SheGeeks: All For The Sake Of Page Views And Money
sarahintampa
· 1 year ago
One thing I really like about you, Corvida, is that you aren't afraid to speak your mind! :) And you've definitely started a good conversation about this topic.
I think all of us in tech blogging have been have been through the experience of breaking the news and then not receiving credit or links for doing so. Whether or not that's what Mashable did is beside the point. (Though, I personally think that since you didn't have a exclusive deal, they probably just got the email too.)
The point is, in an industry dominated by blogs like TechCrunch and Mashable, both of whom can push out posts left and right, getting credit for breaking news is going to be an uphill battle for the rest of us. Instead, what we should focus on as tech bloggers is adding our insight and our analysis to the topic. That's what RWW does well, I think. And it's what you do well.
Another thing you should be aware of is that it didn't matter whether or not Mashable linked to you because your readers already knew that if there's a new FF app in town, you would have an opinion on it. And they would want to hear it. For your readers, you did break the news - and that's more important than credit.
Finally, what I think I find most interesting about all this is the perspective you bring as a relatively new blogger on the scene. I think it's great that you research every post before you publish so you can link to people - but it's not a requirement. It's just good karma. However, there's no big official list of rules in some blogging handbook. Sometimes you get links, sometimes you don't. Sometimes you get credit, sometime you don't. None of that matters.
All that matters is quality writing, insightful analysis, and a distinctive voice. And that's what you deliver time and time again. Which is why I'm proud to have you in the Grand Effect family.
And I'm sure one day you'll be as old and jaded as the rest of us and look back on this and laugh. :)
Corvida Raven
· 1 year ago
Thank you so much Sarah! [hugs] I hope I can take your advice and n8k99's advice.
SeekGround
· 1 year ago
wow. My immediate reaction? Take my friend's side and gang up on mashable which leads me to believe this topic will be this weekend's memo. I also applaud and agree with you're current stance for why you blog. I also agree that the big time bloggers and bloggers in general often fail when it comes to citing sources and giving credit. . I must say though that I disagree with the notion that such bloggers must research before posting their own review. I can also see where they could have nor read your post before writing their own. I personally often fall behind on my reading and miss several hours or even days of subject matter from the various services that I try to keep up with. In fact I don't think I read either you're original review or mashable's.
Corvida Raven
· 1 year ago
I'm not referring to every review at all, but for things that are hot off the press, I tend to research who's already blogged about it and I would hope that professional networks do the same. If anyone did every review, we'd probably never get a chance to blog.
StevenHodson
· 1 year ago
as much as it pains me to say this Corvida - welcome to the club. I have had the same thing happen as have many of the B-List bloggers. It sucks and there are time where you wonder why you are even bothering in the first place.
That said consider this lesson number one on learning to develop a thick skin because it will happen again - and again. And they wonder why a larger percentage of non-top tier bloggers just regurgitate the news.
Just keep doing what you are doing Corvida and at some point it will balance out. At least know that there are those of career bloggers who do give credit where credit is due no matter how small of a credit it might be.
Fred Johnson
· 1 year ago
Why is it every time I find a new blogger I like to read, they turn into a giant jerk with a big head. Just because you got linked a few times by a big blog doesn't mean you deserve a link every time you talk about the same thing as that big blog.
If a press release is sent out and you write about that press release, you aren't breaking the news. You're reporting on privileged information. Just because you have the privilege of reading it early doesn't mean you're the only one.
You're coming off all my subscribes and follows, Corvida. This sucks, because you were an interesting blogger to read. Unfortunately, this isn't the first time I've unsubscribed a blogger from my various services because they got too self-important.
Corvida Raven
· 1 year ago
Didn't anyone ever tell you that if you have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all?
Louis Gray
· 1 year ago
Corvida, In January I was vocal about discomfort with Mashable on attributing original sources, but this is a different ballgame - one where Mashable is right, and you're not.
It doesn't matter who responds to a press release first. It was intended for wide distribution, not as an exclusive.
