Aggregation has become the dirty word of the digital age and the recent sale of the Huffington Post has sparked an outcry to boycott aggregators who “steal other journalists’ content.” Aggregator sites post information taken from other sources, providing only a link to the original content. The aggregator makes money off this content; but the creator, often a true journalist, is not compensated.
It’s not just writers and readers who are agitated by aggretators, traditional news outlets are getting back into the fray as well… “many media companies who are used to seeing their scoops get picked off, previously decided that legal action wasn’t worth the bother. But with aggregators cashing in on the work of of journalists, they might feel differently now,” writes David Carr of the New York Times.
} – 
isn’t that what edhat does?
yes, but that’s ok, because they are a “community”…now off to the censor box for questioning their editorial policies!
Now that keyboarding for free has replaced real reporting, and “citizen journalists” are happy just to get their names in print, the profession of journalism has been diminished, and so has our knowledge of what’s really going on behind the scenes. That’s why we’re all so surprised to find out salaries of public officials and the price tags of RDA projects. But it’s all after the fact and sad, sad, sad for democracy. In the meantime Arianna and other “aggregators” laugh all the way to the bank, figuring how to monetize an upaid labor force pinning community trivia and recycled stories on their glorified bulletin boards.
If any news organization or journalist wants to keep their material off an aggregator, or shall I say Edhat, all they have to do is ask. Do you think Edhat is forcing people to submit content?
So sites either need a paywall or they need to seek out every linking aggregator and personally ask them not to linkjack their stories?
I don’t see it black and white like that. Believe me, I probably share some of you opinions of Ed. But look, I posted some photos today at noon, right now, less than five hours later I’ve had over 1,000 hits. Do I get paid? No, but do I operate within the Edhat system? More or less. If there’s another site in SB that will give the same freedom to post and the same amount of hits I’ll post there.
Great shots of the old hotel. It has been a shame to see the half finished hulk and hope that they are able to preserve/recreate some of the former glory of the place my Grandparents spent their honeymoon during WWII shore leave. As Bill Heller has proven here, good photography will find it’s own audience while sites that post every little bit of drivel they are sent start driving folks like Goleta Jim away. Your El Encanto post would have been a good fit for the higher quality of article on the sbview.com.
BTW, those 1000K hits are not unique visitors. As the editor of this site has shown, edhat has a habit of inflating it’s traffic by using total clicks vs unique visitors, which is why they have such a hard time gaining advertisers. I just added 5 hits to your link there before writing this.
Well, thanks for those five hits. And again, I have my issues with Ed. As a friend of mine said, “Fox News get’s more hits than any other cable news, but it doesn’t mean they are the best.”
This site doesn’t seem to be set up for a photographer like me. Bill has his once a week submission and it works for him. I like to post more often, sometimes twice a day.
I hate the drivel of Edhat as much as you. But they don’t listen to me, and other web/blogs don’t accommodate me and how often I like to post.
Maybe the end result is people contacting me through Facebook. That seems to be the only site that I have 100% control.
Edscat has a hard time getting advertisers because of their poor me, hate the rich mentality and posters continually looking for cheap ways to cadge valuable goods and services. Advertisers don’t make money with those demographics.
Better yet! What if you’d got paid.
Agree great shots! If you R getting that traffic and they R getting 40k from subscription Dan needs his cut!!
As Dan, I also submit photos to edhat and (for the most part) appreciate that they are published and that at least some are liked. One of the original photo posters, I do it less often now because there are now so many sharing their photos and why duplicate! I enjoy sharing and also I appreciate the opportunity to show some of the issues that seabirds face, to raise consciousness even if slightly.
As Dan, also, I would wish edhat were a bit different, but unlike him, I don’t use my own name there (or, usually, here.) I quite like the anonymity, but think it does allow both trivia and nastiness and I try to avoid both. However, it’s interesting, depressing, to see what people are like when they’re hidden. Interesting and surprising to see how mean are so many of the comments.
