What is Digg?127 Comments
- quasipalm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+32... not to mention then entire ***** internet.
Funny how us geeks will download all day on bittorrent... but someone uses your scoop on tech news and people go up in arms. - Grimdotdotdot, on 10/12/2007, -14/+39Dude, that's what Digg does, too...
[digg user]
Ooh look, a tech story!
Copy / Paste / Ignore Dup Warning - dponce80, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26This is David Ponce, editor of the piece and owner of OhGizmo. I just want to rectify something one of our contributors just said in a comment. We're not making allegations of plagiarism. Engadget never plagiarises. What they did was crop an image to remove a watermark, and re-direct a via link elsewhere. Then essentially claimed that there is no blacklist, and no explusion tactics. I'm alleging this is not true.
But, in the end, yes, perhaps it doesn't matter. Perhaps for us small guys that fell into Engadget's disfavor, our "punishment" is to remain free of whatever rewards come out of being linked to by them. - shikoku88henro, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20Ok this is support for my guys at OhGizmo, me being one. I want to address everyone who says "Who cares? We all copy." First off, yes we do copy articles from eachother but the point is that we credit the source. Even if the source is crediting the source. Because, just like in the DAP case, eventually someone is the initial source who deserves it. Whether or not it actually gets back to him is another story but just sometimes people steal from the first guy and that is not right.
Also in terms of the engadget story, they didn't even write or paraphrase the article, they just CTRL+C and CTRL+V that whole thing. That is jacked. Even here on digg you have to be original in the title of the post. They couldn't even do that.
Bad form Engadget and hopefully you remember to pingback in the future. - dponce80, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17This is David, again. Look, Ryan. I understand you read one site, and not another. Heck, you can't read them all, right? But, when you're sent a tip, directly, and you ignore it, and then, two weeks later, you pick up on it from another site (who doesn't mind linking to us), it's not just "Oh, it's not on my OPML, so I didn't see it." It becomes purposely, actively ignoring someone. Which you can do, of course, but we don't have to like it. But, I imagine that your comment there is about as close as you'll ever get to admitting to all this. So, thank you.
- dggeek, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19@mrassman
I beg to differ. Digg links to blogs that link to content. You forgot a step. - Yarnage, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Many websites do this. I submitted an article of mine on VBWire the other day and they passed it off as their own and gave me zero credit.
***** - geekchic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15The problem with that sort of "journalism" though is that while Engadget parasites off the websites which do the actual work and takes the ad revenue from them - the sources end up going bust.
What happens to the parasite when the host dies ?
The good thing with Digg is that you have to click on the link to the source to read the article - Engadget reprints just enough of the story to make that unnessesary. That harms the source website. - dponce80, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Okay, Ryan. I'll do that, and we'll see. I want to believe this is all a big misunderstanding. I can imagine that with the mountains of correspondence you get, our previous conversation might have been forgotten. Through the wonders of Gmail though, it's not lost in the ether. I did contact you with this previously (quite some time ago), and you were kind enough to "explain" things to me. Yet, despite that explanation, the same thing kept happening. So just before giving up altogether, I wrote to you again, and told you exactly how I felt. You chose to ignore that email, and that's fine, but don't tell me I didn't try to resolve this privately first.
But hell, I don't wanna fight. You tell me that I'm paranoid. Ok. Time will tell, right? I apologize this had to be aired publicly. I'm not questioning your integrity, only lamenting your practices. And, had this not been done out in the open, I feel as though you would just have brushed me (and many others) off. - pt4117, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13There is no excuse to crop the photo. The photo was originally taken from DAP. What would make anyone think that they came from a different source? His writer credited it to DAP, and it had DAP's watermark on it.
I don't buy that this was anything but an intentional act. - Wootery, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16What he said....
"While 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'." - dponce80, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Ryan, is that what you've misconstrued me as wanting? Look, I always thought that I write clearly, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's me. Maybe I'm NOT clear and am deluding myself. You've admitted to removing us, and Gearlive from your OPML. I'm convinced there are quite a few other sites that were removed as well. There's a fine line between "removing from the OPML" and "including in a do-not-credit list". You say, "we simply don't read you". I say "You choose to ignore us and actively pursue alternate sources in order to avoid crediting us".
I imagine in the end it's all a matter of perspective. What you're doing, in your eyes, is perfectly innocent. I know you're a solid guy, and I'm not attacking you. So I'm willing to believe that your intentions weren't bad. But you should know that for me, and many other site owners out there, your actions have a tremendous impact. - merlinicorpus, on 10/12/2007, -12/+22When will people finally figure out that Engadget is just a ripoff site that steals content from anywhere they can find it? Even their "original" stuff is basically copy/paste from other sites out there.
