PDA

View Full Version : Guidelines for posting "off-site" content



Roaming Gnome
12-28-2008, 12:33 PM
Look, here's the deal... Every bit of off site content you post onto Pacers Digest needs:

1. An author's "by line" (our site host says this is most important)
2. A link to the off-site content (the site founder prefers this at the top of the post)
3. Name of the website that you are taking content from.


Example:

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../1088/SPORTS04
Mike Wells
Indystar.com

Anything less is going to be deleted! We're done fixing post to bring them into compliance. Even "snip-its" of articles need the requirement listed above to remain on the site.

MiaDragon
12-28-2008, 12:56 PM
how about making this a sticky?

idioteque
12-28-2008, 01:51 PM
That would probably be a good idea and if this is not instituted into the Rules of Pacers Digest (it might be I don't know) then no one is going to pay attention to this and every other thread will be deleted.

Hicks
12-28-2008, 02:03 PM
Oh, it's been in the Rules for a long time.

able
12-28-2008, 02:06 PM
This has been in the official rules almost from day one, I insist upon it and if you don't like it then frankly I don't give a "toss" as they say around here.

If everyone just read the rules they agreed to abide by, then it would not be needed to put sticky posts up about simply matters.

Have a nice day

Bball
12-28-2008, 02:52 PM
Unless PD locks the doors and accepts no new members, this is going to continue to raise its head every so often. You just can't reasonably expect new or infrequent posters to remember, let alone understand, the importance of the rule.

I don't think anyone is violating this rule to be difficult or to be a thorn in the side of the admins. It's simply an omission of ignorance or memory.

Threads like these serve as reminders to everyone about the rule's existence. Anything that can be done to increase that awareness for newer members is going to be a plus. Since this seems like one of the more important rules of PD I vote for a dedicated sticky (tho I suppose it could be in the New members forum).

-Bball

Hicks
12-28-2008, 02:57 PM
So it's well known: New members are PMed the Rules when they first log in.

xtacy
12-28-2008, 04:01 PM
don't get me wrong guys but you are taking it a little too serious. i started a thread earlier. i quoted from hoopsworld.com. i wrote the name of the site in my post. i didn't want to give a link because there were other articles on the page not about pacers thinking they wouldn't interest you guys. and my thread gets deleted. what happens when i don't write the name of author or give a link to the article?

you can call me all you want but i don't understand it.

vnzla81
12-28-2008, 04:08 PM
don't get me wrong guys but you are taking it a little too serious. i started a thread earlier. i quoted from hoopsworld.com. i wrote the name of the site in my post. i didn't want to give a link because there were other articles on the page not about pacers thinking they wouldn't interest you guys. and my thread gets deleted. what happens when i don't write the name of author or give a link to the article?

you can call me all you want but i don't understand it.

hell I posted two articles earlier and had Link,name and I also added where was coming from and they deleted my post. I don't understand.I think the only reason was that I added the link at the end of the post not in the top.

Roaming Gnome
12-28-2008, 06:23 PM
don't get me wrong guys but you are taking it a little too serious. i started a thread earlier. i quoted from hoopsworld.com. i wrote the name of the site in my post. i didn't want to give a link because there were other articles on the page not about pacers thinking they wouldn't interest you guys. and my thread gets deleted. what happens when i don't write the name of author or give a link to the article?

you can call me all you want but i don't understand it.

I deleted your thread because it was missing a link back to the article on Hoopsworld. Just saying it's from Hoopsworld is not enough to satisfy the guidelines. The other thing you left out was a "by lines".


hell I posted two articles earlier and had Link,name and I also added where was coming from and they deleted my post. I don't understand.I think the only reason was that I added the link at the end of the post not in the top.

I deleted your post because it was missing a "by line" and the site you quoted from. It only provided a link (at the bottom of the post). Your poor formatting in posting Kravitz's column got my attn. You didn't have anything that said it was from the Star, I went in reading it like you posted it, yourself. Yeah, I figured it was Kravitz column very quickly, but that is not good enough.

Bob Kravitz is a visitor to this site, he has mentioned as much on his radio show. JMV has commented on this site with regularity. The last thing we need is any legal action against Able (site host) or Hicks (site proprietor) because a poster can't follow directions. This is serious stuff. All we ask is that you are mindful and follow the guidelines.

Again, use the example in post #1. It is tried and true and has een working since the beginning of PD.

Major Cold
12-28-2008, 07:27 PM
Free site? Yes
No annoying adds? Yes
Rules so that the above can stay the same? Yes


I don't know why when the admins make request like this we have to question motives.

Anthem
12-28-2008, 08:06 PM
I don't know why when the admins make request like this we have to question motives.
Agreed. It's not that hard to follow the rules.

Bball
12-28-2008, 08:23 PM
don't get me wrong guys but you are taking it a little too serious. i started a thread earlier. i quoted from hoopsworld.com. i wrote the name of the site in my post. i didn't want to give a link because there were other articles on the page not about pacers thinking they wouldn't interest you guys. and my thread gets deleted. what happens when i don't write the name of author or give a link to the article?

you can call me all you want but i don't understand it.


