(April 26, 2010 at 7:03 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: It's about the fact that revenue is often accrued through page hits, when you reproduce an article wholesale, the author loses out.Whereas this would be different from not bothering to visit their page at all because one doesn't want to bother with going to their site?
If it's that much of a problem... perhaps a sort of "middle ground" could be considered better form? (Ie: copy half of their statements, and if someone's even interested in the other half include the link with the words "read more" (or the like?))
Shouldn't the author be posting it in multiple places anyway? And why would the author necessarily need to accumulate revenue via this method (IE: associated presses, as with newspapers (which sell offline and often print in multiple places) like the one Minimalist quoted)?
Also, if one really wants to get page hits, they can go to forums, facebook, and the like to advertise their existence (usually in the form of a link, which would be a page hit)... so shouldn't it only be a problem to those without much social presence (which can firstly be built up to, and secondly what someone writing an article they intend to make money on should have in the first place)?
Quote:It's bad form as far as referring to sources go, and also makes posts look horrendous.I don't see why it is bad form... i reference the quoting example from above. As for posts looking horrendous (due to length?), the hidetag™ should work fine
Quote:It's a minor thing, Minimalist corrected it and we're good. Why are you dragging this out? It's clearly stated in the rules. http://atheistforums.org/rules.php
Please drop it
I don't see any strong reasons for it, and so I'm asking for strong reasons. If you don't want to answer me: the questions remain.
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
