Written on May 10th, 2008 at 03:05 pm by Darren Rowse
Is Syndicating Other People’s Content on Your Blog OK?
This weekend I’d like to throw open a couple of discussion starters for the ProBlogger community. The questions come from some of my Twitter followers.
flabuless asks the following question to you the ProBlogger community:
“Is syndicating content is kosher or not…ie running someone elses content through rss into ones own blog?”
This is a particularly important question that I see a variety of opinions on in my travels around the blogosphere. Do you syndicate other people’s content? If so, do you have some standards or guidelines around how you do it? What is your reaction to when you see others doing it to your content?
99 Responses to “Is Syndicating Other People’s Content on Your Blog OK?”
Stephanie
May 10th, 2008 3:39 pm
Syndicating… no. If you really like a blogger’s work you can always ask if you can repost something on your own site, but otherwise you should be creating your own content.
And if you like what someone is saying, quote relevant parts and share your own opinions, giving credit.
I don’t read blogs that do nothing more than syndicate someone else’s work. I’d rather go to the source.
I know some blogs will pull work from a lot of blogs on their topic, trying to claim that they’re bringing a lot of resources on that topic together. I don’t think I’ve ever seen it done well.
Dan Cole
May 10th, 2008 3:46 pm
Syndicating content could keep it alive in the long run. Often time people shut down their site and content is lost forever.
H.E.Eigler
May 10th, 2008 3:57 pm
My blog has a specific focus (as I hope all blogs do) and that is creative moms….I want to be able to maintain that focus and have control over what “ambiance” my posts reside. I’d hate to find they were somewhere undesirable. I wouldn’t approve anyone to syndicate my writing (unless I had some control and they paid very, very well.)
http://maternalspark.blogspot.com
Susheel Chandradhas
May 10th, 2008 4:01 pm
I’ve seen it happen often to my photography blog. I’m usually rather upset to see this happen because it means that the blogger has not really added any value or context; but usually its the entire blog that has syndicated content.
It just leaves me more determined to come out on top by having a more recognised blog… on that is popular and that has all original content.
Nishadha
May 10th, 2008 4:02 pm
Its ok if you are providing only an excerpt and linking back to the blog. But its just wrong to read a feed and publish the full content.Not only will it lead to a duplicate content penalty the original blogger want get any readers as well.This happened to me recently and I added a RSS signature after that.
John
May 10th, 2008 4:10 pm
Like Stephanie I’d rather go straight to the source - where’s the value add from a blog full of syndicated content?
Shawn Farner
May 10th, 2008 4:19 pm
I think as long as permission is given, it is okay. Problem is, permission is not given a majority of the time.
Ed Healy
May 10th, 2008 4:20 pm
I have syndicated RSS content on my sites, but only if the publishing party has given me permission, either with a blanket statement on their site or via personal contact.
If someone is taking another’s content and passing it off as their own, I would be upset. This is a “no go” in by book.
That said, there is a huge range between these two extremes. I tend to lean more toward the conservative “ask or don’t take” policy, I can see some applications of syndication which would be OK. All of them, though, preserve credit and encourage readers to visit the original source.
coolwebmom
May 10th, 2008 4:22 pm
If you syndicated our content on your website, we’d be grateful for the extra traffic! lol!
http://www.coolwebmoms.com
JoLynn from The Fit Shack
May 10th, 2008 4:24 pm
No way, it’s not ok. When a blogger creates content it’s their own original, copyrighted work. If another blogger then takes the original blogger’s RSS feed and reposts that feed on their site/splog - well, that’s just plagiarism.
Funny how many of these splogs you see running Adsense, too, trying to profit from the hours upon hours of work that other bloggers put into creating their content for their own blogs.
If a developer creates an RSS feed service that prevents RSS scraping I’d drop Feedburner in a heartbeat - I dare say that there would be one or two fellow bloggers who would do the same.
John Cow
May 10th, 2008 4:24 pm
In a perfect world, everyone would take parts of the post, comment on them (add an editorial discussing what they like or disliked) and then link back to the source. This however is not what always happens and there are those that simply fill their blogs will content 100% from RSS feeds. The problem with that is those blogs (95% of them from what we have seen) tend to really get little to no traffic and as already stated, they offer no real value to anyone.
Did we answer the question? Nope… so here is our answer.
Unless specifically stated on the source site that you can not do it, then yes it is OK.
DB Ferguson
May 10th, 2008 4:26 pm
I can’t imagine a lot of situations where this might be appropriate. The only thing I can see that might be appropriate is an RSS feed of headlines generated in a sidebar widget or something, but certainly not the entire content. The headline generator (like the one offered by Feedburner) could be a traffic generator without stealing content outright.
The only time I’ve seen it done to my own content is splogs that run off of an search term feed, i.e. “NoFactZone has an excellent post about blah blah, ….” At least most of those are only partial.
Bec
May 10th, 2008 4:35 pm
I have to agree. Syndicated content feels like cheating to me. I think the value of blogging is in the community/conversational aspect of it. I’m all for quoting posts and linking to them, there’s a big wide world out there and we’re bound to miss out on interesting things if people didn’t do that - but just grabbing a feed and publishing it whole (whether with attribution or not) doesn’t have much value to anyone.
Charles Lumia
May 10th, 2008 4:36 pm
I don’t think that it’s ok. It’s clearly done only for the profit of the person syndicating the original authors work.
Honestly I blame search engines and things like that. When someone that’s stealing another persons work can become more popular due to their internet knowhow than the original author, it’s just not right.
I suppose that a little snippet from an article, maybe a couple of sentences or a short paragraph; or simply giving their own run down of the content on the other site and then linking to it; either of those would be fine I think. That’s done through all sorts of media. But flat out stealing other peoples content is lame.
Rasmus
May 10th, 2008 4:40 pm
Syndicating is a touchy subject. Here’s how I break it down:
If you syndicate anything, claiming to be the author of it, that is extremely uncool, and you are basically leeching off my content.