It's always a good idea and good netiquette to post the link whether there is a rule or not. If nothing else it lets readers verify the content of a post. Cut and paste is easy and there's no reason to self-edit or question its need since it is so easy to include anyway.

There is a rule though, and a good reason for the the rule, so more than anything posters need to remain aware of the rule. IMHO as long as the forum is growing and/or maintaining turnover this topic will turn up again simply because you can't expect new and infrequent posters to remember the rule. Admins and oldtimers might beat their heads against the wall from repetition but it really is something new for the violators of the rule. This thread should tell anyone that.

That doesn't tell me we have a bunch of rebels looking to give the admins a hard time, it tells me there needs to be better awareness of the rule on an ongoing basis.

.02,
Bball

speakout4
12-28-2008, 08:42 PM
The admins are just doing their job keeping this website in compliance. What's the fuss?

BlueNGold
12-28-2008, 08:56 PM
Copyright infringement is a civil offense and needs some due diligence on the part of the admins. The admins are doing a great job by policing this and providing a periodic reminder...even though it feels like a frisk. Just another sign of a well-run web site...and another sign of our litigious society.

BTW, copying images (e.g. into avatars) are also a potential liability. Don't recall if that's in the rules. May also want to watch what you type out here...because defamation can be another legal risk.

Spirit
12-28-2008, 10:13 PM
What I don't understand is why it's so bad to take 2 seconds to fix it.. if someone forgets, it's the admins job to fix it. Without regular posters the site would struggle, and deleting peoples posts is a way to scare us off.

grace
12-28-2008, 10:50 PM
What I don't understand is why it's so bad to take 2 seconds to fix it.

Maybe because they all have jobs and don't want to spend all their time fixing other people's mistakes.

YoSoyIndy
12-28-2008, 11:01 PM
BTW, copying images (e.g. into avatars) are also a potential liability. Don't recall if that's in the rules. May also want to watch what you type out here...because defamation can be another legal risk.

Until the current redesign, PD was breaking trademark laws (ie -- trademark dilution) by using the Pacers "circle logo" and replacing it with "Pacers Digest".

Spirit
12-28-2008, 11:17 PM
Maybe because they all have jobs and don't want to spend all their time fixing other people's mistakes.Oh sorry I didn't know it took an hour to fix a small mistake

Bball
12-28-2008, 11:18 PM
Maybe because they all have jobs and don't want to spend all their time fixing other people's mistakes.


Without regular posters the site would struggle, and deleting peoples posts is a way to scare us off.

You and JGray both have good points. In this whole thread/discussion I think there is a happy medium that needs to be found.

Admins don't have time to constantly 'fix' posting violations, especially if they don't actually know where the material came from in the first place to 'fix' it. That is a given. OTOH, deleting posts does more than scare people off, it pi$$es people off (as evidenced by some in this thread). Even if that was not the intent it is a symptom of the action. ...And without posters a site loses its relevancy.

I'm sure it's frustrating for the admins to continually deal with posting violations, but are the violators the same ones each time? Hicks has said that new posters get a PM of the rules when they sign on. If a rule is being broken to the point that it is frustrating admins and causing posts to get deleted (posts with valid/interesting Pacer/NBA content) then it seems to me something isn't working in getting a major rule out there in the poster's realm of awareness.

Maybe we need a weekly 'reminder' post.... maybe a 'sticky'.... maybe instead of immediately deleting a post we need a cut and paster 'warning' to the OP to get the info added before the post is deleted....something. I dunno.... I just don't think we have people breaking the rule out of vengeance. I think it's out of ignorance to the rule. ....therefore I think whatever steps are currently in place aren't exactly working as intended. We don't need posters or admins getting insulted, pi$$ed, etc.. That defeats everything right there.

travmil
12-29-2008, 12:24 AM
What I don't understand is why it's so bad to take 2 seconds to fix it.. if someone forgets, it's the admins job to fix it. Without regular posters the site would struggle, and deleting peoples posts is a way to scare us off.

It would be even better if the original poster would take those 2 seconds to do it right the first time. That way, a VOLUNTEER (not paid, not a job) admin/site host won't have to fix it in order to keep his labor of love out of very expensive legal trouble.

Roaming Gnome
12-29-2008, 12:59 AM
I've never deleted someone's post on the first offense. I just get tired of doing it for the same people over and over. Therefore, I had to go thru this to get certain poster's attn.


What I don't understand is why it's so bad to take 2 seconds to fix it.. if someone forgets, it's the admins job to fix it. Without regular posters the site would struggle, and deleting peoples posts is a way to scare us off.

2 seconds my ***, by time I'm done tracking down some of the poor links given. I can dump some substantial time into this. I'm done doing that... Follow the guidelines, that is all we are asking.

