Is linking to self-mirrored content self-linking? September 28, 2006 7:08 AM   Subscribe

Does the self linking ban apply if you move a clip from someone's page onto your youtube to save their bandwidth?

The video in question isn't theirs, it's simply someone hosting a clip from a tv show.
posted by Lord_Pall to Etiquette/Policy at 7:08 AM (19 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

No problem with that.
posted by dflemingdotorg at 7:13 AM on September 28, 2006


That sounds legit to me, especially if you've put the clip on YouTube instead of your own site.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:14 AM on September 28, 2006


Link to the original site, and identify the youtube link as a mirror.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:21 AM on September 28, 2006


Link to the original site and identify the youtube link as a mirror. If you are affiliated with the person who originally posted the content, all the normal no-self-link rules apply.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:29 AM on September 28, 2006


What do you recommend for photo hostings? Similiar thing, someone is sending me a few high res scans of old material that's applicable to the original post.

Flickr? Call it out as a self link on that one? These are more of supporting pictures/scans of real world things. I'd link to someone else's versions of this, but there simply aren't any.

Btw, the post in question is an aggregate post, linking to all manner of videos, pictures, text and so on. It's more about evocative memories and emotions, so there's all manner of source material. In some cases, some of the material has been c+d'ed out of existence or simply doesn't exist, which is why I'm asking these questions.
posted by Lord_Pall at 7:37 AM on September 28, 2006


Upon further review, don't worry about the photo question. Not needed anymore.
posted by Lord_Pall at 7:38 AM on September 28, 2006


I'd suggest that if you're getting things sent to you to help you with your post that you're well past the point of being objective about the quality of said post and shouldn't bother posting it. Get your own blog.
posted by dobbs at 7:45 AM on September 28, 2006


So if, hypothetically, Lord Pall was planning on making an FPP, and emailed the guy who runs one of the links asking if he has higher quality scans, he immediately becomes non-objective?
posted by Plutor at 7:59 AM on September 28, 2006


Previously
posted by Mitheral at 8:01 AM on September 28, 2006


So that raises a question.

Is the purpose to self aggrandize and promote a blog?

Or to share information, experiences and links we find on the internet with the Metafilter community, and discuss thoughts and emotions related to the original post?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what I've been seeing here for so many years, but it seems like the most interesting moments in Mefi for me have been reading the shared perspectives on the posts, case and point, the apple 2+ article about gaming. A collection of links and commentary, but what followed was a great discussion of the history of the linked archives.


Of course, you're right about part of it. It's not supposed to be a blog or "HERE IS ME, FOCUS ON ME" style environment.

Keeping in mind your comments, I'll finsih putting this together (sans anything anyone is sending me), and make a call once it's formed.
posted by Lord_Pall at 8:03 AM on September 28, 2006


So if, hypothetically, Lord Pall was planning on making an FPP, and emailed the guy who runs one of the links asking if he has higher quality scans, he immediately becomes non-objective?

It's not that he's non-objective, though he might be, it's that he's not linking to something on the web (in your hypothetical), which is the point of MetaFilter. More than "best of the web" more than "great discussions and links" it's about linking to stuff on the web. People may disagree about this somewhat, but Wikipedia-type posts that bring in non-online material, especially if that material winds up being uploaded or hosted by the person making the post are really not kosher.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:06 AM on September 28, 2006


Seems a little semantic though.

If I like to someone's site who's hosting a video, vs a mirror of that video on youtube ( to avoid getting the original hoster a c+d letter), I don't see much of a functional difference.

And on the photograph side, which is irrelevant because I'm dumping anything that's not already on the web, at what point does a collection of individual links or informational conglomeration BECOME best of the web?

Does a simple inclusion to a picture of a real world item to enhance the original link collection negate the value of the original post?

Not necessarily something that needs to be answered. Honestly, a reasonably zero tolerance attitude towards that manner of links is probably a good idea because of the ever shifting line that would result, but it's always interesting to take a step back and question suppositions like this.

A deconstruction of what "best of the web" means might be kinda fun though. At least for me who seems to have a silly amount of spare time at the moment.
posted by Lord_Pall at 8:11 AM on September 28, 2006


Oh yeah, The immature reponse should be:

I'll Show YOU!. I'll go Post to my OWN BLOG and metafilter will LINK TO ME! Then I'll be best of the web!

And there'll be hookers and blackjack.

On second hand, forget the blog.

:)

To everyone, thanks for the feedback. It's actually very helpful .
posted by Lord_Pall at 8:29 AM on September 28, 2006


So if, hypothetically, Lord Pall was planning on making an FPP, and emailed the guy who runs one of the links asking if he has higher quality scans, he immediately becomes non-objective?

That's certainly not the scenario that entered my head based on Lord Pall's questions. It seemed to me that he was gathering material to make a post ("someone is sending me a few high res scans of old material that's applicable to the original post"). That's not what MetaFilter is for--or at least, not what's its intention is.

I'm probably in a sliver minority, but to me, the more paragraph sized essays that appear on the front page (and that number seems to be increasing daily), the less interesting the place becomes.

It's not supposed to be a blog or "HERE IS ME, FOCUS ON ME" style environment.

I'd go further and say that for the purpose of FPPs, it's not supposed to be "Here's what I think about X" or "What do you think about X?". It's supposed to be (imodqm): "I thought this was interesting and am sharing it." Unfortunately, it's becoming more "This is why I think this is interesting. Thoughts?"
posted by dobbs at 8:32 AM on September 28, 2006


Main link in the post. Supplementary material as [more inside]. No self links, no links to things you're involved in. But it all lives and dies on whether or not the content is cool and that such web based material has not been seen by many/any people.
posted by peacay at 8:40 AM on September 28, 2006


Does a simple inclusion to a picture of a real world item to enhance the original link collection negate the value of the original post?

if by "negate" you mean "render deletable" then the answer is "possibly". In short, while this is an interesting thought experiment, the rules for the site are layed down specifically so we don't have to split hairs every time this comes up, or question the motives of every poster who has a superduper thing they need to include in their post. So the line exists because it's bright and because it's, to a certain extent, enforceable, not because it's the most just and most fair way to make sure that the best things always are linkable on MetaFilter each and every time. Thanks for your understanding, etc.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:31 AM on September 28, 2006


Does a simple inclusion to a picture of a real world item to enhance the original link collection negate the value of the original post?

If your main link needs all this enhancing, maybe it's not a great link? I have no idea, so maybe it is the greatest link ever and you just fancy padding it out with some added great.

Generally, posts deliberately crafted in order to encourage discussion are A Bad Thing, though. Discussion is secondary to the link(s). Thousands disagree, of course.
posted by jack_mo at 11:12 AM on September 28, 2006


OT: Lord, i think i just read a book with you in it--Requiem for Homo Sapiens? : >
posted by amberglow at 12:48 PM on September 28, 2006


More about the self link image issue here as well, Lord Paul
posted by strawberryviagra at 3:46 PM on September 28, 2006


« Older Missing favorites?   |   Policy about using sockpuppets to skip around the... Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments