Drudge Report reposts March 3, 2002 5:09 PM   Subscribe

Why doesn't Drudge Report receive any credit for these three links? And why do people insist on posting these links, especially when it is apparent that a number of other readers visit Drudge Report (considering 3 Drudge Report links were posted within 3 hours of each other)?
posted by crog to MetaFilter-Related at 5:09 PM (25 comments total)

It's a good question, crog. I fear the answer is that the majority here think, quite rightly, that Drudge is right-wing and unreliable to boot. Yet he's very hardworking(if a bit stupid)and should be given credit for what he digs up. It's a "resentful respect" situation, IMHO.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:37 PM on March 3, 2002

What makes these "Drudge links" and not Time, MSNBC, or Globe and Mail links? I don't get it.
posted by rodii at 5:47 PM on March 3, 2002

Links do not need or deserve credits. We must put a stop to this "link via foo.com" or "courtesy klottke" stuff right now. Do you always thank your elementary school teacher for introducing you to Shakespeare every time you cite 'Macbeth'?
posted by evanizer at 5:52 PM on March 3, 2002

evanizer, the "via" credit is a longstanding, basic weblog courtesy. it's the thing that creates the network effect, and that network effect is one of the most important things about weblogging in general.
posted by rebeccablood at 6:15 PM on March 3, 2002

Fuck courtesy. Giving credit like that is a waste of time. The original story source is what is important, and you discover that when you click the link. Traditions were made to be tossed in the toilet.
posted by mischief at 7:25 PM on March 3, 2002

I agree that it is generally a good thing to give credit. As someone that doesn't read Drudge, does he give credit?
posted by RobertLoch at 7:42 PM on March 3, 2002

There's a difference between giving credit to a little independent weblog and giving credit to Drudge. I think Rebecca's point is the standard explanation; I think it's arguable and would like to see it explored further. But in this particular case, I still don't see why it's so clear to crog that these are "Drudge links."
posted by rodii at 7:47 PM on March 3, 2002

I've always been interested in this penchant to "give credit." I do it sometimes, but not often. I usually think it leads to odd situations, like this thread from a couple days ago in which Kindall received credit for the link. Funny thing is, though, that if you go to his site, he credits Paxtonland. Logic says that Paxton got it someplace, so did he need to attribute too? And who should the original MeFi poster have attributed? I think I'd vote for Paxton, but I'm not sure. Should one be forced to go through the daisy-chain? Or are we all just in this together by a common pact?
posted by rex at 7:54 PM on March 3, 2002

rebeccablood: I can see your point re: small media vs. big media. If the link came from a personal site, I can see why one would want to thank the source. It's really all the via Fark/via Memepool/via kuro5hin etc. stuff that gets irritating: giving credit to multi-user or commercial sites is just senseless. I think it should be done in moderation, as the situation demands. I would say that it would be nice if people found their own links, rather than finding them at link-rich hubs, but the whole concept of linking means that you probably had to be referred from somewhere else in order to fhave found the link in the first place. How does one decide where to draw a sensible line?
posted by evanizer at 8:59 PM on March 3, 2002

rodii, the Time message thread link uses the heading "OCTOBER BULLETIN SAID TERRORISTS THOUGHT TO HAVE 10 KILOTON NUCLEAR WEAPON TO BE SMUGGLED INTO NEW YORK CITY," which did not appear in the link. However the heading was used here at Drudge Report. The following links happen to be on Drudge Report's front page, which could be a coincidence. I cannot prove to you beyond a doubt that the authors of these threads took the links from Drudge Report, however I can say that this is not the first time that I have recognized this sort of link borrowing from Drudge Report.

MiguelCardoso, I think it is interesting how some people on Metafilter do not care for the DrudgeReport, however it is evident that there's a number of people that read it. Who was it that said imitation is the highest form of flattery? Seems that this is rather hypocritical or contradictory behavior. Or perhaps more people on Metafilter choose to attack DrudgeReport rather than defend him. Personally this was more of what I had in question for myself than why doesn't anybody give "credit."
posted by crog at 9:12 PM on March 3, 2002

Well, fuck me, you're right, crog. Sorry to be so obtuse.
posted by rodii at 9:39 PM on March 3, 2002

rodii, no need to apologize. You brought up a good question that I had not addressed in the original post.
posted by crog at 9:41 PM on March 3, 2002

How does one decide where to draw a sensible line

if you find it on another weblog, credit that one, even if they found it on another. anyone who wants to go back will see the accreditation on that site. it's about giving credit, recommending another site, and about leaving a breadcrumb trail of sorts for those who love to surf.
posted by rebeccablood at 11:03 PM on March 3, 2002

The point of giving credit with a 'via' is to tell people about the source - as in "this is a website that sometimes has good links, check it out". That is how you get a network effect. But everyone knows about Drudge already: Mefi users are probably divided into those who use Drudge and those who don't because they find him irritating. Anyway, what evanizer said.