If you had uncovered an angle, or discovered the service yourself, that'd be one thing, but you didn't do any "original reporting", as Adam called it, "proprietary". You just happened to write it up first. While that's something, it's not enough for Mashable to link your way. I might have, if I wrote on it, and knew you had gotten to it first, but more likely, seeing your coverage already, I wouldn't have written about it at all.
Mashable is not at fault here in any way, so far as I can tell. They may have more ads than most, and they may be driven by posts and page views, but they don't have any underlying rule that says they must link to every person who got the press release and posted first.
ontarioemperor
· 1 year ago
I think that the issue isn't Corvida's post, but Mashable's.
If Mashable had based its post on Corvida's, then there's no question that attribution should have been given. I think we all agree on that.
Assuming that Mashable based its post solely on the email, then they're under no obligation to cite other people who were talking about the topic. It might be nice to say, "You may also want to see what Corvida says about this," and it would have been even nicer to say, "Corvida says x, y, and z about this, and we agree with her on y and disagree on z" (in other words, a conversation), but it's not essential.
Corvida, perhaps by way of illustration, let's assume that you wrote about the application, refreshed your Google searches, and then discovered that Person X had posted something while you were writing. What would you have done?
Corvida Raven
· 1 year ago
I honestly would've given them credit for BREAKING the story and linked to their article and if their article had an interesting perspective to it, I would've urged my audience to go take a look at it for that reason too and then continued to write my review.
n8k99
· 1 year ago
I can see that you really want to make progress up the blogger ladder of ranks, you are ambitious, you are passionate and you have got talent. I hope that you turn this around and find a way to make contacts and connections with people inside companies or projects that are willing to give you true scoops rather than a widely distributed press release. Develop these contacts, and relationships, focus on the next story rather than wasting your energy on the one that has hit the press and you will realize the goals that your ambition has yet to clearly voice. In other words, learn to deal with getting scooped sometimes while scooping at other times and you will become a true A lister- and then you might attract sponsors who allow you to do this for a living.
Corvida Raven
· 1 year ago
lol Thank you! Thank you for pointing this out. It really made me smile.
CyndyA
· 1 year ago
This is a general comment, because I spoke to Corvida last night via IM as it was happening.
Unfortunately, this is your baptism in the world of tech blogging, and it's one of the main reasons why I love working at Profy so much. In the year and change I've been writing about Web 2.0 specifically, I've seen many situations like the one you experienced, most times when there was no press release or email and it was just a small company who launched with little more fanfare than a comment on a few blogs or in a forum somewhere.
The reality of the world (and not just here) is that most "big" names get where they are not by being kind and helping others, but by stepping on every last person that they can to get there. It's the main reason why I know I will never be any bigger in this industry; I can't be that way. When I'm reviewing an app, I try my darnedest to see if anyone "broke" the app or if it was a blanket launch. I also try to see if I have anything new to add to the conversation if it was a blanket, because I don't believe in regurgitating a press release. I'm someone who dropped the COMM/J half of a double major because I couldn't be "media" enough to lose my always-outspoken opinions. If I don't have an opinion on something, why bother blogging about it?
That being said, I've also been taken to task for how I attributed a source because I didn't use precise wording. The big people don't want the little people to forget their place.
Regardless of whether or not Mashable did see the piece first (and why follow people if you don't look at their Tweets, may I ask), the smart thing for public relations purposes would have been to say "You know what, you are right. We didn't give you proper credit when you obviously went all out on it. What can we do to fix it?"
In contrast, I can tell you a story about TechCrunch. Yes, I said it, TechCrunch. I found an app on Hacker News that in itself wasn't much, but posed an interesting theory in making social news less of a gamed system and more merit-based, so I blogged about it. Now, I know Mike Arrington reads Hacker News; he mentions it every other sentence so you know he's hip to the programmer kids. But when he also blogged about it, he credited my article.
He could have skipped it, and I wouldn't have batted an eye, knowing he doesn't follow me, probably doesn't read my feed, and reads the same source I got it from. Yet he credited it anyway. A surprise considering it's TechCrunch, right? But goes a much longer way in my public perception, as well as theirs.
