Originally Posted by
KARFA
they kind of did as they linked back to one of their earlier articles which did directly link to seat31b. I would agree though that their acknowledgement should have been clear in today’s article.
Agreed. That is what I was alluding to in my post when I wrote:
Originally Posted by
orbitmic
rather than say that they 'got wind' and give a link to another one of their own articles where that reference is made in passing mid article.
Originally Posted by
orbitmic
But like you, I just don't think that is clear enough. If you write an article and give a reference to a previous article by yourself (specifically to a piece where you were citing x), it is not quite the same as citing x in the new article. What they did is just enough so that they precisely can't be accused of having poached the idea without giving credit to the original blogger, but made the reference more complicated/hidden than necessary so that many (probably most) readers of yesterday's post will not actually see the reference (you only see it if 1) you click on that particular link among many others - which is not even that tempting when you read this) and 2) read that linked article sufficiently well that you actually see the ref to seat31b. In other words, the threshold is pretty high while the crediting reference could and should really be obvious instead.
I'm not picking on them specifically, it is a fine and useful site, but I think that those kind of "borderline" referencing is frequent in blogs and websites and that is a bit unfortunate in my view. OT hat off I promise!!
