Um. If someone admits in an FPP that most of the material was lifted from a blog, is it time for an upside-down pitchfork party?
I think the "(via)" cuteness is not as useful as "(via BoingBoing)", just to give a common example. Frequently, I'll think "is this the link I already saw, or another one on the same topic?" and having to actually mouseover to find out is just too strenuous.
Is it just me?
Is it just me?
Minor feature request: a via field on the blue's posting page. As part of the redesign, I'd love to see an optional field for including a "via" link. Two reasons: (1) it would encourage posters to acknowledge the source of the link, if applicable; and (2) it would allow some interesting statistics to be generated from the aggregation of via data.
Now that we have all read and agreed with Taz's post, lets put it into practice: User posts first Front-page Post. The Post is great and well-received. New user even explains where he got it from (not that he had to). Everything's great so far so...let's call him out because it appeared in some older comments AND let's accuse him of outright stealing it! Good work!
Whatever happened to good old via? Lately attributions on MetaFilter have become rarer and rarer. Have we all suddenly started finding our own links the hard way or has the habit sadly declined?
Of the 20 posts made to MetaFilter today, the majority are based solely or primarily on 17 links to major newspapers and/or other news sources on the Web. Three Yahoo news links, two Washington Post links, yet another dead-or-abused-child thread. [More inside.]
What is protocol re making reference to a link's source in FPP?
MeFi is going through another period of Romenesko following (here here here here). The circle of meta will continues...