- ryanblock, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14There's really nothing to admit. We often get a tips every two to three minutes, sometimes more. During business hours alone that's over 150 tips, which is an enormous task to keep track of. In the time between your reply and my writing this we got another couple dozen, maybe more. I'm sorry if you're unhappy with the way we handle news; once again, this might be remedied by contacting us and trying to figure out what the deal is instead of making things a public affair when you're basing your argument on feelings and suspicions and citing links to isolated incidents and technical issues. Peter, Jason, and I personally handle any and all problems with our readers and peers on a 1:1 basis, as we have in the past with you and your concerns. Apparently they were not allayed however, and you continue to believe there is some grudge or plot as you've continued to "harbor a dispute" I wasn't even aware continued to exist. Sorry, David, just tip us like everyone else and when we can source your work we'll source your work.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10i'm with you man. the internet can be a harsh business, and it would be nice if the successful ventures would play nicely with the startups like yours. it's disgusting what they're doing, and people should take notice. it's infuriating for me to see hard work like yours get ripped off and enjoyed by readers of engadget where they will never know how they actually procured that info and makes it that much more difficult for your site to be successful on the web.
i won't digg engadget articles in the future until they turn this situation around.
..this reminds me of the ebaumsworld scandal.. - tazamore, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11This is similar to people who complain about their Google ranking and how it hurts their business. Don't rely on the ethics of other web sites. If Engadget is swiping your content then let Engadget readers know about it in the comments of the stoilen story. Do not waste your effort submitting content to other web sites in hopes that they will return the favor with traffic.
- ryanblock, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Sorry David, I believe you're misconstruing statements and are, in fact, attacking us. Do not try to characterize the article you wrote on OG otherwise, because it was not based in any codifiable truths, merely your impressions, thoughts, and feelings on the matter. My offer stands for working with OG in the future and I remain more than happy to continue being transparent to you and anyone else in how we operate.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Ryan,
Don't waste your time replying to these Drive By attention span idiots. Digg is full of ***** that have nothing better to do than manufacture controversy out of anything and everything. It's pointless trying to put out the fire these little dimwits try to rub together. Don't encourage these animals with a dignified reply and just attack them for the little weasels they are.
Keep up the great work on Engadget and I really enjoy your podcast. - ryanblock, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11David, for a little while I will personally email you every time you tip us and we don't use your tip. I will explain why, and you can feel free to blog that. Is that transparent enough? It's not a very good use of my time, in my opinion, but it sounds like that's what you want, since that's more or less what you've asked for in the past.
- dustjacket, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I hit the "big three" (Gizmodo, Engadget and OhGizmo) daily and as there is only so many stories to cover I'm used to the overlap and don't really care who gets the story first. Don't get me wrong, I love a good blogbath but, perhaps this will be a push for those sites to define they're own approach and refine the content so as to make them more (branded?) anyways perhaps less of a link *****.
- dragoth, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11That's called plagiarism and is illegal. Yes, you actually *do* have rights out here in the cold, dark internet.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -11/+18grimdotdot, you're a moron. digg only makes headlines that link to the actual sites that originated them. digg does NOT publish articles and then decide to refrain from crediting the original source. Poor journalism at its best.
- cuby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8could i raise the question of why in hell ryan block's comments -- which are arguably the MOST relevant in this comment thread -- are being digged down to the minus realm, so that they disappear? that is unbelievable. what are you people thinking when you click that red thumb?
- DoubtfulSalmon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I call Godwin!
- ryanblock, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Beats me! Perhaps they're not?
- peterrojas, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Actually, that's pretty much exactly what happened. We fixed the article as soon as we were aware of the problem. We'd be happy to remove the image or add any further disclaimers, but DAPreview has not requested that.
- dponce80, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9no, sinfroy... trust me. We have a history of email exchanges. they know about me, and they simply chose to ignore me and find their news elsewhere. that's fine, and I wouldn't make a big deal out of it if I hadn't found out that it's happening to many other sites out there. I'm a big boy. I'm not gonna cry if Engadget is ignoring me. But it annoys me when they do it to a lot of other sites, then deny the practice.
- ryanblock, on 10/12/2007, -16/+21All this business about "blacklists" and exclusionist tactics is getting a little silly and out of hand. As I explained to DAPreview (and on my own blog, and elsewhere), we simply don't read their site in our daily rounds of the hundreds of feeds we scan. Since August 2005 (when we were accused of "blacklisting" them) we simply removed them from our OPML. OhGizmo, among other sites, also do not appear. The GearLive post OhGizmo cites was promptly addressed and revealed to be a simple error that might have been solved long before now with an email (and it was solved).
