OK, I’ve got a question.
What is the big deal on this guy posting links to his blog being ‘clickbait’?
First off, I turned off both my adblockers in Chrome and I don’t see any ads. So what are the supposed ‘clicks’ for? Yes, he’s seeking advertisers, but doesn’t seem to have any.
And as far as I’m aware ‘clicks’ don’t really mean anything without ads unless you’re just curious about the number of visitors you have to your site.
Personally I find his articles interesting and often find other interesting ones on his sidebar, something I wouldn’t see if he pasted the entire post into the blog.
Somebody posted a link to the Wikipedia page about this battle and said this is a ‘much more concise and detailed account.’ Well, of course it is.
It’s 50+ freaking pages. It’s where I would go if I wanted more information after reading this detailed summary. And it has a lot of junk carried over with it.
In addition, it seems most of the time that when an article does get pasted like this, it brings a lot of junk with it, like pull quotes, sidebar stuff, etc., making it hard to read.
Lastly, I regularly see excerpted posts from executedtoday.com, another site I find interesting. And even though he has ads on the site, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen any complaints about ‘clickbait’.
And how is this any different than sites like Powerline, Townhall, and others selling memberships, subscriptions, or just outright begging for money(donations)?
So what’s the difference, and what am I missing?
But with this particular blog, blogpimp.
Don't throw out anything you have from Janes.
Because it merely provides a 3 sentence excerpt, as is was WaPo, and not even close to the 300 word excerpt allowed for even most restricted sites, and if this the poster's blog, then he could post the whole thing. With about 500 articles a day being posted on FR, the less we need to follow links then the less time and space it used. See An exhortation to those who post threads.