If you syndicate my most recent blogpost titles and perhaps a short excerpt, with a clear link back to my blog, then that’s cool.
If you syndicate with prior permission, all is good too, and in most other case than the one above, at least asking first seems like the best way to go.
JoLynn from The Fit Shack
May 10th, 2008 4:42 pm
DB Ferguson did bring up a good point - if the only thing that is posted is the headline that links to the original post, then that’s different. You don’t see splogs doing that though, they repost either the entire post from the feed or chunks of it.
There is a legit site out there that is an RSS aggregator but it only posts headlines and those headlines link directly to the original blog post - alltop.com. I’m NOT objecting to this, but am 100% against the reposting of RSS feeds on splogs, a.k.a. - plagiarism. Just wanted to note that after reading DB’s comment. ;)
I also highly recommend http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/ for anyone who may be dealing with content theft, and especially http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/dmca-contact-information/ for a full list of DMCA guidelines.
Tom Hanna
May 10th, 2008 4:49 pm
Syndicate headlines with a link to the source. Syndicate full feeds while adding nothing of your own, what’s the point? If all you do is syndicate others content and add nothing, what’s your value proposition?
And no one should have to say this, but if it goes unsaid someone will take it as implicit permission - syndicating even a headline without a link is an absolute NO.
Matt Packer
May 10th, 2008 4:50 pm
Direct syndication through an RSS feed without making comment or you’re own editorial on the article is pretty sketchy, I’d be upset if someone was doing it to me.
However, if someone syndicates a part of the article with a ‘read more’ link and a bit of an opinion on what’s been written is cool, and quite flattering and ok in my opinion.
Sophie
May 10th, 2008 5:02 pm
This isn’t acceptable in my book. Unless of course the person syndicating has permission from the blog owner, but frankly I can’t really see the point. I’ve yet to see a site based largely on syndicating others that is useful!
Syndicating blog headlines on the other hand seems fine to me, so long as they link back.
Last month I found another blog re-using mine and several other people’s feeds with no attempt at attribution and no way of politely contacting the blog owner. It was in Blogger so I flagged the blog for them to look at and nothing happened. So I alerted adsense and feedburner who both sent me the Digital Millennium Copyright Act form to fill in, which I would have filled in in due course but was a fair bit of hassle given that it has to be paper mailed to a different country or signed and faxed.
Anyway, my point is that it’s worth persevering with these things - I flagged the blog again in Blogger in a strop earlier in the week and I’ve just checked back and the blog in question has been taken offline.
a husband
May 10th, 2008 5:04 pm
It’s like writing a book, and then someone taking your book to another publisher, re-doing the cover, and then selling it again.
I’m all for quoting others, and then linking to the actual site, but complete syndication seems so not right. It’s an easy way to have an ad-loaded website that you don’t have to keep up at all.
Katy
May 10th, 2008 5:05 pm
I’ve been struggling with this issue myself. While I get RSS and use it myself to read various blogs. But well, I’m not sure I get how I could use RSS feeds to help supply content for my site.
In my case, I have permission to run some stuff from from a friend’s newsletter/blog, but I don’t want all of it (since she has stuff posted daily), just something once a week. So my main concern is how to pick and choose which particular posts I might want to run from an RSS feed. Any idea if this is even doable or how I might be able to work that out?
Make Money Talks
May 10th, 2008 5:11 pm
I don’t think that is ethic but some people just want to catch SE traffic and make some $ with ads.
JoLynn from The Fit Shack
May 10th, 2008 5:12 pm
@Matt, “…part of the article with a ‘read more’ link and a bit of an opinion on what’s been written is cool, and quite flattering and ok in my opinion” - that’s not syndication, that’s another blogger who likes what you wrote and is linking to you - and you’re right, it’s a good thing, a very good thing. :)
And pro bloggers only include a few sentences of your article in their post, a paragraph at most along with their opinion or feedback on what you wrote, always linking to you. ;) Darren does that a lot, but he’s not pulling anyone’s RSS feeds (ok, this just made me crack up, to think that Darren Rowse would ever syndicate someone else’s RSS feed on his blog, can you guys see why I’m laughing over here??) LOL
joe
May 10th, 2008 5:28 pm
if its well linked you could have my whole site…usually this is not the case and those rss leeches take my pathetic efforts with no return
suresh
May 10th, 2008 6:00 pm
Any sort of displaying data in the second blog with out prior permission/mentioning the source of content is not acceptable.
Aaron Robbins
May 10th, 2008 6:08 pm
I’ve often wondered if there was such a thing as a syndication infinite loop.
Someone auto syndicates a post onto their blog. Then, another blog auto syndicates the auto syndicated content. As chance would have it the first blog to auto syndicate the post was also setup to auto syndicate from the second blog. So, the two blogs end up auto syndicating the same post back and forth forever, or until the internet times out and we all go back to our regularly scheduled lives.
ozlady
May 10th, 2008 6:20 pm
I agree with Rasmus - credit where credit is due, and I think a link back is a nice courtesy.
Also, you shouldn’t syndicate most of your content. If there is one post that is syndicated every now and then, with credit, then it’s OK.
Matt
May 10th, 2008 6:25 pm
I think it’s ok if you publish an small excerpt or just the title, with the aim to send readers to the blog.
It’s more important for non-techie topics, with people that don’t use (or don’t want) feeds.
For example, my blog is half-blog, half-syndicating. And the syndicating part is the main interest for readers. And blogs syndicated receive lot of readers on each update (as we can’t read the post on my blog). Everyone is happy ! (except blogs not syndicated ;))
Todor Christov
May 10th, 2008 6:29 pm
I am againts RSS syndication without prior permission - it is a theft and it creates only problems with duplicated content.
Todor Christov
May 10th, 2008 6:29 pm
I am against RSS syndication without prior permission - it is a theft and it creates only problems with duplicated content.
Daniel Richard | Winning Everyone
May 10th, 2008 6:51 pm
Syndicating other’s content onto our own sites is a huge no-no to me, though there’s a Wordpress plugin that tracks the latest entry by another user who had posted a comment on the blog that runs that plugin: CommentLuv.