We obviously occasionally come upon stories by sites we don't regularly that deserve credit, and credit them appropriately we do (in the case of DAPreview they themselves mentioned being credited with links on numerous occasions even though they believe they were "blacklisted"). Unfortunately the truth of this whole situation is far more boring than people would like to imagine. I've since amended the post with my error, apologized, and attempted to re-establish a working relationship with DAPreview. I'm not entirely sure what the author of this article wants but some admission of a nefarious policy of blacklisting and exclusion, but the reality is some sites we look to for news, some sites we don't.
Best, Ryan - VanceMc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7As I posted in another Digg thread, I think there are two questions here that are actually important to the "ethics" of blogging:
1. Should a blog site use news stories and pictures without proper citation?
No. Bad job Engadget.
2. Is it OK for a blogsite to "blacklist" particular news sources (even assuming this is what Engadget does)?
Sure, of course. Really, think about it. If you had a personal blog, you would feel no obligation to use news sources from someone you have a problem with, or a site you just don't like. Engadget is not a public service, it is a blog run by two guys. No one should get bent out of shape because they pick and choose the news sources they like. As long as the content is not something original (like a scoop interview, etc), there is nothing wrong from choosing another source for the story. If I have a blog and I see a story first on Fox, but I happen to hate Fox, I would go and see whether CNN or MSNBC are also covering the story and link that site instead. I see nothing wrong in this.
- VanceMc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4dponce:
I agree it might make it clear that they are excluding your site purposefully, and I might agree that this is not responsible newsgathering for their readers. But how is this "wrong"? Yes, it would be favoritism to one and exclusion of another, but there is no obligation to fairness or even-handedness in a personal blog. I think people are coming to see sites like Engadget as somehow NOT a blog site, but something else, something more akin to a public service.
Again, what if I just have an aversion to Fox News, but they report a good story. I really don't want to cite to Fox News even though I really like the story. Do I have some obligation to report the story right then and cite Fox News? Of course not. Now, let's say that CNN reports that same story three days later. I say "yay!", and I tell the story and link CNN. It may not be responsible "journalism" and I may be doing a disservice to my readers by not giving them news right away, but I have done nothing wrong in the least. Don't you agree?
Now, I would agree with you that Engadget must realize that they can have a HUGE positive impact on smaller sites, and I think it would be cool of them to share the wealth around a bit. But, they have no obligation to and I really don't see any legitimate grounds for complaint when they don't. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5whew! I can finally stop reading all this whining then. thanks.
- muikano, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Did you even read the article? Jesus Christ. The whole thing is about misappropriation of content. Blogging is journalism. I don't ***** care if it's amateur or not, but it's journalism. It's reporting, it's information.
If the NYT did the same thing, everyone would go up in arms but it's okay if Engadget does it?
This stems from the fact that most people dont believe that bloggin is journalism. I'm of the view that blogging is the very evolution of journalism. Even if it is a fad, it should still follow the rigors and rules, not because of any inertial tradition to politeness but because journalistic integrity is the KY Jelly that makes information go SWOOSH.
Now ***** off. - peterrojas, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Thanks for being the voice of reason here. I don't think any reasonable person could say that we dominate any market. There are hundreds of other gadget blogs out there, not to mention all the big tech news sites like CNET.
I'm the first to concede that we screwed up here. For what it's worth, I promise that we're going to do our best not to let something like this happen again. It is our policy to always linkback to our sources; anyone who reads Engadget can see that we do that day in and day out. - dponce80, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5VanceMc, it's a timeline issue. If many sites were coering a story simultaneously, there's no problem. But, in this case, days, even weeks would go by, with the story not getting picked up. Then, suddenly, once it appears on another (presumably not blacklisted) site, Engadget decides to do the piece. It's this "waiting until someone else does it" that's wrong.
- RobotCitizen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"But quite important though - the last company I recall using its market domination to damage smaller companies was, ummm Microsoft."
Market domination? What are they selling? Their content is free to the visitor, as is the content of most tech news sites. Nothing Engadget does is impeding you from visiting any other tech news site. Just type in the URL and you're there. It's not Engadget's job to publicize anyone else's website.
Again, I stress that this is a seperate issue from the issue of Engadget "borrowing" content without credit. That's bad. - VipeNess, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6credit was due, they slacked and hacked the image apart, got caught, said sorry, users flaming, articles disappear, it will happen again.. i guess that is what happens when your not hungry anymore, and all you do is take credit i hope this really doesnt happen again, i like all the sites, but sad to see sites fighting... even though it is business... move along children, move along..
