Thursday, July 21, 2011

There's No Right Or Wrong in Blogging, But This Is Wrong

Seriously, if you're on my blogroll and I ever catch you doing this, I will hunt you down and punch the pixels out of you.

First rule of blogging: it's your blog, and you can do whatever you want on it.

Second rule of blogging: your readers are - virtually speaking - guests in your home. Treat them with appropriate courtesy.

If a guest asked you where the bathroom was, you wouldn't glare at him and snarl "find it yourself!".

But this PJ Tatler article does exactly that.

It's essentially just an excerpt from a USA Today article. It takes - verbatim - 5 paragraphs from the original story and then just stops cold.

The RIGHT way to do this is to intro the piece and include a permalink to the article, placing the link on words that suggest you're linking to the source article e.g. "From USA Today"

Alternatively, put the link at the end, e.g. "(continued at USA Today).

However, this PJ dandruff-brain put the source link in the middle of the story, on the irrelevant words "U.S. Forest Service". [note: they also used a category link, not an individual archive link - which becomes increasingly useless over time as new posts are added to that category]

Now, referring to rule one, above, I guess I can't honestly say this is "wrong".

But I stand by rule two, and I will defend with my dying breath the statement that "this is rude".

And the third rule of blogging: rude people shouldn't blog. The internet's already plagued with an excess of ill-bred grundlemunchers.


  1. Rude people shouldn't blog! But there are plenty of them out there doing it... ;)

    You're absolutely right, of course. People need a link. If the content is from another blog, well, that's a Cardinal Sin.