C3PO: “Etiquette and Protocol Robot”

The Virginian ^ | 6/19/2010 | Moneyrunner

[moneyrunner]

A great deal of the internet is populated by C2PO wanna bees. If you ever watched a Star Wars movie (and who hasn’t) you know the shiny gold robot named C3PO whose purpose is “etiquette and protocol.” The internet has developed its own system of etiquette and protocol. One of these is an abhorrence of what is referred to as “link whoring” which is defined as encouraging people to click on your website. According to this protocol the internet virgin is supposed to sit demurely on the sidelines, knees tightly together, until she is spotted by a search engine like Google.

This phenomenon was one I recently experienced at one of my favorite sites, FreeRepublic.

[Allegra]

That's right.

I need a C4PO.

Groan.

And worse yet, you said that to a procurement person.

;-)

[Mad Dawgg]

"If you want to post a video link use the original link not a link to your crappy blog. If you don’t want to be taken to task for blog pimping then don’t do it."

I see so if the piece is about commentary on a particular video then we are only allowed to post a link to the Video and comment here? We aren't allowed to Comment and report on any issues within the video itself. And post such on a Blog? And then post an excerpted thread on FR?I mean going by YOUR rules that is?

I gotta ask who made you the rules maker as far as who and who cannot post an excerpted blog on FR?

Do you work for Jim And John Robinson?

If not then maybe you should consider viewing blogs posted on FR in QUIET contemplation.

[Mad Dawgg]

"What does copyright law have to do with some lame blogger scratching out some grammatically unsound and boring drivel and then posting a teaser to it on FR, forcing readers to provide blog hits to read the rest of the snivelly content?"

Eaker posted untrue words about copyright law, he stated one has to go through a legal process to obtain a copyright which as I showed is about as untrue as one can get. He asked why one would excerpt and I give him two reasons one he has a right to his copyright just like every other writer and two FR does not allow video on FR and to see such one has to leave FR but when you wish to comment or review a video one can embed the video on most blog software and thus it allows the reader to view the video and stay with the text that refers to the video without the need to surf to youtube or some other video site.

Either way neither is any business of yours, if you don't like so-called "blog pimps" why do you feel the need to rant about them causing more and more people to see the thread updated? Or is irony something that you can not comprehend?

[GLDNGUN]

Are you off your meds or something? Or are you always given to such dramatic and ludicrous demonstrations? Comparing an inconsequential blog to a whorehouse and comparing posting a link to said blog to shoplifting is beyond absurd. Whatever point you may have had got lost way back there between your inability to formulate a cogent analogy and your inability to make a point without resorting to personal attacks.

This blogger is probably doing himself more harm than good by just posting an excerpt from his blog. When I read a post on FR that starts with an excerpt, I will only click on the link to read more if I find it VERY intriguing; otherwise, I move on. I am much more likely to read the entire article if I can do so without clicking a link. If I find myself reading a lot of interesting articles from a certain source, I may very well go to the site/blog to read more articles. If the articles posted on FR are not interesting, I won't. Likewise, I have clicked on linked articles on FR to be taken to blogs to read the rest of the articles. Usually this has turned out to be a disappointment and sometimes worse. For those bloggers, I do not even click on their FR headline to look at the thread because I know that site/blog has little of real interest for me.

The point is, either way, the cream rises to the top. If this blogger that you seem to think is worse than a shoplifting whorehouse operator has nothing unique or interesting to say, his blog will flounder regardless of whether he posts excerpts with links or the entire article.

Again, I think he's probably doing himself no favors by not posting his entire article on FR, but so be it. That IS his choice. He is NOT breaking a law. Shoplifting is a crime regardless of whether you get caught, prosecuted, convicted, or penalized.

I would sure hate to see how you work yourself up over something that matters.

[humblegunner]

We aren't allowed to Comment and report on any issues within the video itself. And post such on a Blog? And then post an excerpted thread on FR?

Don't be obtuse.

The point is WHY do blogpimps need to excerpt thier comments about a video?

Comment till the cows come home, but why not just post the comments here in full?

Why not post the video link here? There is NO reason other than to gain blog hits.

While doing so is perfectly "legal" here, so is taking the pimps to task for it.
And so is going to the blog, snatching the video link, and posting it to the thread.

This short-circuits the pimping process and makes the pimps very sad.

Some of us would rather not see FR become a business platfom for blogpimps.

[BADROTOFINGER]

Good for you. I have always disliked the shreiking, self-appointed, ‘blog pimp’ nazis on here...JFK

[humblegunner]

if you don't like so-called "blog pimps" why do you feel the need to rant about them

The same reason anyone else rants about things they dislike.

[humblegunner]

Alas, mine is just plain olive drab....:(

So's mine but I did put a couple of big honkin' Mossy Oak decals on the gas tank.

Mossy Oak is my gang colors, yo.

[Mad Dawgg]

"The point is WHY do blogpimps need to excerpt thier comments about a video? Comment till the cows come home, but why not just post the comments here in full?"

They wish to retain their copyright for one AND as I have pointed out in painfully obvious detail that seems to be lost on you. When you wish to write a piece using video or better yet several videos a Blog works much better than FR because a blog allows the reader to stay right where he is without surfing away from the piece.

Is it really so hard for you to understand?