Only short excerpts and the link to the comments are captured. It’s not syndicating the entire content so it is still alright.
Popular Wealth
May 10th, 2008 7:00 pm
I syndicate your stuff Darren, but with some limitations.
10 article titles as links only (no content) via RSS. Also, the 10 links appear only on the blogging category page (my site is heavily modified wordpress).
Is it ok to do? Well, I didn’t ask because you provide the feed freely.
Does it help my blog? Probably not, but it helps visitors. ProBlogger is an authority site on blogging so if a reader doesn’t find what they want in my articles… I offer yours too.
There is no duplicate content issue, the original source gets full credit and full serps love, my site receives none… as it should be.
Bottom line - is it good for your readers? if so, go for it.
Boult
May 10th, 2008 7:35 pm
You mean like reBlog ( http://www.eyebeam.org/reblog/ ) ?
Barbara Ling
May 10th, 2008 7:39 pm
If someone writes something I think is worth discussing on my blog, I will post a snippet (paragraph or two) with a direct link back to the source, encourage my readers to visit said article on that site, and then write my own views as the content for the rest of my post.
Haven’t gotten any complaints yet.
I never syndicate any portion of content without providing direct links back; I think that including a link is simply Internet good manners.
Data points,
Barbara
Wakish
May 10th, 2008 8:05 pm
I think it depends on what you “intend” to syndicate..
For example:
=> I think it’s ok to syndicate blog articles which are “general, news type, sports, soccer, poker..etc”
=> But I don’t think it’s ok to syndicate posts which has a “unique idea and writing style” being conveyed by its author. May be a quote is ok here.
- Wakish -
Caitlin
May 10th, 2008 8:26 pm
As to whether it’s okay in terms of building a good following for your blog, I don’t know. I’m not convinced and there seems to be some negative feeling from the comments above.
As to whether it’s okay ethically and legally, this I can answer. Unless you have permission from the original creator of the content, then it’s definitely not okay and is, in fact, illegal. Penalties could include being sued for breach of copyright and, if your blog is hosted in the US, having the entire site removed if the hosting company receives a DMCA take-down notice. The creator of the content would not normally give permission unless you were paying them or giving something valuable in return.
If you are paying them, then it goes back to the first question. Is this a good strategy? If it’s a questionable strategy when it’s free, I can’t imagine it would be a better strategy when it costs you money.
Sharon McMillan
May 10th, 2008 8:39 pm
If I see a topic or a post that I think would be interesting to my readers, I much prefer to include a quote or two and discuss the topic from my viewpoint and within the context of my blog’s focus.
That’s what I think my readers expect. I blog about new urbanism and how we can make community life support our personal and professional goals.
http://www.newurbanmom.com
I’ll also include a link to the original post that may have sparked the topic. That to me is the best way to use blogs, serve your audience, and make others aware of good material on other sites.
Luis Gross
May 10th, 2008 8:47 pm
I feel it’s tasteless. Plain and simple. You should have your own work you created yourself. Like a few people said above, I would rather go to the source. I like providing my own content rather then somene else’s.
Lilly Mouse
May 10th, 2008 8:48 pm
It makes sense to syndicate only when there are many sources, and syndicating provides an over-all picture of a field or topic.
And, it shouldn’t dominate your content.
And it helps, if you credit your sources in a small intro.
Greg Wilker
May 10th, 2008 8:48 pm
I’ve seen this a lot with my blog. I’m not sure if it’s a part of wordpress or not but I always get these comments on every post [... greg wrote something ...] with a link back to them that has what i wrote linking back to me. The comments would appear with in moments of publishing. So after checking them out all i see is either the whole post wrapped with adsense top bottom left and right and some in between. I never approve these comments to keep from linking to them.
Thomas Fjordside
May 10th, 2008 9:15 pm
Well isn’t it a bit too easy to say that syndicating is tasteless and bad. Isn’t google syndicating your content? Yahoo, Live delicious and about a 100 other sites which most of you are following tactics to be better syndicated by?
Musing
May 10th, 2008 10:05 pm
I once came across a syndicated post from my personal blog. The site that lifted my material had no email address, though, so I didn’t know what to do about it. Can you do anything in a case like that?
Also, about quoting, normally I’d say no permission is needed, as long as credit is given. One of my blogs, though, catalogs choice sayings by bloggers (like Bartlett’s just bloggy). Because there are so many quotes, I get written permission to use them.
Jace
May 10th, 2008 10:07 pm
I have no issues with it as long as credit is given. Anytime I repost something or syndicate it, I ALWAYS give credit back to the original author.
DefogMyBlog
May 10th, 2008 10:26 pm
Would seem an odd thing to do unless you just want to create sites for adsense. Would prefer to discuss the piece and refer people to the original blog. I imagine if people did this wholesale then there could be a duplicate content problem. I’ve heard recently that Google credits the account with the most links to a piece with authorship and ignores the others.
Rob Brydon
May 10th, 2008 10:29 pm
I personally think that it’s great when someone posts my stuff on their website and sends a link my way.
So if amyone ever feels the urge, go right ahead.
:)
John Panico
May 10th, 2008 10:40 pm
Contarary to most others opinions here, your readers may appreciate you taking the time to pull the info.
My approach has always been to link to that article and more importantly, give my take on why I agree or disagree with it.
That is the value that I think I can offer my readers.
So, completely just reposting an article may not be cool, but quoting certain parts of it adds to your take. I don’t find an issue with that and as long as I am quoting the source (ie. link to original content) think that is good.
In the long run, it probably helps both sites.
Just my thoughts.
Tony
May 10th, 2008 10:55 pm
I think the content should be original, otherwise, what is the point…??