To me, edhat is a bit of mystery. Twice, they’ve said they want, are looking for content. I replied twice, most recently a couple of weeks ago, feeling a loyalty for all the photos published; no reply. That being so, I sent my report on the SB Conservancy here and also one on the SB Institute on World Affairs….
Betsy, first thank you for your recent submissions. You can read Betsy’s wrap up about the Santa Barbara Institute on World Affairs in the new Arts & entertainment section. Secondly, our set-up is designed to showcase contributors and sections can be developed around quality content. Lastly, the subject of anonymity well was addressed by James Rainey, here: http://lat.ms/hcwG0t . While many site are moving towards the requirement of a Facebook profile, the Santa Barbara View has been blessed with the best commentators on the web; so we’ll leave it open.
Edhat shows that the more you try to censor people, often the worse their outbursts. If I had to choose between sklar style stripping of identity or siebert style identity verification, I’d side with dan all day long.
Thanks, Editor! And thanks to Cheri, too. I’ll continue to offer stuff occasionally, special events kind of thing.
As for the anonymity or not, there are good arguments both ways. What I like about it is that there can be a concentration on what’s said rather than the inevitable focus on who’s saying it. Whatever… but very much thanks, SBV, for existing. Cheri’s insightful pieces are really needed here where all tend to get too comfortable……
This is long, but it’s the truth as to why I post with my real name.
Three or four years ago there was an Edhat link about someone throwing a brick through the window of Sullivan & Goss. There was an art display of thousands of toy soldiers as a protest to the war in Iraq. The artist was Steve Cushman.
I knew that Steve was from the SB Chamber of commerce and that he had cut down a tree in front of the Metro Four theaters. So I posted this,
“This act is better than any of the art on State street. A brick through the window. I love it. And Steve Cushman is an artist? Funny, he’s the one that cut down the cherry tree. . . No wait, that was G. Washington. Now I got it, Cushman cut down the tree in front of the theater on State street.”
(This was stupid, fueled by too many Tecates on my part.)
The next morning, . . .OMG!, what have I done? I insulted both the director of the C of C, and the owner of the most respected art gallery in town. . . . That day Frank Goss posted a response on Edhat, saying all of the anonymous comments were out of line, including the one by DAN39. I was mortified, since I posted with my Edhat handle. So I owned up. I identified myself, and said I was sorry. Frank responded by inviting me to his gallery to view the soldier exhibit. The next day I went.
We had a pleasant conversation and this experience taught me to be honest with my posts, and also to realize that there are humans on the receiving end.
Since then I have used my name when I post here and on Edhat.
(Yet the Tecates still fuel some regrettable and cringeworthy comments.)
Great story and fascinating thread
I’ve boycotted edhat for years not because of this but because of the drivel. I almost wish they’d go back to linking to just news. And I’m pretty sure the LATimes isn’t submitting content, there’s clearly a guy or gal scouring the web for links.
What’s up? I saw a man walking with a yellow hat…anyone know anything about this?
What would Palminteri think?
It must be an establishment conspiracy so I am against all men with yellow hats. Who can afford yellow hats and live in this town anyway. Plus my supervisor is complaining I spend too much time on the city computer during working hours.
It’s strange that we have to discuss Edhat policy on SBView, but such is the way of the world. I use my real name all the time because it makes me focus on the topic. If my comments seem rude then that’s the Scorpio in me. I won’t hide my nature. I have a real life stinger, heaven help those that I sting.
Regarding Betsy, I couldn’t believe Ed allowed the (inappropriate term) comment about your Hopper photo. If Edhat was my site I would have banned that person for a month. The good folks at Ed will have to deal with this sooner or later, otherwise those of us that fuel the site will move on.
If that’s their vision of a community, where you need to pay to even have a name and can’t even discuss the rules without being censored, then it is the embodiment of the very worst parts of our town. Just check the demographics listed on their site info and you will see the narrow range of voices represented there.
