The Social Network For The Recruiting Industry

Digging Into RecruitngBlogs.com v1.15

Rating: No Rating

I've been thinking about writing an article. I want to get back into the groove of daily publishing. Really, it's just about me. I like the discipline. I did it for 14 years. I've taken a year off. I miss it.

I was going to call the article "Monster Baiters".

I wanted to point out the fact that some widely read bloggers seem to make an enormous amount of hay at Monster's expense. It turns out that the harshest critics are deeply supported by Monster's competition. It's hard to find an independent voice that actually cares about Monster's service. The motivation behind most monster baiting is strictly commercial.

The high volume of negativity comes from a few sources. They all benefit economically from making the criticism. That's Monster Baiting (or at least mental monster baiting).

(That's funny because it's a play on words. It's not a mispelling. One of the toughest things about the web is that word play is hard to notice in a sea of bad grammar and terrible spelling. The tsunami of content generated by new publishing methods seems to be driving the common denominator to new lows.)

Recently, I've been talking with a lot of people about literary rights, web publishing, expectations and how to assess quality.

There is no shortage of noise online. The interesting thing about the legal system is that it protects crap exqactly the same way it protects genius. One idiot's self-flagellation is accorded the same merit as the pure insight that drives fortunes. Copyright law protects authors, regardless of their worth.

There's an unstated assumption that all content is equal around the web as well. The theory seems to be that traffic is the determing factor. All things are equal to start. Attention is how you tell the great from the mediocre.

There's a lot of this simplemindedness going around. People who can't seem to rent a good idea whine incessantly about violations of their rights. What's weird is that you have to protect them in order to protect the stuff that's actually worth protecting.

The reality is pretty simple. If you take someone's materiaL, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THEIR PERMISSION. Quoting a few lines can be okay, if you provide a link back to the source. Since it's the writing that is protected, rewriting the material is the best way to steal it. Ideas are not protected, their expression is.

I'm always tickled by people who pretend not to understand this principle. They went to that high school where plagairism was okay, I guess. I enjoy being grumpy with them. I have the hardest time understanding rationalized sloth. Often, the folks who can't generate ideas are quick to abscond with one they find lying around.

The relentless requirement for fresh content on blogs adds to the problem. I've had too many conversations with idiot savants (okay they weren't really savants) who say something like "I liked your piece so much that I put it on my website. Hey, I even gave you full credit." The pressure to keep the blog current drives some odd behavior. While it's understandable, it's still theft.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Maren Hogan on August 14, 2008 at 11:37pm: Interesting. Does this apply at all to the NewsFeed that is here on RBC? What is your opinion on that? If someone puts out an RSS feed, does that imply their permission? Currently, I view links the same way one would view a reference in an old college paper. Whenever I like enough of someone's work to quote them verbatim, I use the quote feature PLUS the link. But I don't think more than a couple of paragraphs.

I also disagree (and I think if I am reading your post right you do as well) that traffic is what determines good writing. I mean TMZ gets tons of traffic and I don't see any future Steinbeck's kickin it over there.

I'm interested in this topic and not just because privacy has been a hot topic lately. Please elaborate when you can!; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Maureen Sharib on August 15, 2008 at 6:49am: "mental monster baiting" Not to worry John - I caught it RIGHT AWAY! Hilarious!

To your point:
If it weren't for all the stuff lying around I'd be able to do about 10% of the posting I do - that 10% being the original stuff I generate as a result of reading all the other stuff. I do try religiously to tease/link back to the original on this 90% of the stuff I put up that is not original (after being chastised mightily long ago for doing it incorrectly) and I get a kick out of adding pics and emphasis to the chosen lines I quote/post. I look at my posting pages as kind of an art form - and maybe that's part of the problem. Or is it?

The theme here that is being ignored is Inspiration. Although it takes a lot of Perspiration to do all that posting, I find relevance in the activity because it gets me juiced. It gets me to think. It allows me to signal to the world my bent and I enjoy the partial insights into the other person's psyche that their chosen quote/links reflects. It allows me to "know" them a little better and it also propels me to read/pay attention a little more closely/faster to what they say when they DO say something original.

