Occasionally, I’ll write posts in my blog that draw quotes from several sources that have somehow “clicked” in my mind. My post might offer my take on the situation given those sources. Or I might read a blog post that sets me off on a tangent that has very little to do with that original post. (I think this particular post qualifies.) Still, I’ll link to it. But what do the folks who read my post link to? It all depends on what they’re trying to share: the original information or my take on it.

That’s one of the great things about REAL blogging — not the endless, repetition of a few key facts from one hot story. A real blogger will take what he’s reading elsewhere online and present it with thoughtful commentary to make something else, something that stands on its own and is worth reading.

While I think sites like the Huffington Post TRY to do this, I think they fall far short of the mark, failing to provide a meaningful service to their readers.

Sometimes, for example, organization X will release a study. The study by itself doesn’t mean much but when you put it in conjunction with another study and/or a news even, it becomes meaningful. A good site can combine these things with a token amount of original reporting and create news out of nothing.

I know this isn’t exactly what you’re talking about, in this scenario, the new site added their own reporting and research into the mix, but it still nags me not to link to the original source.

After all, it took FAR more time to compile the report than to do the analysis and make it newsworthy. It’s always a conundrum. i try to link to both when I can, but when I have something like the show notes, where I can only have one link per story, my back is against the wall.

I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on that.

Jonathan Bailey´s last blog post: Amazon’s Kindle Lets Anyone Sell Your Content

I used to provide content for a site that distributed it to other sites with my permission and links — much as you did for the article I mentioned. What I found, however, is since there was no fee for the content, it was being used on sites that had nothing to do with the content. Again, to build Google Juice, etc. When the domain names started showing up with XXX in them, I put my foot down and pulled all my content from the distributor. I won’t make that mistake again.

Anyway, I think you are looking at it the right way. I just wish more people would recognize YOUR blog as the source rather than the legitimate site it was echoed on. It think that’s the right way to do it.

From my experience, the legitimate sites will ask before they run your content. The ones that are run by spammers that want to steal your content to try to monetize it are the ones that get everyone upset.

To me, I don’t waste too much time getting upset about the spammers, simply because I know that simply stealing blog posts and slapping them up on your new blog isn’t going to generate traffic, no matter whose name is attached. The spammers aren’t going to do the legwork to get a readership up, because since they ARE spammers, they are into cutting corners.

I don’t get too upset about the pennies that they might get from stealing my content. But that’s just me, I know many people want to fight this tooth and nail, and I can completely understand why they would.

mack collier´s last blog post: The Viral Garden’s Top 25 Marketing & Social Media Blogs – Week 141