- portis, on 10/12/2007, -14/+17peter rojas is a tool. His ego shows in every post he makes. It's time for him to fall.
- nlatimer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Its hard to bother with Engadget anyway, who really wants to hear about a new phone for the ten thousandth time?
- dggeek, on 10/12/2007, -11/+14Yes so we should just ignore it.
And all governments tap their citizens, so we should ignore that.
And all game/music companies bundle DRM into their crap, so we should just ignore that. - VanceMc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5IIRC, they cropped the image because they thought the story had originated somewhere other than DAPreview and wanted to cite the true source, including the true source of the picture, so they removed the references to the "middleman" (DAPreview) and either cited what they thought was the original source, or went in search of it. When they discovered that DAPreview really was the originator (after they complained bitterly), they restored it all. Whether true or not, that is their version of events and, if true, it would just be a bit silly (editing without being sure), but not unethical.
- dponce80, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yes, you're right VanceMc. I made a mistake there. It's not the exclusionism that I feel is wrong. It sucks for me, but it's not "wrong". What i feel is wrong, and the whole point of my article, is the denial that this happens at all.
- rm999, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4peter
If they stole the photo from someone else and added their logo then find the original yourself. Cropping the photo is arrogant because it just assumes that they stole the photo (even though there was no evidence to support this). - rm999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm new to this all, and I have never been a big blog reader, so perhaps my analysis of all this isn't accurate, but it seems to me that when you say:
"but the reality is some sites we look to for news, some sites we don't."
you are essentially blacklisting sites because you know that other blogs will pick up the stories of the ones you don't look at. This is fine - there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. You have no obligation to look at every blog on the internet, and you can source a story how you wish.
There are a few things wrong though. You claim that you don't blacklist, but that is exactly what the above is. *Removing* a site from your radar is blacklisting them IMO. I really don't think you should be claiming you aren't blacklisting sites, you should be claiming it is your right to blacklist them. The more I read your comments and those of the sites that claim you blacklist them, the more I am inclined to believe them. Again, I think it is your right to blacklist them, but when you outright claim you don't blacklist sites I feel like you are outright lying.
Second, none of this explains the cropping of the photo. You admit it was a mistake, but you claim that it is standard procedure to do it for pictures that weren't taken by the people who put their logo on it (as I understand what you said). You should *never* crop a logo or source info out of a photo unless it is for style reasons (eg. zoom into the product). If the photo was actually publicly available you could have found it at its actual source.
What I am getting at is that I, as a rational intelligent person, think you are lying to the readers of digg. I was ready to forget all this yesterday, but I am dissapointed that you continue to add on to your story in light of such damning evidence. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3you dont *have* to visit engadget, they dont *have* to link to gizmondo
- dponce80, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Although I believe Ryan has already admitted as much, right here in the comments, though not in as many words. Whatever the case, I've no desire to beat this into the ground.
- RobotCitizen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Who the hell cares what Engadget does or doesn't link to? Engadget can blacklist whoever the hell they want. It's their site. Engadget is not the bloody phonebook!
If you run a tech news site and you can't pull in the page hits on your site's own merits, that's your problem. Don't boohoo because some other site won't spoonfeed you pagehits.
It's wrong for Engadget to rip off pics and crop off other sites' watermarks, but this whining about the Engadget "blacklist" is pathetic. - VanceMc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There is a big difference in connotation between a "blacklist" or even a "ban" and just making a choice among the dozens of sites out there which are not going to be on a feed. As more sites come online and you can't cover them all, you make a decision which to keep, which to add and which to cut. A decision to "cut" one is not a blacklist, since that implies some bad feelings, some negative intent, etc. It sounds like Peter's decision was pretty nuetral and objective.
Remember what I said about it possibly being worse if you absolutley insist on knowing why you are not being cited any more, because you may just find out? Well, it is a case of be careful what you wish for, because you may just find out that they just didn't think your site was useful enough to keep. Not some vendetta or blacklist, just a choice on quality. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4
You can tell Digg is on the verge of imploding because now the users are manufacturing their own stories. How incestuous - the ghetto dogs are doing it to themselves. - dustjacket, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Still, I cant wait for the Digg podcasts take on this one
I hope that dude is over his cold and well sorted.... - ryanblock, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4As acting Managing Editor of Engadget, it's part of my job to protect my publication from attacks which might impugn its reputation. Just as it is to read every tip that comes through and write the news. Just so happens today and yesterday I've had to do all three (instead of the usual two).
Best, Ryan -
Show 51 - 100 of 122 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is