FaceySpacey
· 1 year ago
I would disagree with what you're saying about big companies stepping all over every one to get where they're going. You should put more evidence next to such statements. In reality, business is not about being friends--it's about who offers more for what. It's also about being honest. I would venture to say that the best companies get to where they are by being honest, and people can feel and see that. I also think that winey people often complain about how cut-throat business is when they didn't get a piece of the pie because of their friendship or something stupid like that. Business is business and people get offended really easily about things they have no legal rights to.
I do believe that it is important to do whatever it is you do with an organic humanness too it. For instance, if there is an idea that someone told you without an NDA that somehow works its way into your projects as a small component, try to include them and figure it out. Ultimately such forthrightness creates goodwill. But ultimately, that company should by no means miss out on a good feature that kind of overlaps with a feature that an employee of that company learned from another non-employee and then mentioned in a board-room while brainstorming.
Yes, companies, de-humanize things a little bit. And pass the buck situations often happen. But at the same time, while sticking with this stolen idea scenario, you can't get all winey when you're just throwing ideas around in the open. It's kinda like: don't give me a gift or do me a favor with expectations that I return the favor--that's not what a gift is
FaceySpacey James
· 1 year ago
I would disagree with what you're saying about big companies stepping all over every one to get where they're going. You should put more evidence next to such statements. In reality, business is not about being friends--it's about who offers more for what. It's also about being honest. I would venture to say that the best companies get to where they are by being honest, and people can feel and see that. I also think that winey people often complain about how cut-throat business is when they didn't get a piece of the pie because of their friendship or something stupid like that. Business is business and people get offended really easily about things they have no legal rights to.
I do believe that it is important to do whatever it is you do with an organic humanness too it. For instance, if there is an idea that someone told you without an NDA that somehow works its way into your projects as a small component, try to include them and figure it out. Ultimately such forthrightness creates goodwill. But ultimately, that company should by no means miss out on a good feature that kind of overlaps with a feature that an employee of that company learned from another non-employee and then mentioned in a board-room while brainstorming.
Yes, companies, de-humanize things a little bit. And pass the buck situations often happen. But at the same time, while sticking with this stolen idea scenario, you can't get all winey when you're just throwing ideas around in the open. It's kinda like: don't give me a gift or do me a favor with expectations that I return the favor--that's not what a gift is; that's what a trade is.
So anyway these mis-construed expectations are often what's again mis-construed as big companies stepping on the toes of little people. I don't disagree with you Cyndy that it happens. And ultimately, you probably have a plethora of scenarios to back your statement up--but I do too. Simple as that. I'm still gonna bet on the goodness of humans overcoming badness a majority of times. So would say, more often than not what I'm saying happens than what you're saying. Could be wrong. But whatever.
....O and Corvida, Sorry to say it but you have one of those mis-construed views here with the Mashable thing. Their article doesn't reference a special analysis of the press-release that you wrote or anything. The norm is certainly not to give credit in the way you're requesting in this case. I don't mean to be a dick, but it just sounds like you were going really hard to be the first to write this article and generate more conversations-since for you it's not about money and pageviews--as a result of being the first one, but it didn't play out in exactly how you might have imagined. So, to get buddist on it for a second, out of ATTACHMENT you started feeling you were wronged or something. I dunno, but dude, this is obvious. Why should these guys google for other articles about the same topic. If it's a good topic, they can just share their views. And if they happen to stumble upon a proprietary analysis, credit it. But that did not happen here.
I think after reading all these comments, you get it. Realizing you were incorrect and allowing yourself to change your view thanks to other people takes a lot and I think you got that.
I just wanted to say KUDOS and stick to your guns. Its refreshing and much needed. I don't write anything that somebody would want to call their own, but, I know that no one's work should be used and not given some type of credit.
All Comments
I think all of us in tech blogging have been have been through the experience of breaking the news and then not receiving credit or links for doing so. Whether or not that's what Mashable did is beside the point. (Though, I personally think that since you didn't have a exclusive deal, they probably just got the email too.)
