NYT or Yahoo!).
Also, after years of being ripped off by MSM types (i.e. CNET) and having to personally call these folks to get credit I know what it's like to have your story lifted--we would never want anyone to have that happen to them. It sucks.
We're sorry for the mistake. - TimothyFrisby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Looks like they changed the attribution back to DapReview.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/nainworks-ubiquitous-multimedia-informator-pmp/
(and they just responded. kudos for your quick action... but let's hope that this sort of thing doesn't happen again.) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13I love all the no-name Digg users that are logged in quickly defending (or attacking) Engadget. You can tell that if someone writes more than a paragraph or two then they are clearly someone that a) works for Engadget or b) works for a competitor.
Give it a rest, Engadget got caught, they are sorry, end of story.
Darnit I was going to stop looking at this thread :( - dnder, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17Lmao.....digg users.....the most intelligent of all of the interweb...hehe
- bonlebon, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17Digg: 2 Endgadget: 0
Comment from endgadget editor in 3... 2.. 1... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Umm Peter nice try. Why don't you start linking to other sites as well. Apologizing because you were called out isn't acceptable. Change your blog and tell your guys to use some ethics buddy.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14People wouldn't be getting so worked up if Peter and Ryan weren't so much like a regime when it comes to controlling their site. They protect their site so carefully yet the content on it shouldn't be protected by them but the people who own it! Stealing (sharing) information is one thing but when you start leeching media that's just wrong.
___
http://www.shoutcentral.com - garg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13I once saw Engadget slap a hungry midget
- pomm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I read Engadget daily, but everyone is ruining them for me now D:
Endgaget, why have you forsaken me :[ - techforce5, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11the before and after makes it pretty plain
- techforce5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8It looks like this has caused some conflict on Engadget's Wikipedia entry as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Engadget&diff=44726721&oldid=44725022 - mightymouse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10i read both engagdet and dapreview- and i know that engadget steals off of dapreview or dapreview steals off of engadget- but i'm not sure. but dapreview usually gives credit- but they're much more small of a blog. if engadget does it doesn't seem like they come up with their own original material. Ever since engadget or weblogs got bought by aol they've been a bit weird with censorship and deleting of comments.
but i still like both dapreview and engadget equally. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9:) ok if you say so Jason. Remember it took time for someone to crop that image, someone purposely did that, it was not a "mistake" like you guys are claiming.
Anyways you guys got busted, and a ton of sites are linking to this story. It hurt your rap - and bad too. I will stop visiting your site. I am done posting here too, this story is DUN! - chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Wow, that's messed up. Is it more difficult to cite the picture, or photoshop the other guys watermark out of it?
- eXity, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14Wow, that is an interesting way of looking at it Tetrachromatic. It's a shame that you are completely wrong and if you had bothered to read the news story you would actually know why.
- Miyazaki, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I don't go to either site, so don't go off attacking me Tetrachromatic. By the way, did you take your pills today?
I don't see what the big deal with DAPreview just wanting Engadget to put a link to the original source in their article. People are not going to stop going to Engadget because of it. It seems pretty immature on Engadget's part to be honest. Keep the source there, link to them, and don't alter pictures you get from other sites. It seems pretty simple to me. - andru, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Very interesting - I had always heard there was a "blacklist" at Engadget, and figured Gear Live was on it when they stopped linking to us. Check this out:
http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/01/kill-tivos-big-announcement-kidzone-parental-controls/
That link was live after we broke the KidZone story, citing our internal source at TiVo. Now, you can't find it at Engadget, UNLESS you go straight to that URL. You will NOT find it by searching for it. You will NOT find it by browsing their Home Entertainment category, and look at March 1. It's as if it doesn't exist.
Peter - care to comment? Maybe something is just broken on Engadget as it pertains to the database? - gleapsite, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13yeah, I wonder where the engadget rip of the article is.
- Philipp_Lenssen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10"Note from Ryan Block, Managing Editor: due to my own misunderstanding I mistakenly changed the source attribution and image on this post, but it has since been restored to its original form. I apologize for any harm or wrongdoing from this error, and respect DAPreview's rights, content, and understanding."
http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/nainworks-ubiquitous-multimedia-informator-pmp/ - ccanni1028, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8You can actually see the top of the "DAP" on the first picture
- DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Digg, Slashdot, Fark, all the Weblogs Inc and Gawker Media sites are fairly inbred. It's the nature of blogging and linking to interesting things on the net. It's the more specialized blogs that supply the content for all the bigger, more general blogs.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 223 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 