Perhaps I have misjudged the purpose of the Slashdot website and perhaps I owe it's creators/owners/moderators an apology.
It appears that whilst relying upon user input for its existence (and the time said users take to craft meaningful and useful content) it is the prerogative of the owners to take said content and rewrite it in the interests of the reader.
As a blogger, I find this concept difficult to understand as when guest bloggers or contributors provide content for my website, I ensure that their links are preserved as written to give them the benefit of subsequent referral traffic.
I had not realised that the courtesy of reciprocity did not apply to slashdot contributors.
For my ignorance in this matter, I apologise.
I would not dream of asking someone to contribute to my website and then linking to someone else's blog from their content. Would you? Of course not. Yet it's ok for/. because it's their party?
OK - let's get this straight. Submitting to Slashdot is supposed to be a selfless act and "shame on me" for being disappointed that the link was replaced because, heaven forbid, I may have made a few quid from the advertising (which by the way barely covers hosting costs)
Yet Slashdot makes money from advertising on the site and from the community. That's perfectly acceptable (and yes, in my eyes it is perfectly acceptable)
Why shame on me?
You're right, the linked to blog does pre-date mine, however it was my submission that was accepted and my form of words that makes up the body of that submission. It would have been nice to get the recognition for that work...
In answer to your comment about ad dollars - I fully expect that slashdot readers don't click on ads. The ads that do appear on my site barely cover the hosting costs, let alone my time in maintaining the website.
My blog is there to warn internet users about the dangers of online fraud and scams of this very nature. Whilst the posting of my article helps to do that (for which I am grateful to Slashdot) yes, I had hoped that the editors would post the article as written (including the link) as Slashdot stories are widely re-blogged and yes, I would have benefitted from the backlinks. That's a valid reason for including the link and for being disappointed that it was replaced - isn't it?
Dear Slashdot:
I submitted the above story this morning and was pleased when it was accepted for publication on your website.
However, I was a little peeved to find that the link I included in the story - was substituted in the final story with this one
Obviously this substitution removes any benefit whatsoever of my having taken the time to write the blog post and submit it to slashdot in the first place.
Any chance of swapping the link back?
Hi there. I'm the owner of Scam Detectives.
You'll either believe that the interview happened or you won't. That's your choice and I'm only here to report what happened, not to try and convince you of it's authenticity.
"John" came back for another chat. You can read about it here - http://www.scam-detectives.co.uk/blog/2010/02/02/interview-with-a-scammer-part-three/
Or not. It's up to you guys!
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps I have misjudged the purpose of the Slashdot website and perhaps I owe it's creators/owners/moderators an apology. It appears that whilst relying upon user input for its existence (and the time said users take to craft meaningful and useful content) it is the prerogative of the owners to take said content and rewrite it in the interests of the reader. As a blogger, I find this concept difficult to understand as when guest bloggers or contributors provide content for my website, I ensure that their links are preserved as written to give them the benefit of subsequent referral traffic. I had not realised that the courtesy of reciprocity did not apply to slashdot contributors. For my ignorance in this matter, I apologise.
support appreciated - thank you!
I would not dream of asking someone to contribute to my website and then linking to someone else's blog from their content. Would you? Of course not. Yet it's ok for /. because it's their party?
Because you're being a selfish prick.
I truly value your input. Thank you.
OK - let's get this straight. Submitting to Slashdot is supposed to be a selfless act and "shame on me" for being disappointed that the link was replaced because, heaven forbid, I may have made a few quid from the advertising (which by the way barely covers hosting costs) Yet Slashdot makes money from advertising on the site and from the community. That's perfectly acceptable (and yes, in my eyes it is perfectly acceptable) Why shame on me?
You're right, the linked to blog does pre-date mine, however it was my submission that was accepted and my form of words that makes up the body of that submission. It would have been nice to get the recognition for that work... In answer to your comment about ad dollars - I fully expect that slashdot readers don't click on ads. The ads that do appear on my site barely cover the hosting costs, let alone my time in maintaining the website.
My blog is there to warn internet users about the dangers of online fraud and scams of this very nature. Whilst the posting of my article helps to do that (for which I am grateful to Slashdot) yes, I had hoped that the editors would post the article as written (including the link) as Slashdot stories are widely re-blogged and yes, I would have benefitted from the backlinks. That's a valid reason for including the link and for being disappointed that it was replaced - isn't it?
Not trolling, just peeved that my link was ripped out yet the body of the story is identical
Ha ha! very droll!! Original submission is here
Dear Slashdot: I submitted the above story this morning and was pleased when it was accepted for publication on your website. However, I was a little peeved to find that the link I included in the story - was substituted in the final story with this one Obviously this substitution removes any benefit whatsoever of my having taken the time to write the blog post and submit it to slashdot in the first place. Any chance of swapping the link back?
Hi there. I'm the owner of Scam Detectives. You'll either believe that the interview happened or you won't. That's your choice and I'm only here to report what happened, not to try and convince you of it's authenticity. "John" came back for another chat. You can read about it here - http://www.scam-detectives.co.uk/blog/2010/02/02/interview-with-a-scammer-part-three/ Or not. It's up to you guys!