MetaChat REGISTER   ||   LOGIN   ||   IMAGES ARE OFF   ||   RECENT COMMENTS




artphoto by splunge
artphoto by TheophileEscargot
artphoto by Kronos_to_Earth
artphoto by ethylene

Home

About

Search

Archives

Mecha Wiki

Metachat Eye

Emcee

IRC Channels

IRC FAQ


 RSS


Comment Feed:

RSS

03 June 2008

To via or not to via. What's MeCha's take on crediting another blog for finding something? Is simultaneous discovery not possible, as many folks are online these days? And if they credit another, who credits another, does it matter what the actual origin is? What's the hidden etiquette? What's the benefits? Is it truly a legal issue or a carryover from pre-internet sourcing?
I like a via. I think that properly crediting sources is important both from an intellectual perspective and a moral one.
posted by box 03 June | 11:05
I've always been a fan of the (via) because I've found a lot of great new sites that way. I also just think it's polite - even if the site you got it from found it elsewhere and they found it elsewhere etc etc. Especially when you're posting to a more community oriented site like this one.

I think there's an unwritten gray area where you stumble upon something organically while other times someone else's site obviously tipped you off - but I'm not quite sure how to put that into words. You just sort of know it. But I know some people like to add to their "I found it first" mystique and avoid crediting. I'm pretty sure there's no legal issue - at least I hope not!
posted by Slack-a-gogo 03 June | 11:07
I never click on via's and think they're a distraction. Unless there was actual research by the "via" site involved (like compiling various links about a single topic), they're just noise.
posted by BoringPostcards 03 June | 11:09
I try to "via" if I'm lifting someone's actual ideas or framing (though I'm not always perfect at it). I don't tend to bother if I'm just linking straight to something else.

I don't think it matters so much on MeCha, but I also know that blogs like Shakesville, which are "big" blogs in the feminist sphere, for example, make it a point to credit smaller blogs for items and promote smaller blogs in general, as a way of working against the "educated white people to whom others often listen appropriating work and ideas from smaller/minority people to whom others rarely listen" trend.
posted by occhiblu 03 June | 11:20
Very helpful. Thanks, all!
posted by chewatadistance 03 June | 11:46
Ok so I have to clarify a little:
Scenario 1:
I'm a member of some trade-only design sites which basically feed its members little known (or non public accessible in some cases) links to products for possible use in their design work. Most of those links are submitted to the powers that be of the trade-only site, who then investigate the product and company so they can have a short description of what the product is when they release it to us in a big list. Sometimes I link to them, and sometimes I just cruise the site for ideas to make something else with.

Scenario 2:
I use stumble upon a lot for new site & product discovery. Do I credit stumble as a via??

Occhi and BP it was helpful to hear your takes on it as well. BP - I rarely click a via link, either. Occhi I liked your comment about crediting the via blog's idea/concept versus not crediting a simple direct link to a product. (Like, I will design things with components outside their original intended use, much as found objects can be incorporated in art).

Again, thanks guys.
posted by chewatadistance 03 June | 11:55
If you're using StumbleUpon a lot, maybe just mention it somewhere on your site(s), but not at each link?

That's assuming you're one of the powers that be. If you're simply submitting sites, then no, I personally wouldn't bother. I would feel like submitting something to StumbleUpon, which takes one click, is different from building an entire design/article/theory oneself, and so should be credited differently.
posted by occhiblu 03 June | 12:26
I find "via" to be silly unless I'm trying to highlight the via site for related stuff, too. Unless the site you're linking to is yours, it's assumed you found it somewhere else. I don't cite the Trib every time I start talking about the city, the Mayor, or the crossword, either.
posted by eamondaly 03 June | 14:07
I like via's - I found good sites via vias. Also, if the via has more stuff (pictures, info, links and so on) - then hells yes I link them - but usually not as a "via" rather I write something lengthies "found here at [nameofblog]" in the start of the post to sortof make an indication "got more stuff here". I do a [via (nameofblog)] at the bottom of the post if the posts are similar in quantity/info. However, I never via Digg or Stumbleupon even though I probably found a few things around there. I'm not sure what my reasoning for that is (I have posted about stumbleupon itself though plenty of times).
posted by dabitch 03 June | 14:33
I prefer via. Anyone who doesn't like her can go to hell!
posted by kyleg 03 June | 15:21
I like vias, too. I've found several sites that are now on my daily surfing by clicking on them.
posted by deborah 03 June | 15:37
Did someone call?
posted by viachicago 03 June | 21:07
BUYER WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED,WHEN WILL YOU SEE ANOTHER LIKE THIS. || Cool Article on Dark Matter in the NY Times...

HOME  ||   REGISTER  ||   LOGIN