Ask HN: Does comment syndication bother you? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Does comment syndication bother you?

4 pointszeedotme10 comments

Guys, I wanted to ask your thoughts on comment syndication

Two YC startups, Backtype and Disqus both provide publishers/bloggers with ways to collect comments about their content from across the web in the comments section of the page/post (and includes the username and link back to the original comment)

Can you please vote: 1. Yes I mind 2. No, I don't mind

Many thanks.

View on HN

I think it's a very useful technology, and I don't think anything should be done to prevent people from doing it (edit: publishing that data needs to be done carefully to avoid plagiarism). The web is the web, and any available information is, in my opinion, up for grabs. Of course, there are exceptions, but I think if you post a comment on a publicly-viewable website, it's public domain.

However, having said that, I know someone who keeps very close tabs on people using similar software - and the information he's found about them is actually disconcerting. What he does borders on harassment, I think.

We use the Backtype plugin on TheNextWeb (example here: http://thenextweb.com/2009/06/02/web-death-google/) and up until now, we have had no complaints and only requests for how people could do it themselves. Today, one person, a Hacker News reader Gojomo (http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=gojomo) called us out then called us "sleazy" which frankly, whether comment syndication is a problem or not, is just out of order.

(Because I've been called out here, and it pertains to this discussion, I reproduce here my response from http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=641001 )

Zee M Kane of TheNextWeb asks me via Twitter:

@gojomo regarding how your comments about us and "comment syndication" - why do you have to automatically go the ultra negative route?

Because you've breached important norms: that I decide where my name and writing appears, and that content contributed to one site isn't bulk-republished at another site for commercial gain.

If you wanted to take occasional hand-selected quotes -- "gojomo at Hacker News makes a good point when he says..." etc. -- that's fair and respectful, even flattering. But scraping and merging every HN comment into your own discussion threads is sleazy, barely a notch above the splogs that grab blocks of others' text unattributed for search-engine spamming.

Attribution is not enough to legitimize the tactic at this indiscriminate scale.

Also: Your presentation removes the threading and feedback mechanisms so important to HN discussions. You add 'nofollow' on the backlinks you do provide. Your iPhone interface includes a prominent YC commenter icon that (when it appears on 7-of-8-comments on your site) implies an affiliation or endorsement where none exists.

The whole thing reeks, and that you don't yet perceive the problem justifies an even more "ultra negative" tone than I've already adopted.

I agree, it's sleazy as hell. Who gave you permission to copy comments written here onto you blog? I don't care what they're "reacting" to, those comments were not written by you and you have no right to republish them.

Example of this behaviour: http://thenextweb.com/2009/06/03/bad-news-ibm-apple/

What's irritating is the "Discussions" section on your front page.

It makes it seem as though the user is commenting on your site; not that you're scraping it off of another site.

I understand what you're saying but you gotta appreciate it's rather difficult to get round. Plus, I still feel it's discussion based on our content and rather reasonable to have there.

So because someone talks about what you've written you feel it gives you license to do as you please with THEIR content (i.e. their comments)?

By that logic, you give Google, Microsoft and everyone else you write about permission to reprint your content. That can't be your intention, can it?

I'm saying that it looks misleading the way you have it on your page. I don't really care one way or the other, I'm just telling you what it looks like.

"I still feel it's discussion based on our content and rather reasonable to have there"

By that logic, any and all of the companies you discuss on your site have the right to republish anything you write, since it's "based on their content" (press releases/announcements). Is that "rather reasonable" as well?

absolutely! as long as they link back - for sure.

Monetising your content with ads, and setting rel="nofollow" like you do? I have a hard time believing you'd be as delighted as you claim.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com