The point is, in an industry dominated by blogs like TechCrunch and Mashable, both of whom can push out posts left and right, getting credit for breaking news is going to be an uphill battle for the rest of us. Instead, what we should focus on as tech bloggers is adding our insight and our analysis to the topic. That's what RWW does well, I think. And it's what you do well.
Another thing you should be aware of is that it didn't matter whether or not Mashable linked to you because your readers already knew that if there's a new FF app in town, you would have an opinion on it. And they would want to hear it. For your readers, you did break the news - and that's more important than credit.
Finally, what I think I find most interesting about all this is the perspective you bring as a relatively new blogger on the scene. I think it's great that you research every post before you publish so you can link to people - but it's not a requirement. It's just good karma. However, there's no big official list of rules in some blogging handbook. Sometimes you get links, sometimes you don't. Sometimes you get credit, sometime you don't. None of that matters.
All that matters is quality writing, insightful analysis, and a distinctive voice. And that's what you deliver time and time again. Which is why I'm proud to have you in the Grand Effect family.
And I'm sure one day you'll be as old and jaded as the rest of us and look back on this and laugh. :)
advice.
the press, I tend to research who's already blogged about it and I would
hope that professional networks do the same. If anyone did every review,
we'd probably never get a chance to blog.
That said consider this lesson number one on learning to develop a thick skin because it will happen again - and again. And they wonder why a larger percentage of non-top tier bloggers just regurgitate the news.
Just keep doing what you are doing Corvida and at some point it will balance out. At least know that there are those of career bloggers who do give credit where credit is due no matter how small of a credit it might be.
If a press release is sent out and you write about that press release, you aren't breaking the news. You're reporting on privileged information. Just because you have the privilege of reading it early doesn't mean you're the only one.
You're coming off all my subscribes and follows, Corvida. This sucks, because you were an interesting blogger to read. Unfortunately, this isn't the first time I've unsubscribed a blogger from my various services because they got too self-important.
anything at all?
It doesn't matter who responds to a press release first. It was intended for wide distribution, not as an exclusive.
If you had uncovered an angle, or discovered the service yourself, that'd be one thing, but you didn't do any "original reporting", as Adam called it, "proprietary". You just happened to write it up first. While that's something, it's not enough for Mashable to link your way. I might have, if I wrote on it, and knew you had gotten to it first, but more likely, seeing your coverage already, I wouldn't have written about it at all.
Mashable is not at fault here in any way, so far as I can tell. They may have more ads than most, and they may be driven by posts and page views, but they don't have any underlying rule that says they must link to every person who got the press release and posted first.
If Mashable had based its post on Corvida's, then there's no question that attribution should have been given. I think we all agree on that.
Assuming that Mashable based its post solely on the email, then they're under no obligation to cite other people who were talking about the topic. It might be nice to say, "You may also want to see what Corvida says about this," and it would have been even nicer to say, "Corvida says x, y, and z about this, and we agree with her on y and disagree on z" (in other words, a conversation), but it's not essential.
Corvida, perhaps by way of illustration, let's assume that you wrote about the application, refreshed your Google searches, and then discovered that Person X had posted something while you were writing. What would you have done?
their article and if their article had an interesting perspective to it, I
would've urged my audience to go take a look at it for that reason too and
then continued to write my review.
In other words, learn to deal with getting scooped sometimes while scooping at other times and you will become a true A lister- and then you might attract sponsors who allow you to do this for a living.
Unfortunately, this is your baptism in the world of tech blogging, and it's one of the main reasons why I love working at Profy so much. In the year and change I've been writing about Web 2.0 specifically, I've seen many situations like the one you experienced, most times when there was no press release or email and it was just a small company who launched with little more fanfare than a comment on a few blogs or in a forum somewhere.
The reality of the world (and not just here) is that most "big" names get where they are not by being kind and helping others, but by stepping on every last person that they can to get there. It's the main reason why I know I will never be any bigger in this industry; I can't be that way. When I'm reviewing an app, I try my darnedest to see if anyone "broke" the app or if it was a blanket launch. I also try to see if I have anything new to add to the conversation if it was a blanket, because I don't believe in regurgitating a press release. I'm someone who dropped the COMM/J half of a double major because I couldn't be "media" enough to lose my always-outspoken opinions. If I don't have an opinion on something, why bother blogging about it?