I have never understood why it is not allowed to discuss or, apparently, even mention the rules. …I’ve been relegated to the nanny bin several times for attempting to do so and now no longer bother. After all, it’s their site…. The concept of edhat is wonderful and perhaps it was inevitable that there would be such changes; doesn’t everything run downhilll?
I have not seen the demographics, e_s, where are they?
Thanks, Dan, for your defense of the photo. I learned from that experience, partly to submit fewer photos – that was the first in more than a month, I think, and, second, to watch how I describe them. I have admired your being thicker skinned than I (and of course admired your photos and your being out there, taking the time and effort to share.)
I know someone who’s got a non-profit who has been absolutely trashed by comments on edhat. They were disbelieving at first, but are now going to be much more careful in their submissions…. It’s probably a good lesson, but it was a painful one.
Bottom of the page. Nice slice if old, white upper class rosy colored elitism.
http://www.edhat.com/site/tidbit.cfm?id=1105
you’re telling me. check out my blog for some documented, good ol’ Edhat elitism. last I checked that member is still posting.
Really? I thought that “middle finger to the nanny” comment was an anti-EdHat comment. Besides, it’s not like EdHat needs encouragement to censor viewpoints it doesn’t like.
I just hope some day Charlie Sheen will have something to say about this…
But Seriously, imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. I practically teared up when I heard the HUFFINGTON POST felt it necessary to boycott those with no concept of respecting others rights!
Ha. I remember the good folks at EdHat calling me a freeloader because I didn’t buy a subscription. When I pointed out that news aggregation sites were also freeloaders I was banned.
The irony is that your humorous commentary probably brought more visitors than 100 “what’s up?” posts that dominate today’s edhat.
Thanks man! That site could have been cool, if they’d only left us alone to develop into a community …
Im sure the NP send a cease and desist letter and other publishers should do the same it it bothers them. Interesting in that link from Smurf has ED criticizing the Independent but the link to them. Not sure how this helps the INDY.
I think the N-P would be happy to be linked (but how do I know!?) but probably not to be quoted extensively, to be aggregated. All publications are helped by having more readers, especially more readers that might click on the advertisements.
Fwiw, I appreciate Edhat and am disappointed by the level of comments there, that is, by the apparent middle school level of online communications and interests. The What’s Up? and police/fire reports seem to be the main interests in SB; maybe they are everywhere. The Nannyfication, though, is a bit much and, at the same time, too little.
the reason edhat has more hits than the Independent is because it takes like three clicks to get to news. If they Indy had an entry page they would get twice the hits too. There’s no way their model will work in other markets especially when they’re not part of communities like Ventura. Its worked somewhat here because of the fires and years of history.
Oh come on. Once you go to Edhat and see Local News you bookmark the page, right? Who wants to navigate through three pages?
The reason I go to Edhat often, is because it’s updated all the time. New stories, new comments, new new. . .
The Indie and the N-P only post their content, of course they have fewer hits.
Nothing new about petty censorship (psst…never works as intended as we see by the decreasing level of discourse over there)
What one does see on edscat is the predictable slide into incoherence when there is any thread on pot. Proof positive what this “recreational” drug does to mental acuity. (Ooops, I mean what this legitimate medicine does to cognitive function.)
It takes me several clicks to get into Edhat – and, no, I don’t bookmark the Local News page. I do visit the site frequently because of the frequent updating of “news” and comments. And, yes, agreeing with e_s, censorship does have unintended consequences.
…HAPPY BIRTHDAY, PETER! Edhat is definitely a valuable contribution to Santa Barbara. May it continue to evolve. Thanks for it!
Um, anybody ever heard of “Associated Press”? Thats what SBNP pays into to print drivel.
edit correction: editor: please remove the immediately priors:
Not advocating boycotting edhat or anything, but its true nature was glimpsed last night. They posted the death of Osama bin Laden. Someone wrote that Bush could not accomplish this – post banned by the Nanny; someone else wrote in asking why was the news of Osama’s death considered local news: banned also without the courtesy of a reply.
