Fri 15 Aug, 2008 08:02 am
I often use internet articles as A2K topics. In that case, I usually quote a relevent paragraph that will give the reader a sense of what the topic is about. I will leave a link to the article. I will then write a paragraph of my own, discussing the issue, and posibly throwing out questions for people to answer relating to the topic.
I find that some people on A2K do not do that. There are some who will quote an entire article, period. They will add nothing of themselves. There are others that will simply post a link. (I will NEVER click on a link, unless I am familiar with, and trust the person.)
It seems to me that if I want to read about a subject, I don't need to find it on A2K. I always believed that the purpose of this kind of forum is for the member who writes a thread put something of him/herself into the thread, enabling other members to join in a discussion.
Quite honestly, this sort of thing really annoys me. I find that I pass many threads by because of the writer's complete lack of personal input into their thread.
What do you think?
I, too, like the relevent info quoted and the fluff left out.
If I wanted just to read an article, I'd go to CNN.com or somesuch.
Plus, the Associated Press has gotten real pissy about folks quoting w/o paying....
I totally agree. Some of us are still on dial-up systems which are notoriously slow-loading. Opening a promising topic thread and finding only a link or copyrighted article frankly irritates me.
It seems to me that if I want to read about a subject, I don't need to find it on A2K.
This is generally true for me but sometimes there are subjects that I don't know I want to read about until someone brings them to my attention. I find A2K is actually kind of useful that way.
It's also illegal. Reproducing the article in its entirety can cause legal problems for the site and eventually the poster.
Thankfully, the newspapers haven't bothered us too much yet, but other forums online have had pretty significant legal battles over it.
Thing is, a coming feature of the site is going to make this a lot different. Soon there will be a "link" topic type, where people can submit cool articles, sites etc and everyone else can vote on them and discuss them.
@Craven de Kere,
I'm on a rather small blog about our local airport - they had some severe legal trouble because some members posted complete links. (A battalion of lawyers does nothing but looking for copied material, here in Europe and especially in Germany.)
I have come across countless articles that I have enjoyed and learned a LOT from reading because they have been linked to here, or in other places.
I understand why you like some sort of precis or commentary from the poster, and sometimes I also find that very useful, but I will click on links that look interesting even without much commentary, especially from people I know to be sources of interesting material.
they had some severe legal trouble because some members posted complete links
Do you mean LINKS, Walter, or complete ARTICLES?
Surely links are ok?????
I don't think I have ever posted an article or essay as a thread starter without making at least some personal comment on it or offering an open ended question. I have posted the entire essay when the whole thing was necessary to get the writer's point across -- always linked to the original source of course. I guess I started doing that when so many members demanded that I support my opinion or facts with somebody else's printed opinion or facts or otherwise "I made it up" or "was talking out of my *" or 'lying' or whatever. And if the essay was important reference for the discussion itself, I didn't want it to go away and become unfindable or inaccessible after a few days and then people whine about the link not working.
I will take this to heart, however. I would much rather just have conversations with people too and threads that are nothing but cuts and pastes of stuff are usually pretty boring.
(And glad to see that "fluffy butt" is back to her old self again.
I feel the same way you do, Phoenix. I like to be pointed to interesting articles. But I also need a thread's initial post to tell me why
the article is interesting, and a brief summary of what it's about. If post authors don't care enough about their own topic to do this, I generally don't care to read it. A few A2K correspondents have taken their lack of care to the point where almost all their correspondence consist of article dumps with no personal inputs. I have made it a habit to ignore their threads.
Right. Isn't that a marvelous time-saver?
Links are okay, sure - that's what legal.
(Usually, lawyers ask for (at least) 5,000 Euros plus fees etc, then settle for less [sometimes], if the copied article is deleted fast enough.)