That being said, I've also been taken to task for how I attributed a source because I didn't use precise wording. The big people don't want the little people to forget their place.
Regardless of whether or not Mashable did see the piece first (and why follow people if you don't look at their Tweets, may I ask), the smart thing for public relations purposes would have been to say "You know what, you are right. We didn't give you proper credit when you obviously went all out on it. What can we do to fix it?"
In contrast, I can tell you a story about TechCrunch. Yes, I said it, TechCrunch. I found an app on Hacker News that in itself wasn't much, but posed an interesting theory in making social news less of a gamed system and more merit-based, so I blogged about it. Now, I know Mike Arrington reads Hacker News; he mentions it every other sentence so you know he's hip to the programmer kids. But when he also blogged about it, he credited my article.
He could have skipped it, and I wouldn't have batted an eye, knowing he doesn't follow me, probably doesn't read my feed, and reads the same source I got it from. Yet he credited it anyway. A surprise considering it's TechCrunch, right? But goes a much longer way in my public perception, as well as theirs.
I do believe that it is important to do whatever it is you do with an organic humanness too it. For instance, if there is an idea that someone told you without an NDA that somehow works its way into your projects as a small component, try to include them and figure it out. Ultimately such forthrightness creates goodwill. But ultimately, that company should by no means miss out on a good feature that kind of overlaps with a feature that an employee of that company learned from another non-employee and then mentioned in a board-room while brainstorming.
Yes, companies, de-humanize things a little bit. And pass the buck situations often happen. But at the same time, while sticking with this stolen idea scenario, you can't get all winey when you're just throwing ideas around in the open. It's kinda like: don't give me a gift or do me a favor with expectations that I return the favor--that's not what a gift is
I do believe that it is important to do whatever it is you do with an organic humanness too it. For instance, if there is an idea that someone told you without an NDA that somehow works its way into your projects as a small component, try to include them and figure it out. Ultimately such forthrightness creates goodwill. But ultimately, that company should by no means miss out on a good feature that kind of overlaps with a feature that an employee of that company learned from another non-employee and then mentioned in a board-room while brainstorming.
Yes, companies, de-humanize things a little bit. And pass the buck situations often happen. But at the same time, while sticking with this stolen idea scenario, you can't get all winey when you're just throwing ideas around in the open. It's kinda like: don't give me a gift or do me a favor with expectations that I return the favor--that's not what a gift is; that's what a trade is.
So anyway these mis-construed expectations are often what's again mis-construed as big companies stepping on the toes of little people. I don't disagree with you Cyndy that it happens. And ultimately, you probably have a plethora of scenarios to back your statement up--but I do too. Simple as that. I'm still gonna bet on the goodness of humans overcoming badness a majority of times. So would say, more often than not what I'm saying happens than what you're saying. Could be wrong. But whatever.
....O and Corvida, Sorry to say it but you have one of those mis-construed views here with the Mashable thing. Their article doesn't reference a special analysis of the press-release that you wrote or anything. The norm is certainly not to give credit in the way you're requesting in this case. I don't mean to be a dick, but it just sounds like you were going really hard to be the first to write this article and generate more conversations-since for you it's not about money and pageviews--as a result of being the first one, but it didn't play out in exactly how you might have imagined. So, to get buddist on it for a second, out of ATTACHMENT you started feeling you were wronged or something. I dunno, but dude, this is obvious. Why should these guys google for other articles about the same topic. If it's a good topic, they can just share their views. And if they happen to stumble upon a proprietary analysis, credit it. But that did not happen here.
I think after reading all these comments, you get it. Realizing you were incorrect and allowing yourself to change your view thanks to other people takes a lot and I think you got that.
-looking forward to an update on your thoughts.
James
from
http://FaceySpacey.com - "The Startup Incubator"