And THIS is what gets squashed when all the howling starts. As in telephone sourcing, there's a very simple and polite way to ask someone to do something:
"Hey, I see you posted my blog post in its entirety on your site. I appreciate the attention you've accorded me/but I'm not happy/I'm embarrassed by my own behavior/I'm uncomfortable/my feelings are hurt with you doing this - would you mind taking it down/cutting it to a few paragraphs with a link back to my original? Thanks so much!"
Try that first before calling it out publicly something other than it is (a simple mistake) and making a stink about inviolable "rights". Try to get along with each other - as I recall my Kindergarten report card (my beloved mother saved ALL my report cards and believe me, I go through them at least once a year for guidance) has a box that says "Gets along with others." What would your mark be for this?

We're all playing in the same sandbox and this wonderful community that is being built at dizzying speed is a result of the confluence of many fine minds exhorted on by the light speed of communication today. Don't mess it up by bullying, by whining, by scarifying, by taking everything so seriously. Learn to laugh at yourself. Pretty soon the world will be laughing with you.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Slouch on August 15, 2008 at 11:01am: John, there are sites out there that are set up as cash grabs. what I mean by this is that there are sites that are driven exclusively by rss feeds that have google ads on the side. I am not a fan of these sites. but googs ad words coupled with the ease of set up by blogger allow for this and it will not stop. too much money involved for google.

However, RSS plays a real big part in the blog and web 2.0 world. RSS allows you to display the content by title only or by detailed view. Most people including myself cannot customize feeds to a greater degree than this so we are limited to what is offered.

I know that this post is not in reference to the 20 comment post put out about how the Recruiting Animal took what was on the chat here on Recruitingblogs and put it on his site. ( he was clear as to where the content came from) I know that you have been thinking abut this a long time and we even discussed it as it pertained to the videos we do from the road show.

Maybe it is a very clear thing but in the world of social media, the way I see it, it is all about pointing and linking and borrowing.

The RecruitFeed link I set up is an example. If it were just a stand alone site created to pull content from bloggers in order to have a site full of content so it could then be monetized, it would be an example of how web 2.0 tools can be used to steal for gain. However, it is a piece of a bigger system so in this case, I think it is ok.

I personally feel it is wrong and it pisses me off the most when I see someone take an entire post from somewhere and put it on their site and then give the link at the bottom where it appeared originally. The idea is to give a little bit and then drive the reader to that site.

I liked this post. I hope you start writing daily again.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by KarenM / Hirecentrix.com on August 15, 2008 at 2:03pm: Jason,
I wanted to respond to this quickly..

Regarding RSS Feed.. the Author 1st chooses to allow people to feed their post. Only a few lines of the post is used, and Cross links are utilized to direct individuals BACK to the ORIGINAL comments and statements so that the reader can see for themselves what the authors comments were, and to view for themselves the authors intent.

The posts are not edited in any way.. This did not happen in the situation we are speaking of .. There is no link back to the Orignal posts or comments.. and of course there is no Rss Feed that will allow you anything but Live information -- since the posts are REMOVED from the Average Recruiting Blog user/member in live time..

in this case there is also an expectation that the comments are gone.. not to be seen later.. unless of course someone is attempting to cut and paste this intentionally... and if it is Cut and Pasted, then of course is it Always True to form? is it Always original? and if you don't have access to the Actual Original with a live link.. then how would you know..

Also the original should be Accessible for All parties in the conversation as well, if third parties are going to discuss it.. and of course all parties should be aware that their conversations are being utilized.. allowing them an opportunity to discuss or defend themselves..

RSS does allow the author to know where and who is feeding their information..

So there are many differences here, that many may not be aware of but should be... it is Your right as an author to control your material.. If i write a book, I don't want you plagiarizing it.. that is why there are legal protections.. Well the Same GOES FOR DIGITAL MEDIA AUTHORS AS WELL..

Karen Mattonen
www.hirecentrix.com (still in beta) where your Privacy is accepted and respected..

feel free to email me at acssearch@prodigy.net -- and I appreciate all the feedback I have received thus far.. Thanks for the support!; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Rob McIntosh on August 15, 2008 at 3:51pm: John - Nice post as given the volume of trash out there I have become a skimmer in the last year and this one drew me in with something fresh. I think people that take others content seem to fall into four distinct groups:

Patron Saint Regurgitators - Their actions are pure, they genuinely think and believe that they are spreading the gospel of good ideas.