Heresiarch
May 10th, 2008 10:57 pm
Something I wrote recently attracted a lot of attention via Google, and I was getting many hundreds of hits. Then they vanished. It turned out that my article had mysteriously vanished from Google’s front page for the search-word combination most commonly used, and had been replaced by the same article being reblogged by a feed-stealer. And lo and behold, my article was being proudly listed by the criminal site in question as their No 1 article! There was a note on the copyright violator’s site to the effect that he would remove feeds on request, but that “I do not seek permission to re-publish feed”. There was no email address listed or any other means for contacting this asshole.
Reblogging is theft. It is cheap laziness, it is capable of wreaking havoc on one’s search-engine rankings, it stinks. I think feed-stealers should be named and shamed (this one is called recycledart.org) and that there should be a means of having them de-listed and barred like purveyors of child porn. There should be prosecutions. Google should ban them. Most importantly, there should be a mechanism (is there one? I haven’t found it) via Feedburner to block access to one’s feed from specified sites.
Stop theft. Stop copyright violation. Preserve your intellectual property.
Ransom Place
May 10th, 2008 11:01 pm
I’ve noticed, when typing my blog’s url into Google — a trick learned from reading Pro Bloger — that several websites have published some of my posts. While most of them gave attribution with a link to my site at the end an article, some others sites just published my work with no mention of the author or website they stole it from. And I always have “by Randy Place” under the title of most posts.
This has led me to put a copywrite and “not to be used without permission” notice at the bottom of my last few posts.
It’s stealing and a violation of what’s right to just lift an article from another website.
There! I feel better now.
randy place
Dorothy Thompson
May 10th, 2008 11:06 pm
Like Susheel, I’ve had it happen to me, too, but when I sign up for content ezines and give them permission to syndicate, I can’t do too much about it after that. I’m okay with it unless someone doesn’t give me credit. I haven’t syndicated anyone’s content on either of my blogs, not that I won’t, but because I have enough content to fill up my blogs, I haven’t needed to. I think it would be appropriate to add content geared toward your subject when you hit blocks, though. I’d rather syndicate someone else’s content than have my blog go blank for a number of weeks for example. However, if you have a subscriber base and you do this all of a sudden, they’re going to wonder what’s going on. Some blogs (spam blogs for example) exist solely on grabbing content off the Internet and running it, but you don’t want your subscribers to think you’ve turned into one of those, either, unless that’s your main intention from the get go.
Lara Kulpa
May 10th, 2008 11:10 pm
I have a huge issue with this, for a number of reasons, most outlined above, but another is that the “auto-fetchers” out there are subpar.
I get links to Anubis Marketing saying “In an interesting post, The Doctor said…” where “The Doctor” is linked to my post.
Or, “Yesterday, Marie Von Clair said…” where “Marie Von Clair” is linked to my post.
These are creating links to my stuff that are neither relevant or related. It dilutes the power of my valid link popularity.
I would have NO problem with someone actually keying in a snippet and (properly worded) link without asking for permission, to either illustrate a point or begin a conversation on their own blog.
I wouldn’t even have issue with someone fully syndicating full feeds on their site, IF they asked my permission, IF I had the ability to decline for whatever reason (like, “No, you can’t use my weight loss posts on your Viagara site.”) and IF it was set up and linked to properly, like an online newspaper would. (It’d be nice to receive some kind of compensation for it, but even the ability to say “no, thank you” would be great.)
However I hold HUGE issue with people who republish full feeds or pull these auto-fetch things. They’re lazy and are trying to rank for certain terms by using my hard work. It’s happened on my weight loss blog more than anything, but it does happen to all of them. I’ve had people doing it so that they’re even hotlinking to my images, which steals my bandwidth, and causes even more problems.
I’m sorry, but I really don’t think that RSS was intended to be a way for people to fully syndicate like this, with no respect to the author.
Mike
May 10th, 2008 11:17 pm
Do you syndicate other people’s content?
Yup
If so, do you have some standards or guidelines around how you do it?
Ya, obvious links back to the original blog and post. Also, we just use a summary. We don’t pull an entire post, even if they allow it.
What is your reaction to when you see others doing it to your content?
It happens…
“Is syndicating content is kosher or not…ie running someone elses content through rss into ones own blog?”
It all depends how you do it. Don’t display the entire article, make it obvious that the content is not your own and provide links back to the entire content on the original blog’s site.
Daylle Deanna Schwartz
May 10th, 2008 11:54 pm
Using someone else’s content without permission is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE! I’m a professional writer so except for my blog, I get paid for what I write. My career is well beyond writing articles for free to get exposure. That said, I do sometimes give permission for people to reprint something I’ve written and am happy to be a guest blogger occasionally. But not asking is infringement of my copyright.
Once you write your intellectual property down, it’s copyrighted. Since my writing is my livelihood, I don’t want it spread around randomly. If someone takes it without asking, it’s not just unethical. It’s stealing—illegal. When I find my writing on another site, even with attribution to me, I always notify the person that they’re infringing my copyright. If they apologize, I often let them leave it up. It’s a case by case decision. I value my writing and protect it when I can.
Juha Ylitalo
May 11th, 2008 12:15 am
Using someones full RSS feed as content for your blog is something that I consider to be content scraping and I haven’t yet seen any serious bloggers who would love to see his/her content been scraped by someone else.
teamray
May 11th, 2008 12:20 am
its lame and speaks value for folks who has no content but to steal others
Dash Chang
May 11th, 2008 12:49 am
If another blog steals uses RSS to create their content, that is copyright infringement.
If a Google or Yahoo user puts your RSS feed on their portal page and shares the page with friends, is that syndication? How about Facebook profiles with your RSS feed?
Are these latter cases a problem?
Sam
May 11th, 2008 1:12 am
Do you really see a variety of opinions on this issue? That’s ridiculous. I can’t think of any way shape form that would be considered ok.
I’m interested to know who the hell thinks its ok. I can’t imagine anyone saying so - unless that’s what they do for a living.
I seriously can’t believe you see a variety of opinions on that - unless the variety is in “how many different ways can you say no.”
Josh
May 11th, 2008 1:34 am
There is one aspect of syndication people don’t seem to be getting. Think about syndication the way it is handled on TV.