A subscriber, wanting to support local media, as I’ve subscribed here, I doubt that I will renew my subscription to edhat nannification where questions about policies won’t be answered and Osama can be mentioned but Bush can not!
I unsubscribed from the email and haven’t visited the site in a month. Don’t miss a darn thing.
Happens every day. I’d say half of my stuff never even makes it to the nanny bin, though I can’t find mention of this policy.
(Judge for yourself )
COMMENT 169455 DELETED
2011-05-02 07:29 AM
Reagan’s budget cuts and overhaul of tax codes led to an explosion of homelessness in the U.S. during his 8 years in power. Google: Reagan/Homeless
COMMENT 169457P TWO (2) MINUTES LATER
2011-05-02 07:31 AM
Worth 1,000 words- who wants to sit on those benches after those guys? Google “scabies” or bedbugs or lice.
(NOTE: Comment number and time )
Nice to see Ed poach the terminal story and use it as their hot top ic of the next day. Really bad. Cut and Paste.
deleted comment check: “Wasn’t this posted on the Santa Barbara View yesterday? Why not just cite the source?
The source is cited. The information was taken directly from the City website.”
take what you will from that. it’s totally possible Ed did just that scanning the City website for something to aggregate on their site. either way, it doesn’t change what Edhat is, we all know that.
Can’t find anything in the policy that would lead this to be deleted, but Ed seems to feel any comment on site content is considered an attack and must be removed (nice community btw). Consider yourself lucky, mine often don’t even make it to the nanny page.
This happens a lot on edscat. They do protect their own biases. As they should – it is a slim margin, volunteer operation so they get to write their own rules.
The information on the City website was for a meeting that took place Tuesday and had no value on Wednesday. Weird.
The notion that publishers should put up a pay wall(ask European publications how this worked out for them) or take legal action against aggregators is beyond absurd. Hit me up when Rupert Murdoch decides to sue Google, the largest aggregator on the planet.
As long as aggregators are adhering to fair use and crediting the original source, then they are playing by the rules and deserve to be compensated for their curation services. As a curation service and aggregator, we’ve never once had a source request to be removed from our feed. We do however get requests from publishers to add them to our source list daily. The trend of publishers taking legal action against the very entities that send them traffic really boggles the mind. It’s not like they have clear distribution channels based on their obsolete business models.
“What one does see on edscat [sic] is the predictable slide into incoherence when there is any thread on pot. Proof positive what this “recreational” drug does to mental acuity. ”
And most of the ‘predictable slide’ begins with exactly this type of snarky comment from uinformed non-users. Trying to share some of the positives about medical marijuana and being dismissed as a ‘drug addict’ is a deterrent to further conversation. But this happens on the comment sections of most all commercial news outlets … an unwillingness to challenge ‘prevailing prejudice’ for fear of offending the ‘paying’ readership.
You don’t smoke any drug. The slide into pothead incoherence continues.
If MM is of certain medical value, it should be legalized for that purpose and sold, as other medicines, in pharmacies. Until that happens, it will be seen by many (most?) of us who do not use as a recreational drug. Nothing necessarily wrong with that: millions enjoy alcohol legally, but the uncertain status of marijuana – medicine or illegal drug? – creates uncertainty and fingerpointing. …Btw, what does this have to do with the topic, aggregators?
The only medical research on pot is done with controlled, calibrated prescription grade products like Marinol. You can do no medical research with any other form of pot. Any claims to the contrary are part of the massive pot-head drug-trafficking scam proving yet again common sense and coherence goes out the window when tokes are lighted up.
“Medical” marijuana is an excuse to get high while lying to yourself at the same time. Doctors don’t write prescriptions for alcohol prn. Until stoners stop conning themselves they are using pot as medicine, they will never get well. Society additionally is wasting a new crop of expensively trained physicians who have opted out of health care for the far more lucrative racket dispensing pot authorizations as partners instead in this murky drug-traffiking netherworld.