Community Page
- www.ohgizmo.com Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- Also not so fun after your kid figures out he can leave the phone at home, ends up getting raped or something with no way to call for help.
- will the lasers affect my speed trap detector?
- Are you sure you don't mean "doesn't work with Netflix"?
- You knew it would come to this. Too many kids playing their video games for too long. Actually, I've seen even a better tool than this! It's called Pass2Play.com and it makes kids earn...
- You knew it would come to this. Too many kids playing their video games for too long. Actually, I've seen even a better tool than this! It's called Pass2Play.com and it makes kids earn...
Jump to original thread »
OhGizmo! » Archive » Airing Dirty Laundry: Engadget’s Exclusionist Tactics Are NOT An Isolated Incident
Started by dponce80 · 10 months ago
3 years ago
Check this link -
http://www.engadget.com/2004/07/29/free-sony-we...
Notice how Engadget mentions this Gear Live article:
http://www.gearlive.com/index.php/news/article/...
They even use an image from Gear Live.
They even MENTION Gear Live by name. Notice - there is no link to Gear Live. Let me guess - another database error, right?
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
Being part of a larger conglomerate, it would certainly make sense for a site like Engadget to keep traffic within the Weblogs, Inc. family. As you said, sleazy but not in violation of any standards I know of. This would also make more sense than an arbitrary "blacklist". I'm not one to jump to conclusions, but I will certainly keep my eye out and let you know if I see any such patterns. I read both your site and Engadget on a daily basis and come to your site specifically because I will not get the same kind of repetition I get from bouncing back and froth between Engadget and Gizmodo. If there is any truth to this, it should be noted and corrected. You deserve some recognition for your hard work.
3 years ago
3 years ago
http://www.smorty71.com/2006/03/jason-calacanis...
3 years ago
They didn't give credit to ANYONE until someone complained. The person that complained, they had ripped off directly. The other article they dug up was just to discredit him even more.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/07/how-to-make-...
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
Call it Sneaky/ Interesting stuff!?
- don't forget to explain that every one of thses has tipped and not been credited.
[This is really a method of detectingparticular activity by using statistics. ]
Perhaps you can then use this as your edge - Identifing intentional misdeeds by statistical methods. I think that this might have a much
larger and more useful applications then appears at first sight.
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
---
http://www.wirah.com
3 years ago
Good. Then shut up.
Honestly, if this is what you need to do to get attention (levelling accusations you don't have "hard proof" for) then you aren't working hard enough.
3 years ago
2. United you stand, divided you fall... How about making one hub? Engadget would surely notice.
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
But I have to say a few things, of course, in defense. Now I have never met Ryan, Peter, Marc, etc. I have spoken at length with a few Weblogsinc people, and every single one of them was above board. Weblogsinc has been the best company I've ever had the honor of working with, and I'd wager any blogger currently working with them will tell you the same-- from the published authors to the stay-at-home moms.
I can tell you from my personal experience that sometimes, in the fog of blogging, the source of sources will pass us by. I've been burned by tips that seemed to link to the origin, but just linked to their blog, trying to get hits.
Do we link to each other? Yes, it'd be stupid not to. But do that too much and we lose Google juice, because they can just say we're a link farm.
Keep this in mind: there is no Big Brother when it comes to Weblogsinc. Calacanis gives us nothing but "be true, be real" all the time. Seriously, the guy does give a damn about credibility. I don't know what's been going on with your particular situation, except that I'd bet between the volume of posts and bloggers running around (and no real central authority, as is our nature), the links have slipped through the cracks.
This could be a matter of perspective. Or it *could* be a massive conspiracy. I'm not sure to what end, as it would be detrimental to our blogs overall to treat any level blog this way...
So I apply the Judge Judy rule, if it doesn't make sense, it probably isn't true. What's more likely, that GW Bush arranged for the Taliban to fly planes into the towers (yet he's an idiot anyway???), or that some nutcases decided to go nuts? Is Engadget involved in a cover-up program of blogging billions proportions, or are they humans, prone to screwing up on an individual basis? I'll let everyone else be the judge.
I read your blog though... once in a while...
3 years ago
How come engadget has NEVER posted a gizmodo link?
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
Kudos to David
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
Think about it like a book (books and blogs/news blogs are both forms of writing after all), a book by an incompetent writer is not usually a good book, otherwise you would call the writer very competent indeed. And forging where the stories come from? Anyone ever been to univeristy? Please, tell the people what happens if you're caught for plagarism.
Neither is good, and they have to be one or the other...
3 years ago
Engadget does not use trackbacks, therefore it is not a blog. They try to fool you by having a link entitled linking blogs when it's just a technorati search.
The answer is simple demand for engadget to use trackbacks, ping their sources AND post the link to the source.
It's simple etiquette ALL "real" blogs should follow
3 years ago
3 years ago
I'm just trying to figure out, how does it benefit Engadget not to link to you?
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
The tone of the conversation is subjective, besides don't fight your gut feeling. It's a reason that thing keeps wanting to come out. that's because it needs to be shared.
It may be ugly but from the way you describe it, it will probably make everyone see things clearly and more than likely will help us all.
3 years ago
Recent Comment:
Okay, I'll ask... When were you lying? When you said you didn't have proof or when you said you did?
3 years ago
In a way, I feel that my mentioning this "extra info" has been a mistake. People are pouncing on it, and blowing it out of proportion, as if I had some sort of smoking gun that I'm, for some devious reason, purposely hiding. It's nothing of the sort. If it was pivotal to the case, ugly as I feel it is, I would have mentioned it. It's just a few more little details that, when considered as part of a greater context, help paint a slightly clearer picture.
If you wish to know more, you may contact me directly, and we can discuss this privately. The email is always "editor" at this domain. Only know that I have every intention to keep what I tell you private.
And Vinny, when you learn to adopt a tone that isn't agressive and confrontational, maybe I'll pay attention to you. I "noticed" you in the digg comments just fine, I'm just choosing to ignore you.
3 years ago
Way to go, liar.
3 years ago
They know better than anyone that a new site can come from nowhere and become a high-traffic site. Isn't that how Engadget was born?
It is also true that Weblogs Inc is a linkfarm. It's not really illegal to do so, obviously, but that's the way it is.
If you don't like them, don't link to them, or do the same thing as they do: link some other obscure blog instead of linking to engadget.
3 years ago
1 year ago