When Nick at Nite replays Mr. Ed, no one screams and stomps their feet because N@N is being deceptive. No one thinks TNT made Star Wars because they play it every Thanksgiving. Channels that replay syndicated content provide a service for their viewers.
Why can’t properly syndicated and attributed blogs serve the same purpose? If a blog could pull together content for different sources (RSS, Flickr, Twitter, whatever) with attribution, then how is that any different from using Google Reader or NetNewsWire to do the same thing?
Copyright infringement is bad, but there must be a model whereby a blog can create value by using syndicated content with attribution.
Some Ideas:
-Side-by-Side feeds from Left- and Right-Leaning sources.
-Top News Stories compared by region.
-Side-by-Side reviews of competing products (iPod vs Zune?)
-Flickr Feeds from popular photographers
-Aggregation of Tweets about a specific person or topic
As long as these are attributed, it is all fair use, providing links and exposure to the content producer. Isn’t this the core value of the web?
Brad
May 11th, 2008 1:44 am
Syndicating, as long as you credit the source and keep the original completely intact, is like a deejay playing tracks. You’re, in many case, introducing people to something they may not otherwise find., If people like the “song,” they’ll seek out the source. There’s no way to prevent syndicating - learn to live with it.
Muscle Post
May 11th, 2008 2:06 am
I don’t think syndicating content provides any real benefit for the original blogger or the re-user. You are stealing someone else’s ideas and trying to generate traffic off of them. If you want to use their ideas, then paraphrase what they say and give a link back to their site for more information. But simply copying their content verbatim is bad because it will hurt you in the search engines also for not having unique content.
Come up with your own ideas. If you want to base your ideas off of what someone else wrote, then do that. But don’t just reproduce what they already wrote and call it your own.
Gerald
May 11th, 2008 3:11 am
I think syndication can serve a purpose. From time to time an author may find some content that is particularly compelling, and may wish to syndicate it with proper credit.
If that author relies solely on syndication as a style, then I think their readership and success will naturally take care of themselves.
james
May 11th, 2008 3:16 am
I feel very strongly about this, because I often write fairly detailed original posts on my site. It reduces my posting frequency because I can’t simply bang off three posts in an hour, but it dramatically increases the quality of the site and ensures that people keep coming back.
Copying content from another site merely adds noise and duplicate content to the web. It’s also incredibly frustrating to have large and very popular sites copy an image you took along with a paragraph or two of your text and get dozens or hundreds of links as a reward for what basically amounts to plagiarism.
Of course, I have a secret weapon on my side - I love the topic I write about and have no shortage of great ideas.
anonymous coward
May 11th, 2008 3:25 am
Hilarious actually. Most people clearly say no to this kind of use.
Note that we’re discussing syndication here. But let’s be honest, it makes no difference if you do it manually or with some form of automation if the result is the same. A spam email remains a spam email whether I’ve written it personally or let my bot write them much faster.
Yes, some people don’t mind when a proper link is given. But the black blog (as someone called it) is a big no-no for most here. Ironically they all come here and follow the person who does what they just told they think is wrong.
anonymous coward
May 11th, 2008 3:29 am
I want to add that just because you do it, an authority in their eyes, will have a lot of people saying it’s ok (if you’d show them). But if they’d were shown the same blog by an unknown person first, they surely would say it’s stealing and unethical.
JoLynn from The Fit Shack
May 11th, 2008 3:48 am
It looks like there might be some misinterpretations of the definition of “syndicating content” here and there in the comments above.
Syndicating content means that someone else is taking your RSS feed and reposting it on their site. They are not writing/blogging anything of their own and adding value to the blogosphere but instead are regurgitating other bloggers’ hard work, sweat, and passion that they put into writing their original content.
Sydicating content does Not mean this - if I had a blog about blogging and I wanted to link to Darren’s post above and I wrote my own post about it, including a link to his article (of course, besides credit you want to get the attention of the other blogger) and wrote in my own post -
“one of Darren’s readers asked the question today: “Is syndicating content is kosher or not…ie running someone elses content through rss into ones own blog?” Here’s what I think about this (insert my thoughts) and when I read the comments on Darrens post here’s what the majority of bloggers thought (insert what I read and more of my thoughts about it). Then I’d go on about my experiences with this topic, etc. and suggest that my readers read the original post on Darren’s blog and especially to check out the comments section.
That’s Not syndicating content - that’s linking to another blogger whose post struck a chord with you and you wanted to write about it and tell your readers about it. It’s also a major way of building relationships with other bloggers in your niche, something that you read about often here at problogger. And actually, if I did have a blog about blogging I’d have done this instead of writing all of these comments on this post (lol).
There’s a HUGE difference between linking out to other posts to build relationships with other bloggers and simply scraping RSS feeds to try to make bucks with Adsense. And like Stephanie said at the top, why wouldn’t you just go to the source? Isn’t the reason that blogs like Darren’s are popular is because he’s writing his own content and speaking his own thoughts? How many times do we have to hear that content is king, but not just any content, Original content? ;)
You know if a splogger wanted to they could start a legit blog and start writing their thoughts, too - but that would involve a lot more work than just reposting another blogger’s feed and trying to piggyback on their labors.
Mike Colonna
May 11th, 2008 4:37 am
Some of these folks are taking their words to seriously. We create blogs so people can read and comment. Pass along our ideas, if they are meaningful, and judge them if they’re “off the wall!” Some bloggers write to vent and others create ideas so that readers will implement them. Famous bloggers talk politics, quote newsmakers, write about their own life experiences. My take is if you use others material, be sure to give them credit, if you don’t know where a story originated, then make that clear. Our words are translated around the world. In what context, who knows? If you do not want your words copied or rewritten, then warn your readers in advance. If your idea is quoted on radio, or TV, is that a copywrite infringement? Most bloggers, TV and radio commentators and newswriters, do not have a clue about copywrite laws! If a story originates with you than comment on it…and be grateful someone is reading your material!
