Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: is copying planetpostgresql content

From: Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum <adsmail(at)wars-nicht(dot)de>
To: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: is copying planetpostgresql content
Date: 2008-05-27 07:50:10
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
On Mon, 26 May 2008 21:46:20 -0000 Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:

> > It seems this wiki is fetching all Planet PostgreSQL content and adding
> > anything to their own wiki - without even a link back to planet.
> > Any planet link is rewritten to match the wiki structure.
> Not sure what you mean by this? EVery article I looked at does link back to
> the originating blog. All the links in my article, for example, still work
> exactly as I wrote them:
> or:

Every article which in original comes from planetpg is copied and
linked into this wiki. Links to external websites are fine.

> > In addition they change any license to: "All original text is available
> > as Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike".
> That means any text *not copied from somewhere else* is under CCA-S. In
> other words, anything created on their site. Which seems perfectly valid
> to me.

That's not what is written in the license statement, that's your
opinion. By the way, you can't see a difference between what's original
by swik and what's copied from planet - because anything appears as
being in the swik wiki.

As example:

The full text appears as written in this wiki, even the link "Return to
Planet PostgreSQL" in the upper right corner is a link back into this
wiki and not back to planetpg.

Fine, the "read more" links back to the original article, but this link
is very small, given all the other links on this website. An aggregator
(like planet) links the article back to the original blog site, this
wiki links all posts into his own wiki and just adds this small "read
more" link.

> > This behavior gives (of course) top positions in any search engine
> > result - but i'm not sure that all planet feeds find this amusing.
> > Just spoke with Devrim about that and his opinion is to let the
> > community decide.
> What makes you think that they get "top position" in a search engine result?
> Searching for "DBD::Pg tracing" gives my original article as the top result,
> with not even showing up at all.

What makes me think? I found out because i searched for something which
i know it is on planet (sorry, it's almost 4 days ago, don't know the
keyword anymore but i wanted to wait until i spoke Devrim) and this
wiki was the number one hit, even before planetpg.

> They are simply parsing the RSS feed, and they *do* link back to planetpostgres,

<a href="">Return to Planet

I see.

They are not just "simply parsing" the feed, they publish the
content from the feed without asking anyone and they try to hold you
in that wiki as long as possible by rewriting all planetpg links. As
others stated out: we make an effort to unify all PG blogs and they
undermine this attempt. What's wrong with "simply parsing" the feed,
publish the headline and then link back to the original article like
others do?

> If they weren't linking back to PP at all, this might matter, but because they
> do, this is actually a good thing and probably helps PP's Google rating.

It of course helps the swik rating, that's all.

Kind regards

				Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
German PostgreSQL User Group

In response to


pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Aidan Van DykDate: 2008-05-27 13:29:27
Subject: Re: is copying planetpostgresql content
Previous:From: Andrew SullivanDate: 2008-05-27 02:21:50
Subject: Re: is copying planetpostgresql content

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group