Struggle, with what. We are not bank rolled by hits, volume or anything like that. We value new posters, but they are not the life blood of this site like you imply.

Trader Joe
12-29-2008, 04:34 AM
Oh sorry I didn't know it took an hour to fix a small mistake

Why don't you fix it yourself then?

I've moderated forums before, and I've run several online communities. There is more to it than you might think to keep a site like this running. It's not that hard to copy the link, name the author, and the site it comes from this is true, but they have other more important things to be doing. So just do it yourself. You'll have to do more than that any time you cite something in a legitimate paper or document.

xtacy
12-29-2008, 05:13 AM
Maybe because they all have jobs and don't want to spend all their time fixing other people's mistakes.

i guess deleting the thread right away and writing down the reason like they are doing now takes about the same amount of time as sendind me a pm telling me that if i don't add a link lets say in 1-2 hours it will get deleted like they should be doing. i'm not saying they should fix the posts. i'm saying they should give the chance to the poster to fix it and it wouldn't take hours. but rules are rules and i'm done posting stuff on pd.

Hicks
12-29-2008, 11:49 AM
On the issue of just asking posters, it's been done for a while, and what I usually ran into was that nothing was done. Be it they ignored me or simply didn't read it. That's where the frustration kicks in when it's a repeat offender.

It probably means we need to skip saying something in the thread itself, and go straight to PMing the offender.

If any of you feel strongly about better communication, then by all means PM them yourselves or remind them yourselves another way. As long as it's not done rudely, it can't hurt. It'd be appreciated.

Also, I have a question for regular members. When we delete a thread (for example, the ones Gnome recently removed), can you see its placeholder on the board? Meaning as you're skimming the various thread titles on the Pacers board, does it show you a line where a thread used to be, but is now deleted and unaccessable?

Because for Admins it does, and when we leave a reason for deleting the post, we admins can read that reason, but I wasn't sure if you guys could or not. Can you?

YoSoyIndy
12-29-2008, 11:53 AM
Also, I have a question for regular members. When we delete a thread (for example, the ones Gnome recently removed), can you see its placeholder on the board? Meaning as you're skimming the various thread titles on the Pacers board, does it show you a line where a thread used to be, but is now deleted and unaccessable?

Because for Admins it does, and when we leave a reason for deleting the post, we admins can read that reason, but I wasn't sure if you guys could or not. Can you?

Yeah - -you can see it and the reason why it was deleted.

YoSoyIndy
12-29-2008, 12:02 PM
Struggle, with what. We are not bank rolled by hits, volume or anything like that. We value new posters, but they are not the life blood of this site like you imply.

This is the mindset that keeps me -- and I'm sure others -- from posting more. It sometimes feels like I'm an uninvited guest in a rich person's home, and I gotta be careful about where I stand or how I sneeze.

I enjoy the forum and appreciate the time many of you put into it. Just don't let it go to your head.

Remember, the rich can buy anything -- but they can't buy backbone. (name that movie and win a prize)

duke dynamite
12-29-2008, 12:09 PM
This is the mindset that keeps me -- and I'm sure others -- from posting more. It sometimes feels like I'm an uninvited guest in a rich person's home, and I gotta be careful about where I stand or how I sneeze.

I enjoy the forum and appreciate the time many of you put into it. Just don't let it go to your head.

Remember, the rich can buy anything -- but they can't buy backbone. (name that movie and win a prize)
Granted I'm not an admin, but I don't feel like that is the case. I know these guys personally first-hand, and by no means do you have to walk on eggshells around here. You are entitled to your own opinion, as long as it does not prove offensive twards another poster (i.e. Flaming, put-downs, etc...)

PD was designed for the fan. It was designed for everyone to have a voice, and to have your voice heard.

I started out here just as a lurker, heck, I signed up for my account then just forgot about it for a little over a year. I by no means was any different from any other new user on this board. I'm outspoken, loud, and obnoxcious. But I follow the rules, and I'm (I THINK) looked at as a person with a viable opinon.

But it is what it is. If you feel like you need to step back and just watch, then by all means, do so. I myself will miss any contributions you have to offer. Please don't feel like you have to watch your step. That isn't what we're about.

BTW: Like I said in a previous thread, these rules set by the admins for posting articles and what-not is pretty basic for many web forums. Don't take it personally if you get edited and/or thread removed for not following these guidelines.

Hicks
12-29-2008, 12:16 PM
This is the mindset that keeps me -- and I'm sure others -- from posting more. It sometimes feels like I'm an uninvited guest in a rich person's home, and I gotta be careful about where I stand or how I sneeze.

I enjoy the forum and appreciate the time many of you put into it. Just don't let it go to your head.

Remember, the rich can buy anything -- but they can't buy backbone. (name that movie and win a prize)

My advice to any newbie our full/part-time lurker is to simply dive in. Not obnoxiously so, but just be sure you have something to really say. If you do, go for it. Quote people when you reply to something that sparked your response, you're more likely to get a back-and-forth going that way.