Cathy Moore
May 11th, 2008 5:16 am
A bigger annoyance for me these days is people translating my content without linking back to my blog. They present my content as theirs, or they just mention my name without linking to me. These are complete translations, not paraphrasing.
I want to expand into the Spanish and Portuguese language markets, so it irks me to see my content already appearing there without any benefit to me.
Markus
May 11th, 2008 5:52 am
I think its fine, as long as the site links back to the original post, and does not claim it as their own. Would you all have a problem if Google News syndicating content from you page? Of course not!
Flabuless
May 11th, 2008 7:26 am
Hi all, Thanks for your comments! The reason why I am asking is that on my blog i want to have a section ‘Blog Showcase’ where I showcase other health/dieters blogs that are brilliant but may be new or obscure. As a way of introducing my readers to new great content out there. I have it set up so that those blogs are shown on their own unique category and permalinks point right back to the blog in question for commenting etc. The posts from this category are excluded from my own personal blog page so that people don’t get confused that I am writing it. And the author and blog name is clearly displayed underneath each post. I have been trialing it out with a mate’s blog- Steph, backinskinnyjeans. (with her permission of course) but I don’t want to do anything that is not ‘kosher’ thus my question.
Lara Kulpa
May 11th, 2008 7:27 am
I agree that most commenters here aren’t getting the difference between sharing points and quoting another blog, and ripping the post in it’s entirety to put on their site.
To quote another, cite (give credit), and add your own commentary is one thing (and perfectly acceptable in my opinion).
To post my full post on your splog and call me “Marie Von Clair” is NOT okay, NOT acceptable, NOT forgive-able, and just flat out laziness and rudeness.
Daylle Deanna Schwartz
May 11th, 2008 7:55 am
JoLynn, I agree there’s some misinterpretations of the definition of “syndicating content”. There are companies that syndicate articles to many publications, like newspapers and regional magazines. But the writer must give permission and there’s a formal agreement. Then the syndication company offers the article for use. There are fees paid for the use. There are several online syndication services that provide content for websites. They also need formal permission from the writer and then license use of the article to websites for a small fee. There are syndication companies that allow sites to use the articles for free. But they still must get formal permission from the writer.
Since I make my living from my writing I value any content I create. No one has the right to post an article in its entirety on their site without my permission. I write my blog because I enjoy it. But I still completely value the content, and my copyright.
Chris
May 11th, 2008 8:09 am
I think that syndicating someone else’s content isn’t cool. If you have found something that you really like and want to share it then you should make a short post with what you liked about it and a link.
Hilton Jones
May 11th, 2008 9:09 am
I received a comment on a post of mine about a local sushi restaurant. It seemed to be regarding posting a link from a site that specializes in assembling all blog posts on the Internet about sushi. After checking out the site, I approved the comment. The site links to my article permalink. This seems like a legitimate kind of referencing. It’s a little annoying that the person who refers the your site to the sushi site has their name listed in such a way that it looks as if they maybe wrote the article (it’s simply not clear), but the link is to me so there’s actually no ownership confusion, and…I guess it makes sense to list the person’s name who does the referring. Had they reposted the actual content as their own, however, I don’t think that would be legit.
Chicks With guns
May 11th, 2008 10:44 am
I syndicate content all the time, it’s perfectly all right if you give the writer credit and link to his/her blog.
I also syndicate webisodes from Revver. this is more than “Koser,” as the craetor of the video ond the magazine both get revenue from the syndication thanks to Revver.
Lisa
May 11th, 2008 1:16 pm
It’s just plain wrong and lazy to syndicate someone else’s content without their permission. I spend way too much time tracking down blog scrapers who are syndicating my content on a splog (often with no link to my site whatsoever). It’s amazing the rude responses I get when I contact these people. The arrogance is just startling. Be original. Write your own content. Don’t try and profit off others’ content.
Luis Cruz
May 11th, 2008 3:34 pm
Syndicating other people’s content on your own blog is NOT ok.
The only example of this I’ve seen that I actually approve of is a blogger that links to his girlfriend’s latest 3 posts (via RSS) on his sidebar.
Webpageblueprint
May 11th, 2008 4:58 pm
Is syndcating titles only without permission OK? The site you are syndicating is getting free backlinks and traffic without anything in return. But you are technically using their server resources. I am doing it on the site below. I cache the feeds for 6 hours (if I remember correctly).
http://www.webpageblueprint.com
Bob Morgan
May 11th, 2008 6:47 pm
Dont syndicate the whole feed… just a paragraph and a link
=]
Sue
May 12th, 2008 12:50 am
I know I’m late with this, but I too see people misinterpreting the difference between scraping and syndicating.
There is a blog that syndicates my content, in the form of headlines, through two ways. One is in the Spring Widget, which posts the headlines, and another is through some Google blogspot widget that does the same thing. I believe it’s set up through Google alerts. If you have a Feed Flare unit on your site, which someone can get easily from Feedburner to place on their page, that is also syndication.
Another way is if you are a member of say, Blogburst, which offers your feed to other sites such as Reuters, Chicago Tribune, and others. A link to your post that’s picked up will be placed at the end of the story on the main site.
All the above are syndication, and all of them are okay.
Trackbacks and pingbacks are not syndication, which some have mentioned as an argument.
Scraping, which most people are confusing with syndication, is NOT okay, and is NOT syndication.
Mitch
May 12th, 2008 2:31 am
No, I absolutely hate this. It’s irritating when you publish a post and immediately have a trackback to your blog, wondering who could have read it so fast, only to learn that your content is now on someone else’s blog because of your topic. That’s just not right.
Enterprising Energy
May 12th, 2008 7:23 pm
About 10% of the hits I get on one of my sites is from a site that has syndicated the content from my site.
I don’t mind as I have ended up accessing people from different communities that I feel would not have without this ‘partnership’.
I feel as long as both parties aim for a win win and nobody is cheating the other then it is cool.
Amber
May 12th, 2008 7:50 pm
Lately I have found some unsavory sites aggregating my feed. It is annoying to find that your content is the only content comming from these blogs. Especially if your content is no way associated with the blog “theme”.