As to the question of why so many Drudge links, I suppose it's okay when he gets a scoop. Unfortunately much of what Drudge does is a kind of low-level trolling in the selection of links to further his bias. Even if Mefi has a small problem with semi-trolling left-slanting links, it just makes things worse to cull lots of links from Drudge. At least take the trouble to write an alternative, more thoughtful, post title (not that people don't often do this already).
posted by Gaz at 2:59 AM on March 4, 2002

Drudge / Obscure Store / Slashdot....
posted by crunchland at 6:23 AM on March 4, 2002

As someone that doesn't read Drudge, does he give credit?

I can't recall any instance where Drudge gave credit to another weblog (aside from the standard links to sites that he frequents).

I only think a credit is useful when the link is something that was clearly original or discovered through some digging (for example, when luke found the Amazon Wish List for Michael "Mucko" McDermott.

In the Drudge examples, the only one I might give credit to him on is the Globe & Mail story. The other two were from Time and MSNBC -- I don't think finding a news headline on an international news site is worth a via credit.
posted by rcade at 6:29 AM on March 4, 2002

Rcade's Drudge Retort is still the best antidote. Plus the satisfaction that its URL is drudge.com!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 6:36 AM on March 4, 2002

With the bigger sites, a credit link can be a mixed blessing, as it can result in an unanticipated bandwidth bill or even denial of service for a smaller site.
posted by kindall at 7:35 AM on March 4, 2002

Who cares how many Drudge report links there are? As for the "credit", can't we just keep a list of sites somewhere that people should check out?
posted by xammerboy at 8:53 AM on March 4, 2002

I'm probably in danger of being labelled pedantic or somesuch, because I keep adding my two pennorth into this discussion, whenever it occurs. I really don't care as much as it might appear.

I utterly fail to understand why credit should be due for a blind stumbling across a nugget of information. Perhaps this makes me ungrateful, but I am constantly stumbling across good stuff on the web. Often, I stumbled across the place I found it at, just thirty seconds before. I agree that there may be instances where someone had spent time looking carefully for a specific thing, and that some other person may thereby may have saved time looking, but unless you are visiting someone for their expert knowledge on a subject this is just a happy accident, and unless you are being read for the purpose of finding knowledge on that same subject, it's only of minimal interest to your reader.

Where a credit is almost certainly due, is where someone adds something salient to the discussion on their weblog, and you link to that meta-data. But if you just link because someone posted a link, because someone posted a link, you're actually effectively hiding that meta-data from me, because I have no idea whether the "via" really deserves a credit, or is just a light ego-massage.

Sorry if I offend, stepping on conventions, but I'm a firm believer in flinging them away unless they're useful.

Of course, people will continue to post however they like to their own websites, and others will continue to complain when they do it differently. This is all good.
posted by walrus at 8:57 AM on March 4, 2002

i consider it a courtesy to credit others for finding a link, whether they added any commentary or not. it certainly doesn't hurt, even if the story seems trivial; what advantage is there in not crediting?
posted by moz at 9:04 AM on March 4, 2002

what advantage is there in not crediting?

if you just link because someone posted a link, because someone posted a link, you're actually effectively hiding that meta-data from me, because I have no idea whether the "via" really deserves a credit

If everyone credited everything, most every post would have a credit. What would be the point, then?
posted by walrus at 9:06 AM on March 4, 2002


If everyone credited everything, most every post would have a credit. What would be the point, then?

rcb said that "it's about giving credit, recommending another site, and about leaving a breadcrumb trail of sorts for those who love to surf." (emphasis mine.) as i'd said, i fail to see the harm in crediting -- even a lot of crediting. to be fair, however, most every post at metafilter would probably not have a credit; we have too many common news posts for that to happen.
posted by moz at 9:27 AM on March 4, 2002

I don't want to extend this into infinity, having made my point. I think crediting is valuable in the circumstances I outline above, at best distracting otherwise. It's a style thing I suppose. The reason I keep harping is that I feel there are a number of people implying one should always do it, without exception, otherwise one's being rude somehow. I won't buy that.

FWIW, I recommend other sites by writing something nice about them, or placing them in a list of recommendations. And breadcrumbs just aren't nearly as appetising to me as a nice slice of freshly baked wholemeal.
posted by walrus at 9:45 AM on March 4, 2002

« Older Skeleton next comment preview   |   Happy 2nd Birthday, MetaTalk! Newer »

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