There's certainly a cluster of folks here who are "mainstream" PD members, but that doesn't mean new folks aren't welcome.

Newbies usually go one of two ways: They dive in with something to say and get assimilated into the group, or they don't (for various reasons). If you want to be a part of everything, then do so.

My only other advice would be to go out of your way to be respectful as you get your feet wet, so that as people get used to you, you can then just talk without fear of getting your head cut off over a misunderstanding.

travmil
12-29-2008, 12:22 PM
Remember, the rich can buy anything -- but they can't buy backbone. (name that movie and win a prize)

Rushmore. What's my prize?

Major Cold
12-29-2008, 12:29 PM
It took me a while to get past the, "well I am not in the in crowd on PD". I realized that there are more posters than just myself. I am by no means the smartest on all things basketball. I am a mediocre poster who likes to hear what others say by responding to what they say. If I had just joined in and talked away without worrying about being at the "cool" table I would have really enjoyed my time here more.

Also....Grammar and posting structure is huge. When I post from my touch, I notice less response.

Be yourself, be authentic, and be thorough.


Oh yeah and get a cool avatar. JayRedd had one and now he sits at the geek's table.

Since86
12-29-2008, 12:42 PM
i guess deleting the thread right away and writing down the reason like they are doing now takes about the same amount of time as sendind me a pm telling me that if i don't add a link lets say in 1-2 hours it will get deleted like they should be doing. i'm not saying they should fix the posts. i'm saying they should give the chance to the poster to fix it and it wouldn't take hours. but rules are rules and i'm done posting stuff on pd.

Buh Bye.

I honestly don't understand why people are *****ing about this. It's in the rules. It's already been said that on the first offense the post isn't automatically deleted. The poster is informed of the error, so they can correct it.

If you take the time to copy and paste an article, it's not that hard to include a link, considering that the author by-line is at the top of the article and can be added at the same time as the article itself is.

This isn't a newbie thing, this is a legal thing. It's covering about covering as much of this site's *** as possible, so they can keep this site up.

And yes, JGray, while it doesn't take very long to fix the problem it starts to add up. Taking 5 mins or so to track down the correct article isn't all that long, but when you times that 20, probably a low estimate on how many articles are posted here daily, it starts to add up. The admins aren't paid for being an admin. They were regular posters, that have been established enough to be asked to pick up responsibilities to keep this site running as smoothly as it does.

If you don't like it, then you're more than welcome to follow xstacy. While we value multiple opinions from everyone, this place survived before you and will continue to survive after. No one wants to take the chance of this place being shut down, or someone sued, over not providing simple article information. It's not like their asking you to jump through hoops here. It's a simple, very simple, rule. And one that I try to remind people at every opportunity I can, just so they have the ability to correct it before it's deleted.

JayRedd
12-29-2008, 12:48 PM
As a sidenote, I'm not sure why the admins allow people to post an article in its entirety. There's really no need of it, it's poor netiquette and places like Indy Star are relying more and more on hit counts for revenue to run their papers, so it's allowing dozens if not hundreds of people to read articles in full without the paper getting any credit or knowledge that someone is valuing its content.

Feel free to continue copying all of Mike Wells or whoever else's work because you're too lazy to click one button...but don't be surprised when all you get for Pacers coverage in two years is an AP game recap and maybe one story from a single Indy Star sports reporter who watched the Pacers game on TV cause he was busy interviewing Colts players before a playoff game instead.

able
12-29-2008, 02:13 PM
I am amazed as well that this is a point of dicsussion

The rule exists for a few reasons, the maine one begin to comply with US law (and part international law) and prevent litigation against Hicks or ME.

You can break the rule all you want, providing you send me proof of address (certified), existence, age, birth, credit limit, savings and collateral.

That is only so Hick and me can send any subpoenas straight and not bother about spending more of our time and money to allow you to post here and get us on the wrong side of a subpoena

Non of the admins are here to correct your "mistakes" (they are not mistakes, they are a simple token of non respect and total ignorance at the very least) they all have a life and a job to go to.

Claining that you didn't know it was illegal to drink and drive does little for your defense in a court of law, the same goes here; you want to post: you know the rules.

People like the admins spend a good deal of time on here to make it and keep it as pleasant as possible for everyone and with around 600 new posts a day it aint doing that bad.
You are not infested with adverts because someone is stupid enough to pick up the tab for the server and the bandwidth and all these people are asking of you is show some respect and abide by the rules to safeguard them from litigation.

And you want to make a case for not doing that?

If so; pls don't let the door hit you.

able
12-29-2008, 02:16 PM
As a sidenote, I'm not sure why the admins allow people to post an article in its entirety. There's really no need of it, it's poor netiquette and places like Indy Star are relying more and more on hit counts for revenue to run their papers, so it's allowing dozens if not hundreds of people to read articles in full without the paper getting any credit or knowledge that someone is valuing its content.