In most cases there is no way to contact a person who uses your content - without your knowledge.
When a blog owner wants to showcase a post that is geared toward a certain subject, and properly links and names the source, I am all for it. It can be a great way to find new readers.
Or a site that you join allows syndicating of your feed you submit - This too is a great way to find new readers.
I use feedburner so I make sure now to add an attribution notice of where the content is from and the copyright, via feedburner’s “feedflare” on my outgoing feeds. This helps a little to appease my anxiety about content theft.
In most people’s opinions all content on the web is at their disposal for use as they please. This unfortunately is a huge problem - and it spans across language barriers too, because copyright notices become lost in translation.
I have noticed since being a flickr.com member, since the very begining, people assume all images on flickr are approved for use via creative commons. This is a common misconception and a very false one. In cases like flickr or bigger corporations that syndicate blogger content, I think it could be of value to the Internet as a whole to be more vocal about copyright and try educating people on it’s importance.
It is also unfortunate that the same copyright laws that we as content creators are trying to uphold - do not always protect our beloved content, due to gray areas associated with the Internet itself. Countless court cases have sided with the copyright holder - but due to the international laws not meshing with US laws, an offender ends up getting away, leaving the copyright owner with fees and lost money from over published images and content.
There is now a way to copyright mass images and digital files online - but you must pay to have it done. For allot of us this can be too costly - and if people are not upholding copyright in the first place, a waste of time.
I think that this subject will continue to be a hot circulating subject via the blogosphere.
A way of copyrighting content that is universal , is a must. Once that is settled then maybe we can discuss “syndicating” other people’s content - because we will all understand the complications involved.
Thomas Stachl
May 12th, 2008 11:43 pm
For me it is not ok to syndicate others content to you own site. I think it is ok to grap topics and write further information on it. It’s also ok to quote others but just syndicating others is a no go for me.
JoLynn from The Fit Shack
May 13th, 2008 12:01 am
@Daylle Deanna Schwartz, hi, I agree that it’s a totally different subject if you give permission. Blogburst, like Sue mentioned, is a company that will syndicate your content In Full (they will repost your complete article) BUT you are giving them permission to do so. Completely different situation if you’re giving permission - RSS scrapers feeding splogs don’t have permission.
@Flabuless, hi, it sounds like you’ve also got a situation where you have the permission of the blogger. If you don’t I personally would not repost another blogger’s full post (I wouldn’t want to do that even if I had permission, but if you have permission then you’re all set) but again it’s just the process of linking out when you post one or two sentences from the other blogger’s post and then write your own post about it with your opinions and comments about what they wrote.
Another idea to showcase other bloggers would be offering them to guest post on your blog - then the content would be unique and you’d still be showcasing the other blogger.
Mark Mahorney
May 13th, 2008 1:48 am
I syndicate my own content to my own blogs, where there is overlap. Also, I don’t see why more bloggers aren’t getting syndication deals and selling syndication rights, radio personalities and columnists have been doing it for guess at least a hundred years. The AP is one giant syndicate. Why not syndicate blog content?
The main difference is that one blog is just as available as the next, whereas radio only broadcasts to a geographic area, and papers only distribute to a geographic area. Still, some sites have a sort of geographic presence because of the volume and mix of their content, think MSN.com, etc…
Rob Norton
May 13th, 2008 2:43 am
I agree with at least the first few posts, which I’ll syndicate here: :)
I *have* on occasion plopped a post onto one of my blogs fully intending to go and edit it to fit my blog’s content and have gotten distracted by some other late breaking thing or another, and so syndicated it sits until I delete it.
What I _try_ to do is take other people’s great ideas for stories, or breaking news or whatever happens to be going on out there and relate it to one of my blogs somehow — i.e. when the “Emergency Party Button” was posted by Lifehacker Australia (http://lifehacker.com.au/) then syndicated by LifeHacker, I dugg it, and put it on my Musicology Site and talked about the choice of Haddaway’s “What is Love” as the “Emergency Party Song” which I thought was interesting and fit what I am talking about on that blog.
That’s my tusense.
Sue
May 13th, 2008 3:28 am
@Amber:
I agree with you about Flickr. I am always careful to use only CC licensed photos, unless I can’t find any. Then there are two alternatives: one is using the Blog This feature on most of the images, or, asking for permission to use the photo. I’ve never been denied that permission, btw.
One thing a lot of people forget when using the photos, no matter what the license is, is that there has to be a notice of the license, along with attribution. I hope and think I’m doing it properly.
Another site I will use is Webshots. Those allow for direct posting also.
But to get back on topic, once again, scrapers, splogs, pingbacks and trackbacks are NOT syndicating. People need to make that distinction.
@Flabuless: If you’re syndicating the way mentioned in this or my other post, I think it sounds kosher. Are you using one of the widgets or Google Alerts to do this? It almost sounds like you’re doing a blogroll, slightly enhanced. As long as it goes to the original post, then it’s really only known as linking, which is what the world wide web is all about. Good luck, and it’s great of you to highlight and give link love to other, lesser known blogs.
Caleb
May 13th, 2008 3:33 am
I have to agree with Popular Wealth. Also,It’s not plageurism if you have a few of their posts titles in your sidebar…it actually helps them as well as the readers.
We’re not talkng about straight-up copying a whole post and repasting it on your blog as if it’s you wrote it…
Chris Marshall | Martial Development
May 13th, 2008 5:35 am
I assume you are referring to the use of free, or properly licensed content here–stealing people’s Intellectual Property is definitely not OK.
I have nothing against syndication per-se, but as a publisher I avoid it, because the quality of available content is so very low. In my experience, people keep all the best articles for their own sites, and shovel their not-so-great stuff onto article repositories as a link-building tactic.
As a reader and subscriber, I avoid syndicated feeds like the plague. I certainly don’t want to tarnish my name/brand/reputation by inflicting them on others!