Stupid Traffic Disseminating Bloggers (make up your own acronyms here) - They really have nothing to say and just want to be an aggregator of others thoughts so they can drive traffic to their site so they can sell something (be it advertising or personal brand)

SPAM bloggers (or Sploggers) - They don’t care about the content at all and use it as an excuse to just push something else under readers noses so they can remain top of mind to promote their wares (like SPAM marketing)

EDB’s (Evil Doer Bloggers) - Their actions are sinister with the intent to twist, mislead, mis-communicate (be it for financial or personal gain)

Regardless if there are only four or forty-four reasons why people do what they do, I think the fundamental challenge that we all face is still weeding through volumes of sites, feeds and posts to get to the things that are fresh, thought provoking and inspiring. Given original thought is the visible minority here in the equation, and the world has been this way for a long long time, I have resigned myself (yes, self defeatist response) that this is the price of entry in today’s social online media playground

Rob; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Gavin Chase on August 15, 2008 at 4:51pm: Interesting post and thought provoking too.... sharing articles of interest is the heart of social networking, giving credit for the thoughts to the person who wrote them is the right thing to do, inferring they are your thoughts is wrong.... but Im just an honest kind of guy :-); ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Moises Lopez on August 15, 2008 at 5:06pm: Everyone has been so eloquent on the issues that it was well worth just sitting back and enjoying the discussion. Rob made an excellent point, we are bombarded with mindless repetition of material and to make this worse we make the excuse that since everyone is doing it it is okay. It is not okay to take conversations or any material for that matter without consent just for the purpose of driving traffic or directing opinion even if has become standard practice.

There are two issues that been talked about the primary one being privacy but the other one, though alluded to, has yet to be defined and that is plagiarism. Webster defines plagiarism as "to use (another's production) without crediting the source". Rob called it regurtitating material, but call regurtitating, content scraping or whatever you will, taking someone elses material without consent it is plagiarism. Content used without permission undermines the credibility of the perpetrator and that which our industry is trying to build.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by KarenM / Hirecentrix.com on August 15, 2008 at 6:32pm: Awesome post Moises and Rob

You know i was thinking about this metaphorically today. Even if my car was parked on the freeway, unlocked doors and the keys in the ignition, it still doesn't give you the right to drive my car without my permission.

The internet may be an open highway, but my words is my vehicle of choice that I use to express my thoughts and opinion, and only I should be giving anyone else permission to drive it it on this wonderful Highway... if you are taking them, then you are stealing.. nicer word - plagiarism.. or in this medium, DCMA

Hope the picture helps those who still don't get it..

Karen Mattonen
www.hirecentrix.com (still in beta) where your Privacy is accepted and respected..; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Eric Shannon on August 15, 2008 at 8:20pm: This reminds me a little bit of your post about the vertical job search engines stealing job postings from job boards. It's true there is a certain amount of abuse, for example, job boards that scrape jobs from all around the web and then sell access to those postings to jobseekers. But in most cases, we publishers want our material used as long as attribution is made (links).

I have read about a lot of irate webmasters complaining that Google often ranks the "borrowed content" higher than the original. I would love to see that problem solved, but so far I have not been much affected by it. I'm probably too obscure.

Your post is very interesting and yet it would be oh so much better with names and specific examples, lol.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Sumser on August 16, 2008 at 4:12pm: What a great conversation.

Jason reminds me that I need to publically disclose something.

I am the secret president of the Recruiting Animal fan club. In my eyes, he is the heart and soul of the Recruit-O-Sphere. He is the very model of intentional "pointing and linking and borrowing." Suggesting that he is an evildoer is like suggesting that Mother Theresa had her hand in the collection plate.

Of course, some people see evil wherever they look. It's good in a way. With so much recycling of material in the social network world, isn't it refreshing to hear the moans and wails of the downtrodden? Isn't it interesting to see conspiracies forming where the perpetual victim projects it to be? That's part of the refreshing magic of that type of content creation. Fiction becomes reality.

We get the privelege of watching this miracle. People really do create the realities they inhabit. We get to see self-fulfilling prophesies fulfill themselves. Right in front of our eyes.

Rob's great (and really funny) list of four content recyclers (above) left out two important categories:

- Charlie Brown bloggers. It's a self-absorbed endless loop featuirng bad guys who are always "picking on me". What's permanently repeated is the underlying story of violation and injustice.