Feel free to continue copying all of Mike Wells or whoever else's work because you're too lazy to click one button...but don't be surprised when all you get for Pacers coverage in two years is an AP game recap and maybe one story from a single Indy Star sports reporter who watched the Pacers game on TV cause he was busy interviewing Colts players before a playoff game instead.


We allow some poster to advertise their site, we link to the article, I amsure that the namerecognition combined with the legal copyright premise is enough "advertisement" for the paper in question as they also save on bandwidth. (approx less then they make on ads? if that was so, they would make a profit, so we saving them money, or creaming their profits, either way no jobs will be lost.)

able
12-29-2008, 02:18 PM
Granted I'm not an admin, but I don't feel like that is the case. I know these guys personally first-hand, and by no means do you have to walk on eggshells around here. You are entitled to your own opinion, as long as it does not prove offensive twards another poster (i.e. Flaming, put-downs, etc...)

PD was designed for the fan. It was designed for everyone to have a voice, and to have your voice heard.

I started out here just as a lurker, heck, I signed up for my account then just forgot about it for a little over a year. I by no means was any different from any other new user on this board. I'm outspoken, loud, and obnoxcious. But I follow the rules, and I'm (I THINK) looked at as a person with a viable opinon.

But it is what it is. If you feel like you need to step back and just watch, then by all means, do so. I myself will miss any contributions you have to offer. Please don't feel like you have to watch your step. That isn't what we're about.

BTW: Like I said in a previous thread, these rules set by the admins for posting articles and what-not is pretty basic for many web forums. Don't take it personally if you get edited and/or thread removed for not following these guidelines.

I remember you :|

I send you a PM to not advertise your then unknown and new site (that had external ads on it, the sole reason for disallowing it)
Strange, you complied without any hassle and have become a feature at this site as well :)

hmmmmm

JayRedd
12-29-2008, 02:23 PM
We allow some poster to advertise their site, we link to the article, I amsure that the namerecognition combined with the legal copyright premise is enough "advertisement" for the paper in question as they also save on bandwidth. (approx less then they make on ads? if that was so, they would make a profit, so we saving them money, or creaming their profits, either way no jobs will be lost.)

Agree to disagree.

YoSoyIndy
12-29-2008, 03:03 PM
You are not infested with adverts because someone is stupid enough to pick up the tab for the server and the bandwidth and all these people are asking of you is show some respect and abide by the rules to safeguard them from litigation.

And you want to make a case for not doing that?

If so; pls don't let the door hit you.

Why not have adverts? I don't see why it's such a big deal to have advertising on the site. It wouldn't slow down posting. It wouldn't stop anyone from doing anything they wanted. It could cover the server and bandwidth tabs and have some money left over for the PD parties.

I appreciate you guys paying for the site and the time you put into it. Go ahead and make some money off of it.

Bball
12-29-2008, 06:04 PM
JayRedd,
I hear what you're saying. I just wish some of the newspaper and online magazines would worry more about content than layout. Maybe it has something to do with my satellite ISP but the Indystar is one of the slowest loading sites around. Whether it's news articles or the forums, it's painfully slow. It's one reason I don't post much on the Indystar forums (a BIG reason).

But I agree those places need the hits to survive. I wish they would look more at the Google model of advertising and content first over things that clutter and slow the sites down.

So I can see your point about disallowing the posting of complete articles. OTOH, selfishly I'd rather just read the text here rather than wait for a page to load on another site (and wait for the whirly gigs to load, the menu bar, the navigation bar, the splash ad, the unrelated photos and video, the survey, the popups, the sign in page, the 3 lines of text per page to get you to click thru 10 pages to read a 1 paragraph article, etc). But I don't disagree with your point... it's just that practices like I just mentioned make it hard for me to run up that hill with you... even though I think you're right.

able
12-29-2008, 06:32 PM
JayRedd,
I hear what you're saying. I just wish some of the newspaper and online magazines would worry more about content than layout. Maybe it has something to do with my satellite ISP but the Indystar is one of the slowest loading sites around. Whether it's news articles or the forums, it's painfully slow. It's one reason I don't post much on the Indystar forums (a BIG reason).

But I agree those places need the hits to survive. I wish they would look more at the Google model of advertising and content first over things that clutter and slow the sites down.

So I can see your point about disallowing the posting of complete articles. OTOH, selfishly I'd rather just read the text here rather than wait for a page to load on another site (and wait for the whirly gigs to load, the menu bar, the navigation bar, the splash ad, the unrelated photos and video, the survey, the popups, the sign in page, the 3 lines of text per page to get you to click thru 10 pages to read a 1 paragraph article, etc). But I don't disagree with your point... it's just that practices like I just mentioned make it hard for me to run up that hill with you... even though I think you're right.

Point in question is not that disagree, more that i am twixth the two of you.

