My initial response would be, “Yeah, good luck with that.”
But the number of sites breaking rule 10 is ridiculous in a way that would have gotten us kicked out of school for plagiarism. And it’s not limited to Business Insider or HuffPost. Sites like The Verge and, even, 9to5 Mac do it.
Not only did they “quote” a good percentage of the text, but they copied all of the images from the article.
This kind of bullshit pisses me off to no end.
I second those rules.
…there’s hope!
You are attempting to destroy an entire industry with your so-called “standards” 🙂
The crux of the issue is the implicit presumption in the comment to rule 15: “ask yourself if you’re doing what’s best for your readers.” The real offenders don’t care about their readers, just eyeballs. They are driven by clicks, not by providing useful information. Following these rules would break their business model.
I would add two rules.
If it is about a product that hasn’t even been announced yet, no analyst is good enough to be quoted.
If the article is about some company building bits for a new, and not yet announced product, just don’t. Double if it’s some company never associated with the company making the big new product before. Name dropping to get points for your new pet is not cool.
The approved list need to be expanded. Munster is still not on the list. Neither is Laporte (pundit) nor
Absolutely.
Numbers from analysts, from pundits, from research organizations are not numbers, they are guesses. The only numbers that are correct are those directly from the company themselves.
Hell Yeah !
Rumours are rumors. Accept that, embrace that. When writing your headline say its a rumor.
Any product that has not been publicly announced cannot be delayed, thats just basic logic you fuckwits.
As read.
This is not a race. There are no winners or losers. There are consumers that have choice.
I dont care if you put the source of your article at the top or the bottom of your piece, but make it obvious that is your source.
If you rewrite, make it clear what you have changed, and why you have changed it.
Dont have a view on this.
Readability absolutely matters. Make it easy to read the entire article. If you make me click 12 slides to get 300 words I am going to get pissed off.
The apple store going offline is as predictable as the sun rises. They do updates on a Tuesday, it goes offline while announcements happen. Its not news.
FACT CHECK.
FACT CHECK AGAIN.
When this story is, um, repurposed by other tech “news” sites, the headline will be, “Will Tech Journalists Follow the New Rules of Tech Journalism?” There will be no link to the original article, but it will include quotes from “industry leading analysts.” And it will be in the form of a 20 page slide show with lots of Flash based ads. The cumulative time it takes to load all the pages of the article will be longer than it takes to read the content.
Right on cue, to prove the point! (Especially the headline with a question mark)
Oh no! Blodgets site would go pooof then!
My initial response would be, “Yeah, good luck with that.”
But the number of sites breaking rule 10 is ridiculous in a way that would have gotten us kicked out of school for plagiarism. And it’s not limited to Business Insider or HuffPost. Sites like The Verge and, even, 9to5 Mac do it.
Take this article, as an example: http://9to5mac.com/2013/10/08/phil-schiller-tweets-links-to-iphone-5s-photos-in-national-geographic/
The original article is at: http://proof.nationalgeographic.com/2013/10/07/capturing-the-aura-of-the-scottish-highlands-with-the-iphone-5s/
Not only did they “quote” a good percentage of the text, but they copied all of the images from the article.
This kind of bullshit pisses me off to no end.
I second those rules.
…there’s hope!
You are attempting to destroy an entire industry with your so-called “standards” 🙂
The crux of the issue is the implicit presumption in the comment to rule 15: “ask yourself if you’re doing what’s best for your readers.” The real offenders don’t care about their readers, just eyeballs. They are driven by clicks, not by providing useful information. Following these rules would break their business model.
I would add two rules.
If it is about a product that hasn’t even been announced yet, no analyst is good enough to be quoted.
If the article is about some company building bits for a new, and not yet announced product, just don’t. Double if it’s some company never associated with the company making the big new product before. Name dropping to get points for your new pet is not cool.
The approved list need to be expanded. Munster is still not on the list. Neither is Laporte (pundit) nor
Absolutely.
Numbers from analysts, from pundits, from research organizations are not numbers, they are guesses. The only numbers that are correct are those directly from the company themselves.
Hell Yeah !
Rumours are rumors. Accept that, embrace that. When writing your headline say its a rumor.
Any product that has not been publicly announced cannot be delayed, thats just basic logic you fuckwits.
As read.
This is not a race. There are no winners or losers. There are consumers that have choice.
I dont care if you put the source of your article at the top or the bottom of your piece, but make it obvious that is your source.
If you rewrite, make it clear what you have changed, and why you have changed it.
Dont have a view on this.
Readability absolutely matters. Make it easy to read the entire article. If you make me click 12 slides to get 300 words I am going to get pissed off.
The apple store going offline is as predictable as the sun rises. They do updates on a Tuesday, it goes offline while announcements happen. Its not news.
FACT CHECK.
FACT CHECK AGAIN.
When this story is, um, repurposed by other tech “news” sites, the headline will be, “Will Tech Journalists Follow the New Rules of Tech Journalism?” There will be no link to the original article, but it will include quotes from “industry leading analysts.” And it will be in the form of a 20 page slide show with lots of Flash based ads. The cumulative time it takes to load all the pages of the article will be longer than it takes to read the content.
Right on cue, to prove the point! (Especially the headline with a question mark)
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/was-apples-ipad-air-launch-weekend-a-flop.html/