Mitch
May 13th, 2008 6:53 am
I think we should be clear about what we’re talking about. In my case, I’m talking about writing a post, saving it, and suddenly I see that it’s shown up on someone else’s blog literally within seconds. In essence, the other blog was created only to post what other people have written, even if it’s not the entire post, and doesn’t accept comments because it was set up only to make money, hopefully for those folks. This is what I have a major gripe with.
Intentionally linking to someone else who has written something you like and that you want to share is something entirely different, which we’ve all done, hopefully. The intentions are entirely different from someone who has no intention of ever creating any new content.
Kyle
May 13th, 2008 7:05 am
There is a way to syndicate feeds and link back to the permalinks of the original post. If someone was syndicating my content but all of the syndicated posts actually linked back to my permalinks, I’d be happy because I’d be building linkbacks.
If there is no link back to the permalink, then its a big no-no.
pomona belvedere
May 13th, 2008 9:52 am
Here’s an archaic (print) term which might clear up a lot of this confusion: review.
If you quote a part of something and attribute it, whether yuou discuss it or just link to it, that’s a review. (In the last case, the review consists of the fact that you like it enough to have the link on your blog.) If you take an entire article, you need to ask permission first.
If you take an entire article, don’t attribute it, don’t link, and don’t ask permission, that’s plagiarism. And yes, it is against the law, at least in the U.S. Once a person creates a work, they have automatic copyright, even if they don’t post the copyright notice or register.
Carla Alvarez
May 14th, 2008 1:17 am
I publish a community web site. The main articles are news and information on the area. But there is a section where I have syndicated feeds from local bloggers. An intro to the post is imported with a link back to the blogger’s site.
It is a win-win for both of us. It gives my site the flavor of local voices, and while some aren’t “article quality” it is very clear that they are blog posts from individuals. The bloggers have the advantage of added exposure for their site that they wouldn’t otherwise have and they are identified as a local. People like to follow who they know.
I’ve been adding the feeds very slowly because first I have to find them. Most of the people just blog to blog and do no other site promotion or networking.
Second, I have to determine if they are writing the types of posts I would want to promote on my site. I’m not going to give exposure to some obnoxious idiot.
If I think a blog would be a good fit, then I contact the owner and ask if they would like to participate.
Wayne
May 14th, 2008 3:26 am
Ya know, funny this post should pop up….
I recently shut down a site due to my own ignorance on the socialized rules around this. If a blog offers up an RSS feed, it does so at it’s own risk as far as I’m concerned. If you didn’t want people to take your content and republish it, why would you offer an RSS feed?
Yes, you may say it is there for the RSS readers of the world, and only them, but it’s a technology that you don’t control like that. An RSS feed can be used by the RSS readers, perhaps their intended purpose, but they can also be republished by blogging packages like Community Server. If the feed is put out to the world as full text, guess what? It will be full text where it is republished (most likely).
I don’t think that blame should fall on the republishers, after all, you provided it for them to use. To some extent, it’s like putting a candy bar in front of a sugar-hungry kid and telling him not to eat it. The world isn’t the utopia you thought it was, everyone is here for themselves these days (I blame overpopulation).
You can also say that, well, they should ask first or only republish the first xx characters of each post. Again, it’s there for the taking, and it will be taken, history teaches us that.
If you don’t want the full post to be republished, don’t allow your RSS feed to provide that. YOU need to control that. If you don’t want people republishing at all, don’t provide an RSS feed. You can control it in this manner, but most probably don’t and then complain about it.
All this “it’s a no-no so please don’t do it” is only asking for people to police themselves, which may work a bit, but in the end, it’s not 100% effective.
Here is an idea, what if RSS feeds required authentication? Hmm…problem solved? This would put the onus squarely on the bloggers lap to control who gets access to the feed. Now think about that a bit. If there WAS a security mechanism in place, you then would now have to manage and maintain all your subscribers..adding another level of administration to your duties of running a blog. Is that what we want?
I’m playing devil’s advocate here a bit, and hopefully I don’t sound overly obtuse. IMOHO, it’s the bloggers responsibility, after all, it’s their content. If you don’t control it, someone else will.
Welcome to Earth, enjoying your stay?
Reginald
May 14th, 2008 6:50 am
I agree with Stephanie wholeheartedly.
One hundred percent syndication of someone else’s work could very cause that persons website to get a higher ranking and leave your site without a valid rank.
kerwood
May 14th, 2008 1:32 pm
I do not believe syndication of someones work is appropriate especially if you do not have permission.
There are other areas involving creative commons works but taking someones content and passing it off as your own or providing their entire sites worth of content on your own is just in bad taste.
I had an experience once prior to my blogging days where I would write articles for “syndication” as long as you followed the rules involved in posting the content.
An attorney no less used one of my articles on his site to promote his law practice without following the proper terms and I complained.
It took me a while to “convince” him that the article was my own, and he took the proper action to continue using the article.
However, to my own amusement he used the article of someone else as well without following the TOS either. The article was based on copyright infringement. Knowing what I do, I do not think he is probably a great attorney either.
Adam Pieniazek
May 16th, 2008 6:01 am
Quoting an excerpt and linking back to the original source is simply using the internet the way it was designed to work.
Taking the full content of an article and reposting it on your own site (even with a link back to the original) without permission from the author is wrong. Duplicate content penalties, control of distribution, and the appearance that the reposted material is your own all add up to it being a no-no.
If you contact the author and they give you the go-ahead then obviously it’s OK, otherwise just quote an excerpt of the article and link back to the full, original article.
Michael
May 16th, 2008 9:34 pm
Do not repost someone elses content, if you quote some text from someone else’s blog and comment on it that would be okay, don’t just cut and paste or run their RSS feed into your blog, that is just terrible.
cake poker
January 25th, 2009 5:49 pm
just a quick hello and congratulations to your nice website ! i’ll visit you again!
Comments will be closed off on this post 90 days after it was published. Apologies to those this impacts but it's a regrettable and temporary measure to combat a growing comment spam problem. See our most recent posts where you can comment here.