I agree they "need" the hits, though I do only partially agree, they are for one not "needy" and I for one am sick of newspaper companies, who
in the past had no scrupules about making money, are now crying they are becoming obsolete, not my problem, other people saw this coming and reacted more adequately, i feel no need to pay for their entrepeneurial lackadaisiness

Also the hoops i have to jump through (subscription anyone) to even read the ad infested cookie pooping site is outrageous (close to how bball describes it) it is almost as if the do not want me to visit it.

also links to articles expire rather quickly and turn into pay content, like it costs a fortune to have an archive :| here links never expire, we keep it all

Finally for some articles we have asked author's permission and gotten it, like a semi blanket permission from espn (pls never forget a link, or that is worthless)

Pls do not portray their failing business model, which was created over 100 years ago on PD as being a thorn in their side and the reason they may go under, I can give you plenty of news sites that have a different model and make money (and are happy for us to lihnk to them)

links = ranking never forget that, ranking decides on ad income

to long a story to discuss here

Spirit
12-29-2008, 06:43 PM
Why don't you fix it yourself then?

I've moderated forums before, and I've run several online communities. There is more to it than you might think to keep a site like this running. It's not that hard to copy the link, name the author, and the site it comes from this is true, but they have other more important things to be doing. So just do it yourself. You'll have to do more than that any time you cite something in a legitimate paper or document.
I've never offended this rule. I'm just protecting those who do/did.

Spirit
12-29-2008, 06:47 PM
This is the mindset that keeps me -- and I'm sure others -- from posting more. It sometimes feels like I'm an uninvited guest in a rich person's home, and I gotta be careful about where I stand or how I sneeze.

I enjoy the forum and appreciate the time many of you put into it. Just don't let it go to your head.

Remember, the rich can buy anything -- but they can't buy backbone. (name that movie and win a prize)That's exactly how I feel. I feel as if the admins or long time posters don't want me/us here.

Hicks
12-29-2008, 06:57 PM
Again,


My advice to any newbie our full/part-time lurker is to simply dive in. Not obnoxiously so, but just be sure you have something to really say. If you do, go for it. Quote people when you reply to something that sparked your response, you're more likely to get a back-and-forth going that way.

There's certainly a cluster of folks here who are "mainstream" PD members, but that doesn't mean new folks aren't welcome.

Newbies usually go one of two ways: They dive in with something to say and get assimilated into the group, or they don't (for various reasons). If you want to be a part of everything, then do so.

My only other advice would be to go out of your way to be respectful as you get your feet wet, so that as people get used to you, you can then just talk without fear of getting your head cut off over a misunderstanding.

idioteque
12-29-2008, 07:44 PM
That's exactly how I feel. I feel as if the admins or long time posters don't want me/us here.

I am probably a second tier PD poster at best. I post most days but I leave the real analysis for people who know a bit more about basketball mechanics than me and people who watch every Pacers game. The people who see every game live has an especially notable advantage even over those who watch the game on TV, that's something I didn't really appreciate until I went to the Pacers-Wizards game in DC earlier this month.

If you want to get "noticed" more on PD you basically have to have a set of opinions that are obviously sunshiner, darksider, or some type of combination of both. It's pretty easy to to establish that, really. I don't really see PD as an unwelcoming place, yes you will get called out for making dumb off the wall comments like you may not on other boards but that's about it. If you say "the Pacers should tank for a high draft pick" you better have a darn good reason to back it up. Otherwise yeah, you won't be taken that seriously. However, if you make some good point about why the Pacers should tank you are going to get a response.

FWIW I have noticed your posts in the last couple of weeks and while I don't agree with a lot of your views I think you have been a good addition to the forum.

duke dynamite
12-29-2008, 08:24 PM
That's exactly how I feel. I feel as if the admins or long time posters don't want me/us here.
You really didn't read anything I said earlier today, did you?

Spirit
12-29-2008, 08:30 PM
You really didn't read anything I said earlier today, did you?
I did, but the other poster made a pretty good point as well. I'm not putting this forum down, and I understand this rule, but deleting posts is going a bit too far, though I would understand if it was frequently the same poster doing it. I was pretty cranky when I posted those earlier and if I came off as an (censored) i'm sorry about that.

Roaming Gnome
12-29-2008, 08:39 PM
:bavetta:
I just enforce the rules...

duke dynamite
12-29-2008, 11:54 PM
I did, but the other poster made a pretty good point as well. I'm not putting this forum down, and I understand this rule, but deleting posts is going a bit too far, though I would understand if it was frequently the same poster doing it. I was pretty cranky when I posted those earlier and if I came off as an (censored) i'm sorry about that.
Well, you gotta do what you gotta do. Rules are rules, and you aren't being intentionally singled out, you just happened to have a brain fart and not do what was asked.

When I first started posting, I linked another site (unintentional advertising) in my thread, and able was quick to delete it. I did plead my case to him, but it seemed fruitless at the time, and I gave up. You just have to be careful, and know what to do.

Spirit
12-30-2008, 01:17 AM
Well, you gotta do what you gotta do. Rules are rules, and you aren't being intentionally singled out, you just happened to have a brain fart and not do what was asked.