And you used the word obtuse hahaha... Irony IS lost on you isn't it?

Some of us would rather not see FR become a business platfom for blogpimps.

I have yet to see the owners post a notice about such? Do you have inside info that we should all be aware of?

[humblegunner]

They wish to retain their copyright for one

So writing on a blog and then posting the content here somehow magically dissolves copyright?

I have yet to see the owners post a notice about such?

Do you feel you need Jim's permission to dislike something?

[Mad Dawgg]

"So writing on a blog and then posting the content here somehow magically dissolves copyright?"

No you still have the copyright BUT wherever you posted the entire work to also has part of it as well being you supplied permission for them to use it when you sign up and agree to terms and rules.

To retain control of the completed work you need to either have a contract giving "One time" publishing rights OR post it on a Blog or site you own.

"Do you feel you need Jim's permission to dislike something?"

Interesting you didn't post all of the discussion about this particular point. Have you realized now that your prosecution of so-called blog pimps (by your own admission) on the grounds you wish FR not to become a business plan for blog advertisement sounds self righteous and a little foolish being you clearly have no authority to act by the legal owners of FR.

In fact what you are doing borders on cyber-harrassment and could get the owners of this site in legal dutch. Maybe you should reconsider your actions being you claim you are working to protect FR.

[humblegunner]

Have you realized now that your prosecution of so-called blog pimps

You mistake prosecution for exposing and thwarting. Get it right.

on the grounds you wish FR not to become a business plan for blog advertisement sounds self righteous and a little foolish being you clearly have no authority to act by the legal owners of FR.

I need authority to "wish" something? Who knew?

Maybe you should reconsider your actions

And maybe not.

While you are certainly free to support blog pimping all you
wish, even do some pimping youself or merely coddle the pimps
already in-house, I am equally as free to point them out and
thwart them where possible. You seem to feel I need some kind
of official mandate to do this. Where you pulled that idea from I do not care to speculate.

[Mad Dawgg]

"You seem to feel I need some kind of official mandate to do this. Where you pulled that idea from I do not care to speculate."

So then I gather you don't have offical authority to prosecute people for excerpting their blogs on FR. Good to know.

So then should we consider your repeated attacks on such people (those who post excerpted blogs on FR) as personal attacks?

[Eaker]

Whether you want to be honest or not these blog pimps are interested in one thing.

Hits.

There is nothing more to it and nothing noble about it.

If you want to defend them then you are no better than they are and that says a lot about you.

[Eaker]

Are you off your meds or something?

Maybe you should excerpt as I stopped reading after finishing your stupid opening question.

[Tatze]

(Excerpt) Read more at moneyrunner.blogspot.com ...

Are you complaining about link whoring..... by link whoring?

[humblegunner]

So then I gather you don't have offical authority to prosecute people

Again with the "prosecute". I don't think that word means what you think it means.

So then should we consider

"We"? You got a rat in your pocket?

should we consider your repeated attacks on such people (those who post excerpted blogs on FR) as personal attacks?

YOU may condider them whatever you wish.

[humblegunner]

condider = consider. GET IT RIGHT!

[Mad Dawgg]

"Whether you want to be honest or not these blog pimps are interested in one thing."
Hits."

Yeah, and then the natural response is, why is it a concern of yours?

We have established you don't own or work for FR. (Correct?) and FR has no posted policy against someone posting excerpted blogs to FR and has even went to the trouble of programming the site with the category called...

wait for it...

wait for it...

"Blogs"

And being they have went to that effort one can ascertain they would like people to use that category and the proper subject to post in a category about blogs would be [gasp] BLOGS!

But I wish to point out we do have rules on FR posted about personal attacks and also its be stated several times that thread disruption is frowned upon yet you engage in both daily it seems, in the name of self righteous indignation that someone wants people to read the words they posted on their personal blogs.

So tell us again why is it you feel the need to do such? Or better yet why not engage in more mature behavior and try a nice dose of good manners for a change?

[Salamander]

Might wanna read this:

http://mason.gmu.edu/~montecin/copyright-internet.htm

“BUT wherever you posted the entire work to also has part of it as well being you supplied permission for them to use it when you sign up and agree to terms and rules.”

No, they don’t, any more than the owner of building “has a part” in some gang banger’s graffiti “tag”.
[unless Jim personally -asked- the blog pimp to “tag” FR]

It’s sole property of the copyright owner, in perpetuity.
[- life of author + 70, technically]

[and I doubt Jim’s gonna strain himself requoting some blog pimp’s stuff]

“In fact what you are doing borders on cyber-harrassment and could get the owners of this site in legal dutch. Maybe you should reconsider your actions being you claim you are working to protect FR.”

No it doesn’t.

Somewhere around here there’s a disclaimer absolving Jim [and co.] of poster’s opinions and there have been no threats made to the blog pimp, therefore charges of “harassment” would the last refuge of a sissy.

The *only* stuff that could be posted here that might *possibly* get the owner’s in “legal dutch” would be illegal material, i.e, child porn or entire articles posted from sources which prohibit redistribution *without* prior written permission *if* they chose to _leave them up_, which they never do.

Fact is, the blog pimps make a conscious decision to post their links here of their own volition and should at least be man enough to take the “abuse”, should it come.