- Actual Writers The Animal is the best example of this category that I know. He has been developing his craft as a writer by rewriting and reinterpreting the material of others. He doesn't copy, he edits and improves. Sources are properly cited. The idea is to make it better, stronger, simpler and more effective.

Maureen Sharib (another from the Actual Writers group) was right on target. To build community, we need to be very slow to accuse and very quick to forgive. It's a lesson I'm familiar with.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by KarenM / Hirecentrix.com on August 16, 2008 at 7:51pm: Sumser..
So are you saying that when a person REWRITES another persons material (making it better, stronger, or more effective) he KNOWS what the Writer's intent is? he is understanding the person's thoughts..

In using my apology above, are you saying that the argument is - when someone borrows another person's car, paints it red, adds a couple of flares, and says, here it is back, but I know you would really love me doing that for you.. hope you don't mind.. oh, and sorry I didn't tell you I was doing it..

Sorry I don't buy it..

oh, and what doesn't also fly.. well, to cite information properly is to have an actual Link Back to the ORIGINAL AUTHOR'S material so that READERS can define what the author's intent was FROM the AUTHOR's original content themselves.. If they want to debate the conversation, then the Author can discuss the material to the individuals..

Sorry.. in this situation, there is No link, because the material is no longer available, as a true source.. One that can be validated that it is true and not edited, ESPECIALLY to the Original Author..
So, how is this properly Cited? because he said the conversation was on RBC, and this is My interpretation of what karen m said..
Especially when there was an Edit and "improvement" -- hey.. personally, unless I give someone permission.. i don't appreciate My words being Improved either.. It takes away from my ORIGINAL INTENT, AND THOUGHT, AND changes the whole meaning of the conversation..

Seriously.. unless you got in my head, YOU Can't Think for me.. nor do You know what My intent was..

Rewriting another persons material to suit one's needs and publicity, and then calling it an interpretation, especially eluding to the fact that the author made those comments well that is more than just affecting a DMCA, I am sure that may actually bordering fraud, and maybe malice.. won't you say?
hmm.. seems like it to me.. it definitely Does sound like Copy Right infringement..

Wow, I didn't know wanting to keep one's material clean and pure and having a REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF THIS would be considered moaning and whining.. Well if so.. I am proud to be a Moaner and a Whiner.. label me as such..

Now I gotta ask.. am I in a deja vue again.. Man, I feel like I am In High School again.. What a major Clique is going on here.. Wow, don't even think about disagreeing with My friend, cause You will have to pay the consequences.. Trust me, been there done that with This very group of people.. my question.. why did you even invite me here in the first place???

Trust me, I recognize that as of today, I will have to watch my back and that I probably will even get kicked off for even speaking my mind, or even speaking up at all.. hey, I am on my own with you guys.. but, you know what, I am proud for my position, and I am Proud for my stance..

I believe in what i stand for, and that is Fair and Open conversation w/o all of this B.S. -- and Yes sumser, I am a true believer in standing up for what is Fair, and Reasonable.. I do believe in standing up for peoples rights.. I hold my Head high on that, and i am not embarrassed to say so.. Actually I am proud to try to be a Solution, not a problem!

I am turned off by all of this.. it has been quite disgusting in my book.. This is quite sad.. the censorship, and bullying that goes on in these scenes behind and infront -- dare say, that I am moving on from this site..

From here on my friends, You will find me on http://www.therecruiterslounge.com/ and www.hirecentrix.com, and even at www.sourcingcorner.com

I will be going where individuals can feel free to speak their thoughts, opinions and minds without thinly disguised petty and childish personal attacks. This behavior is perplexing and disturbing, especially for Adults.. In high school it was an issue, but as adults this is way; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by KarenM / Hirecentrix.com on August 16, 2008 at 8:07pm: overboard, and pretty sad.. I honestly feel as though I stepped into a scene of the Godfather or Pretty in Pink/Breakfast Club or something..

Contact me my friends at the contact info below

Best of Luck and Thanks for your support
Karen Mattonen, C.S.P, C.A.C.
HireCentrix
Search, Consulting, Public Speaking, Leadership
TEL 858-668-3111 FAX 858-668-3011
Email: karenm@hirecentrix.com
Web: www.hirecentrix.com
HireCentrix - The pulse of Recruiting, Risk Management, Regulations & Retention
Where your privacy is Not only Expected But Respected; ▶ Reply to This