When I first started posting, I linked another site (unintentional advertising) in my thread, and able was quick to delete it. I did plead my case to him, but it seemed fruitless at the time, and I gave up. You just have to be careful, and know what to do.
I never did anything, I haven't even offended this rule.

duke dynamite
12-30-2008, 08:18 AM
I never did anything, I haven't even offended this rule.
I was making a relevant example.

Anthem
12-30-2008, 09:26 AM
:bavetta:
I just enforce the rules...
It's more like choreography, really.

Anthem
12-30-2008, 09:27 AM
Also....Grammar and posting structure is huge. When I post from my touch, I notice less response.
:bowdown:

Anthem
12-30-2008, 09:30 AM
As a sidenote, I'm not sure why the admins allow people to post an article in its entirety.
I'm fine with our policy as stated (although I'd be more than willing to change if Wells or the Badger came on here and asked us to), but as a matter of personal whatever I usually try to post a catchy paragraph and make people follow the link to get the whole thing. Able's right that it's not legally required, but I consider it polite. I'd be happy (as would the IS, I imagine) if more people did it my way.

Since86
12-30-2008, 10:31 AM
Which leads me to my next question, or first question really.......

If just posting a snip-it from an article, I know we need the link, but do we need the rest of the criteria, as if we were posting the entire article?

ChicagoJ
12-30-2008, 10:58 AM
You could introduce the snippet as:

Mike Wells wrote in his article today:


blah blah blah.

And then include the link.

In fact, I think Anthem would tell you that's the proper writing style in the first place. Attribution is given, and therefore no problem.

Look, we don't need footnotes on here for every single source. We do need to treat the owners of the intellectual property with respect. These people create the articles, photos, and video that allow us to have this global forum about the team we love (or "used to love" :blush: )

I know the internet has changed a lot of peoples views on the ownership of creative content like news articles and music files. Stealing content is the 2000's equivalent of stealing cable television. But no matter the justification, that doesn't make it right. And to be clear, passing off another person's article as your own (by not giving proper credit) isn't just plagarism in your junior-level grammar class, if it is copyrighted (and they all are) it is also theft.

JayRedd
12-30-2008, 01:46 PM
What Anthem and ChicagoJ are saying is sort of what I was talking about before.

Obviously, the effect that Pacers Digest has on the future of the Indianapolis Star is negligible. My offhand comment about reposting entire articles leading to the ouster of reporters and the like was intentionally melodramatic and silly.

But the cumulative effect of all message boards and forums reposting any and all written content in full on a whim will have an effect on all creators of written content, who are increasingly reliant on internet branding, web traffic and the online "extras" they provide (the polls, comment dialogues, photo galleries, etc, that while sometimes onerous and annoying, as Bball pointed out, also do often add to the story and the importance/prominence of the original creator).

By re-purposing the content down to simple text in a message board that encourages readers to never go to the original source, you are disallowing the creator of the content to display it in the manner originally intended and, ultimately, diluting the importance and relevance of those with the ability to create the content we desire for our personal information and discussions.

Of course, it's hard to care when its a global empire like ESPN or even a local institution like the Indy Star. And as ChicagoJ notes, the idea of ownership of this stuff has changed.

But, in concept, it's still borderline destructive at worst. And, at best, it's just sorta rude to the people whose job it is to create, design and display content that you clearly feel has enough value to be worth discussing.

Additionally, I also see arbitrary re-posting of a full article as a genuine disservice to PD readers. It's often lazy and an over-abundance of information needed to start a concentrated discussion.

When the only new point of discussion is two sentences in paragraph five of a normal post-game story, I'm not regularly gonna take the time to read the entire thing. The only place a full post-game recap is even relevant is in the post-game thread. If you want to start a new thread about a singular point raised within that post-game thread that isn't simply about the game that was just played, why not take the time to highlight just that singular point and display it in your original post? A lot of people aren't going to take the time to come up with anything interesting to say about something if they've already spent five minutes trying to figure out what you're talking about. And if you're not gonna take the time to start a focused thread about an interesting, refined topic, why should they?

For example, someone recently started a thread about a Bird comment that Dunleavy was "our best player" and only included that one relevant comment with a link to the full story.

To me, that method is not only the better practice (in regards to the original point of this post), but a better way to garner focused, pointed discussion on a new topic. Posting the whole article is going to get discussion of other, non-related aspects of the article (i.e., Troy Murphy's weight loss, which may have been included in paragraph nine) that is not only redundant, but disruptive to the fresh commentary on whether or not Dunleavy can still be considered our best player.

Or not. Who knows? As most of you know, I'm often dumb.

grace
12-30-2008, 02:13 PM
Or not. Who knows? As most of you know, I'm often dumb.

You might be dumb, but I agree with you.

count55
12-30-2008, 02:19 PM
What Anthem and ChicagoJ are saying is sort of what I was talking about before.

Obviously, the effect that Pacers Digest has on the future of the Indianapolis Star is negligible. My offhand comment about reposting entire articles leading to the ouster of reporters and the like was intentionally melodramatic and silly.

