Plea to support DCPs blog

[drumdude]

Guys. Daniel desperately needs our help and support.

Since there are people out there who methodically rate my blog entries at the lowest possible score, thus attempting to make my blog essentially invisible to internet searches, I'm going to make it a regular practice to rate my entries at the HIGHEST possible score.

I'm sincere in this, of course, because I wouldn't post entries that I really didn't like.

Mostly, though, I'm going to do it in order to blunt the effect of the obsessive haters out there, to the extent that I can.

I invite all who believe in fairness and in permitting others to speak -- even people who may disagree with what I write here -- to offer similar high ratings. It's the principle of the thing.

Please consider going to his blog daily and giving it five stars. Not because he makes money off it, it’s not about that at all. It’s about the google search ranking. It’s about freedom of speech and anti Mormon oppression.

[Philo Sofee]

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Because all of the low ratings can’t possibly be correct. I’ve read more than my fair share of SeN posts. The constant and numerous plagiarisms aside, DCP’s blog posts suck.

[Rivendale]

Because all of the low ratings can’t possibly be correct. I’ve read more than my fair share of SeN posts. The constant and numerous plagiarisms aside, DCP’s blog posts suck.

The Gemli threads are gold however. Even though the arguments are the same, Gemli never ceases to entertain with his poetry about apes fearing death.

[drumdude]

Sam: "If we are rating solely based on content. For a higher rating I would need to see some original content from the author instead of cut and paste. Just my thoughts."

Well, I'll have to resign myself to getting a lot of one-star ratings from you, then.

I do a great deal of writing each day apart from this blog. In fact, I don't count entries on this blog toward my daily writing goals, even when they're entirely of my own creation. I also read a great deal, and I take notes from what I read for use in eventual writing projects. So I share what I read here. If people are interested, that's great. If they're not, that's fine as well. They should probably not waste their time reading what I post.

I wonder, what are the ethics of making money by copying/pasting the writings of others?

Perhaps DCP could copy and paste this to his blog for him to ponderize?

Is the aggregator providing more value to the original creator than it is taking away?

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2015/01 ... gregation/

If the answer to that question is yes, then I tend to think of the aggregation as positive. If it’s not, then I either think the aggregator needs to find ways to better support those it pulls from or, in some cases, shutter.

To be clear, this has nothing to do with the value that aggregator provides its audience. If aggregators sap value from creators and make original content creation non-viable, then they’ve done a disservice to their audience in the long run.

How can aggregators ensure that they are treating content fairly? There are four elements I generally look for:

Attribution: Strong, clear and with a link. Attribution should be front and center and in a way that doesn’t confuse the reader or block search engines.
Limited Use: Take only what you need, Thumbnails, headlines, intro paragraphs, etc. are usually adequate. Facebook, Google and others have set down standards in this area.
Added Value: Simply aggregating a bunch of content from various sources isn’t particularly useful. Aggregators should add value to the content whether through editorial selection, algorithms, commentary or a combination thereof. They should provide something that can’t be gleaned by just reading from the source.
Right of Refusal: Finally, even if you do everything the best you can, some will still not want to be included. An ethical aggregator removes those that don’t want to be included, even if there is no legal obligation for them to do so. There are exceptions to this rule though, in particular with aggregators that merely links or creators simply trying to avoid criticism.
However, the more fundamental key is this. Ethical aggregators try to find ways to build upon and add value to the works of others while supporting the original creator.

Proper and ethical aggregation is a win-win for the creator and the aggregator. Anything else is just an unfair, and likely illegal, extraction of value.

[Kishkumen]

Sign me up!

I will gladly go rate everything DCP writes 5* and more. Just so more people read his blog. Just so he and the Mrs. have more fun nights out on the town.

Just so that we can continue to watch all of the fun unfold at SeN.

One of the tropes of modern vampire stories is that you shouldn't overfeed on the human herd, lest you deny yourself a steady and secure food supply. Indulging the bad ratings itch too much would be dangerous for my SeN reading habits.

[Doctor Steuss]

It's all fun and games until your rating brings the wrong sorts around through a Google Alert.

(h/t Tom)

[Everybody Wang Chung]

If they really don’t like what I write, wouldn’t the most reasonable and appropriate response be to simply stop frequenting this blog? There are tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of blogs and websites to which I pay no attention for the simple and sufficient reason that they don’t interest me.

That's good advice. I wonder if DCP is going to follow it and stop frequenting this blog?

[drumdude]

If they really don’t like what I write, wouldn’t the most reasonable and appropriate response be to simply stop frequenting this blog? There are tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of blogs and websites to which I pay no attention for the simple and sufficient reason that they don’t interest me.

That's good advice. I wonder if DCP is going to follow it and stop frequenting this blog?

Why does he spend so much time obsessed with us? He could have written 3-4 books by now if he wasn't constantly checking in here.

It's really quite sad.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Why does he spend so much time obsessed with us? He could have written 3-4 books by now if he wasn't constantly checking in here.

It's really quite sad.

It's both sad and psychologically fascinating.