Pete
Is this you? Claim Profile »
10 months ago
in I’m glad Louis Gray called out Mashable on Mathew's comments
Hey Mathew,
Yeah, I was speaking about this same issue with some peeps at the Crunchies (including the Techcrunch guys). The editors and I had already mailed back and forth on Friday night regarding how to include more visible attribution in the editorial guidelines, so those changes were already underway.
Basic issue is this: as team grows (4 to 5 core editors, more than a dozen writers and other staff), you need more and more written rules to cover the stuff that seems obvious to an individual blogger. See my comments on Louis' post for some other points from me.
I gotta go out for the day, but I'll mail you my cell number should you wish to chat.
--Pete
show all 3 replies
Yeah, I was speaking about this same issue with some peeps at the Crunchies (including the Techcrunch guys). The editors and I had already mailed back and forth on Friday night regarding how to include more visible attribution in the editorial guidelines, so those changes were already underway.
Basic issue is this: as team grows (4 to 5 core editors, more than a dozen writers and other staff), you need more and more written rules to cover the stuff that seems obvious to an individual blogger. See my comments on Louis' post for some other points from me.
I gotta go out for the day, but I'll mail you my cell number should you wish to chat.
--Pete
3 replies
rod / techfol.com
Making attribution more visible sounds like a pretty simple task to me. Your writers should be able to figure out how to wrap a link around some decent keywords without too much in the way of "guidlines" I would think. Good judgment and a community focus should be core attributes of a good blogger, not rules that need to be enforced.
Mark Evans
Pete,
With all due respect, proper attribution should be something embraced by blogs written by a single person and multi-headed entities such as Mashable, GigaOm and TechCrunch.
As blogs become increasingly seen as news sources, they will face more scrutiny and, as a well, will likely have to embrace journalistic "standards".
Mark
With all due respect, proper attribution should be something embraced by blogs written by a single person and multi-headed entities such as Mashable, GigaOm and TechCrunch.
As blogs become increasingly seen as news sources, they will face more scrutiny and, as a well, will likely have to embrace journalistic "standards".
Mark
10 months ago
in Way To Steal on Kyle Brady: A Blog
Hi Kyle,
Nope, no copying here. As the "new guy", Paul doesn't have access to mail, so it's not possible that he saw that message. I checked with Paul and he says he didn't see your post.
We don't delete any comments (apart from the viagra ones!), and I expect Paul will reply to that one on the Mashable post. Let me know if you wanna chat.
Nope, no copying here. As the "new guy", Paul doesn't have access to mail, so it's not possible that he saw that message. I checked with Paul and he says he didn't see your post.
We don't delete any comments (apart from the viagra ones!), and I expect Paul will reply to that one on the Mashable post. Let me know if you wanna chat.
2 years ago
in Some Scott Karps are better than others on Mathew's comments
Firstly, my egalitarian horse is neither higher nor lower than that of the next man - as far as I'm concerned, egalitarian horses are all created equal. :)
I think Mathew hints at what I was getting at with this post and this one - it's not the job of old media companies to define the audience, because the audience defines itself. And being "smart" isn't the same thing as choosing the news stories that people will be interested in. Digg users don't know much about the stories they vote on, but they do have an understanding of what will appeal to other Digg users.
Still, when creating a website it helps if you define your audience in *some* way. Digg defined itself as a tech news site, but the current user-base largely consists of a certain type of technology enthusiast (ie. it's different from the Memeorandum set). You can start out by trying to define an audience, but that audience will evolve of its own accord.
I think Mathew hints at what I was getting at with this post and this one - it's not the job of old media companies to define the audience, because the audience defines itself. And being "smart" isn't the same thing as choosing the news stories that people will be interested in. Digg users don't know much about the stories they vote on, but they do have an understanding of what will appeal to other Digg users.
Still, when creating a website it helps if you define your audience in *some* way. Digg defined itself as a tech news site, but the current user-base largely consists of a certain type of technology enthusiast (ie. it's different from the Memeorandum set). You can start out by trying to define an audience, but that audience will evolve of its own accord.
2 years ago
in Hey look - it’s 1996 all over again on Mathew's comments
Rob,
I think the "harm in doing so" is pretty clear - lots of bad PR and damage to your street cred. I think it's great to see Google experimenting with new ideas, but they're a major player now and that seems to increase our expectations.
I think the "harm in doing so" is pretty clear - lots of bad PR and damage to your street cred. I think it's great to see Google experimenting with new ideas, but they're a major player now and that seems to increase our expectations.
that you guys want to get on the right side of this thing. I appreciate
that it gets hard when you get bigger, and some things that may be
understood when it's just you and a couple of other bloggers can get lost
between the cracks. But I do think it's an important issue, and I'm glad
you're addressing it.