ban blogs that only reblog content
Unless I’m missing something completely here, don’t you (staff) think that you should ban blogs that ONLY reblog content and that contain nothing original of their own? To my mind they are as bad as scraper or SEO blogs. On your ‘types of blog’ page I see nothing about it and yet this is on the increase. It helps nobody – except them.
I couldn’t agree more. And the more out front they are with this policy the more attractive they will be to original content suppliers.
To my mind they are as bad as scraper or SEO blogs.
I’m third in and I likewise agree. I’d like to see the “types of blogs” policy page updated to clearly state that blogs filled with reblogs ie. content scraper blogs and are not allowed.
Got reblogged on one of those recently. As nearly as I could tell, the blog consisted of nothing but reblogs. No original content. I’m not sure it would be legal to ban those blogs if that’s what the owner enjoys doing — collecting material from other sources. A determined splogger or scraper would take the whole post, not just reblogs. A better solution would be to give us a way to disable the reblogging of our posts, as has been suggested repeatedly since Reblog was first introduced.
I just saw somebody in the forum complaining because he couldn’t get the Like function enabled on reblogs. Well, hell, why should anyone collect Likes on posts to which they contributed nothing? This isn’t Tumblr.
Nor is it Facebook. If people want to collect likes, let them do it with their own material.
Yeah, I have come across a few of these blogs, and I think I know what your talking about. They leave a like, and when you go see all you see is reblogs, no menu structure or about page, just a home page with and endless stream of reblogs. I imagine some poor sap htting the reblog button all day (although maybe they have it automated).
On the other hand I recently started exploring the reblog function, and I do remember reading somewhere when looking into to it that you shouldn’t do it too much, because it could be seen as spam.
It might be difficult objectify when someone is reblogging too much. Who is to decide whether your a happy blogger or spammer. It sounds restrictive. If someone wants to write a blog with reblogs, well that is really up to them I feel. Who am I or anyone else to decide, you know what I mean? I’d like to see some middleground there.
Maybe a different approach may provide some benefit:
What about as author of a post one has to give permission for a reblog. So that if someone hits the reblog button a request gets sent to the blog author, and they can then check what the blog that send the request is about, and decide whether they want to be on that blog.
The option that @windwhistle would definitely be a welcome addition.
If it is a spam blog then they report it from there. Which could cut out on the amount of requests sent from that blog (as well as likes coming from a spam blog). Ackismet may even be trained to see patterns in this.
Personally I have turned comments off, because I believe they and things like likes should go to the original blog post author. Just want to give credit where credit is due.
If someone wants to write a blog, that’s great. That’s different from just reblogging. Scrapbooking and writing a novel are different.
Indeed they are and I long for the days when WordPress.com and Tumblr were distinct.
I’m not sure what the benefit is of someone who only reblogs?
Gain SEO, and then replace it with your their own content at some point?
I don’t think search engines give a whole lot of juice to a blog with only reblogs. And people can remove the comment in their blog.
So where’s the upshot?
If it is a feature that comes with WordPress.com then I find it hard how you can ban blogs that make only use of it. Impose a limit of how many reblogs you can do per article that you write or how many posts you can reblog a day? The next step then would probably that some people write phony articles. Making controlling it possibly even more work.
I agree, though that it is a problem which I’m seeing more of lately. For me what matters is the intent of the person. Are they doing it for personal gain, or for building a cool blog.
I’m fine with limits imposed though.
reblogs contribute negatively to SEO, actually. That’s why you hardly ever see a Tumblr in your Google search results.
Amen to that, tt. I’m trying to write good stuff, interesting stuff, maybe even occasionally important stuff for myself and my readers. I don’t do it to provide free filler for other bloggers.
As someone who has a Tumblr, I can say it’s useful as a scrapbook or filing cabinet. It’s not without its place, but it’s not a blog.
I used to have a Tumblr music blog. I was aware the SEO there sucked but I did have some fun with it, until the demands on my time elsewhere increased. I deleted the blog and waved bye, bye but I still have an empty blog there.
I’m a proponent for having to get permission form the post author for a reblog.
Especially since photographs get shown in a reblog, and this can be difficult with rights.
I think a opt-in on a case by case basis would be better then an opt-out. It could cut down on some of these spam blogs as well. Although I’m sure some people will find a way to work around it.
I like that idea, and it should be doable. Stores the reblog as a Draft until approved by the original blogger, like a comment in moderation.
I just noticed today that Reblog doesn’t pick up the caption, alt text, credits, etc. that we include with images. Cutting that out is a disservice to our efforts to credit our sources and a disservice to those whom we’ve credited. And in the case of my recent post that got reblogged so much, it was WordPress that specifically asked me to include that information.
some of my posts have just being reblogged at this site. Please stop this
What the hell? This isn’t right. Remove the reblog function please.
Personally I think the whole reblogging thing should either be done away with entirely, or have its intended function altered. But, in my opinion, the way it is now results in messy looking posts, and involves very little configuration options. I’ve used it once, maybe twice.
One way its intended function could be altered (just the first thing that came to mind, I’m sure there are better ways this could be done) would be by requiring something be written in response to what is being reblogged. For instance, applying a minimum word requirement in the text box when reblogging something. As of now it reads: “Add your thoughts here… (optional).”
Why should that be optional? Why would we want to encourage thoughtless reblogging? I’m not saying it should require a full-featured article’s worth of text, but a 50-100 word minimum seems reasonable. If you’re going to reblog something, you should at least demonstrate a basic understanding of the content. This would make ‘reblogging’ more closely related to ‘response videos’ on YouTube, as opposed to a mere link farming tool.
I’m NOT against reblogs, I just want to make that clear. What I’m against is blogs that are set up just to show reblogged posts.
A reblog that is done with the original blogger’s permission, is fine.
Never confuse reblogs with reposts – a repost is the whole post. A reblog is just part of the post.
However, I agree completely with windwhistle, above. When reblogging was brought in as a link in the reader pages, etc, my art site here that I now use as a website, was an actual art blog and I found – by reblogging one of my posts myself on another blog – that the essential details didn’t transfer to the reblog. That, in my opinion, is wrong. All wrong.
The topic ‘ban blogs that only reblog content’ is closed to new replies.