But the cumulative effect of all message boards and forums reposting any and all written content in full on a whim will have an effect on all creators of written content, who are increasingly reliant on internet branding, web traffic and the online "extras" they provide (the polls, comment dialogues, photo galleries, etc, that while sometimes onerous and annoying, as Bball pointed out, also do often add to the story and the importance/prominence of the original creator).

By re-purposing the content down to simple text in a message board that encourages readers to never go to the original source, you are disallowing the creator of the content to display it in the manner originally intended and, ultimately, diluting the importance and relevance of those with the ability to create the content we desire for our personal information and discussions.

Of course, it's hard to care when its a global empire like ESPN or even a local institution like the Indy Star. And as ChicagoJ notes, the idea of ownership of this stuff has changed.

But, in concept, it's still borderline destructive at worst. And, at best, it's just sorta rude to the people whose job it is to create, design and display content that you clearly feel has enough value to be worth discussing.

Additionally, I also see arbitrary re-posting of a full article as a genuine disservice to PD readers. It's often lazy and an over-abundance of information needed to start a concentrated discussion.

When the only new point of discussion is two sentences in paragraph five of a normal post-game story, I'm not regularly gonna take the time to read the entire thing. The only place a full post-game recap is even relevant is in the post-game thread. If you want to start a new thread about a singular point raised within that post-game thread that isn't simply about the game that was just played, why not take the time to highlight just that singular point and display it in your original post? A lot of people aren't going to take the time to come up with anything interesting to say about something if they've already spent five minutes trying to figure out what you're talking about. And if you're not gonna take the time to start a focused thread about an interesting, refined topic, why should they?

For example, someone recently started a thread about a Bird comment that Dunleavy was "our best player" and only included that one relevant comment with a link to the full story.

To me, that method is not only the better practice (in regards to the original point of this post), but a better way to garner focused, pointed discussion on a new topic. Posting the whole article is going to get discussion of other, non-related aspects of the article (i.e., Troy Murphy's weight loss, which may have been included in paragraph nine) that is not only redundant, but disruptive to the fresh commentary on whether or not Dunleavy can still be considered our best player.

Or not. Who knows? As most of you know, I'm often dumb.

Agreed.

ChicagoJ
12-30-2008, 02:28 PM
By re-purposing the content down to simple text in a message board that encourages readers to never go to the original source, you are disallowing the creator of the content to display it in the manner originally intended and, ultimately, diluting the importance and relevance of those with the ability to create the content we desire for our personal information and discussions.

...

For example, someone recently started a thread about a Bird comment that Dunleavy was "our best player" and only included that one relevant comment with a link to the full story.

To me, that method is not only the better practice (in regards to the original point of this post), but a better way to garner focused, pointed discussion on a new topic. Posting the whole article is going to get discussion of other, non-related aspects of the article (i.e., Troy Murphy's weight loss, which may have been included in paragraph nine) that is not only redundant, but disruptive to the fresh commentary on whether or not Dunleavy can still be considered our best player.

You and Anthem raise an excellent point that I haven't thought of previously. Out of laziness, I liked having the the entire article posted to save myself a couple of clicks (and IndyStar.com and ChicagoTribune.com don't play nicely with the browser on my home computer because of scripting errors that I'm too lazy to solve). But I will make a point of clicking through, and in the event that I post articles again, I will just post the teaser paragraph with a linkback for the rest of the article.

Good insight. Thanks.

able
12-30-2008, 02:40 PM
Jayredd. without the melodramatics i agree, with one exception, for many "foreign" readers (EU, Asia etx) of which we have quite a few, it is very hard top read the content in most published articles if links are followed, simply because you need to sign up or even pay to get to the content, unlike for you.
Links that are "slightly" older dont work anymore, making it hard to have a coherent archive, IF the link works it in most cases (Star) points to a pay per page archive

In short, they are not making it easy for the reader to allow this to happen or to view their adverts and such

If those above reasons did not exist I would probably support an "excerpt only" rule, which we had in the beginning, for all the right reason, but if it takes me 10 minutes to get to the article, then I have usually given up 9 minutes and 50 seconds ago.

strangely enough huge conglomerate sites as ESPN who you mention, have not made it that hard and are very understanding for reposting as well as lenient with allowing such, providing the bylines and links, since they reckon that interested ppl will stil check the original article or the comments on that site and yes that even goes for the "paid for access" articles

To them it is "free advertising" straight into their target group

I hope you can see where my ambivelence comes from.

Anthem
12-30-2008, 04:31 PM
Additionally, I also see arbitrary re-posting of a full article as a genuine disservice to PD readers. It's often lazy and an over-abundance of information needed to start a concentrated discussion.
That's where I'm at. If I post something it's because I want to talk about it, which means there's a specific point I want to talk about. Shoving the whole story gives too much information; just including a link (without any quotes) means people may not notice the point I particularly want to talk about.

A good article could generate several different threads, and that would be great with me.