Need help? Check out our Support site, then


  1. oh !! sorry for the double post, after i submitted the first one it told me the page was not found!

  2. The thread of Twenty Ten theme has 177 replies. Bueno's thread has 130 replies. This one has at the moment 119 (121-2) replies.
    It means that only about 30 folks use any of both themes, Twenty Ten and Bueno.

  3. Here's a tip on how to use Reblog fairly and encourage other people to give credit to the OP and you:

    If YOU wish to give credit where credit is due and avoid reblogging and losing the original poster's information, use the reblog button BUT edit the number of words to be less than 75 and add your own text above or below the block quotation. That way, if someone reblogs your reblog, the original link AND your link are included in the section quoted.

  4. @Grubler
    You said and I quote: "What I like is that the reblogging feature tries to show the original blog post as it is so it just acts as a teaser the reblogged blog. It does not differ that much (although 75 words is a lot) from someone posting your blog on facebook. Attribution is included and that is a good thing."

    The fact is that when you use this "reblog" feature on the FIRST instance it DOES take the attributions with it, BUT (and this is a major issue) if you "reblog" a "reblog" then those are stripped from the code and the resulting post appears to be an original of the one who "reposted" it. That is PLAGERISM at its best. As for "reblogging" photos, yes they do go as "thumbnails" but in less than 2 seconds you can convert them to FULL SIZE originals again.

    This affords the Original Author NO protection from having their content taken and used in any manner the "reposter" wants. That is Copy write Infringement, Plagiarism and Theft my friend. All which have Legal Recourse for both the "reposter" and Word Press.

    You also said and I quote: “As far as I am concerned reblogging is just an easier way of quoting another blog. Whether it is appropriate to do is a question of fair use and netiquette but I won't say the arisings legal problems differ much from copy/paste. It just facilitates recommending another blog and provides for decent attribution.”

    Quoting another’s blog is one thing but this feature is not “quoting” anything, it is straight out stealing content. If it was “quoting” it would at least have the quotation marks applied and would not take the first 75 words or images it encountered. (Example. The quote I made above of you comments CLEARLY indicates those are NOT MY WORDS but YOURS. If I were to “reblog” that then it would appear as if I had said it. And if I “reblogged” it a second time ALL attribute that link it to you would be gone.

    Quoting DEMANDS that the original author be notated EACH TIME and this new feature does not proved for that so it is not “quoting” anyone. If you want to quote someone then take the time to do it manually if it is that important. Doing so allows you to really think about the “value” of what you’re quoting to the content of the blog by “adding” a COMMENT. It is NOT just copying and pasting something.

    Finally I agree with Phoxis when he said and I quote: “Some may not want to make any copies of any portion of the post. This tool indirectly encourages it. The people who likes this feature should continue using it, but those who do not want this, should also be given a chance.”

    If it really ISN’T designed to A) force those who want their works protected to now BUY something they were given for FREE when they joined Word Press, or B) to encourage the misuse of the copy and paste functionality by facilitating the theft of original works by others or C) to further push Word Press in the direction of becoming yet another Social Site like Face Book, then Word Press has NO reason NOT TO offer the users here the option of “opting out” as they do with so many other features.

    Bottom line for me, I think it is a combination of A and C personally. Both which will have many here looking at finding a new home because these are NOT the reasons so many joined Word Press, and they have made it clear now that they do not care about their users beyond the profits they provide.

    @Rain. Thanks for that tip. Question. If you do as you suggest does it still strip the original link and yours too now from the second "re-blog"? And do you have to have the purchased CSS upgrade to edit the number of words "Reblog" takes?

  5. @phoxis I agree that the automatic use of the original post's title with a (via) can be regarded as problematic. When I use reblog, I insert the original post's title manually into the reblog so it looks like the Quick Press preview.

    I just realized that the lacking title is considered a feature and not a bug.... now I can understand the argument way better.

    Well, inserting the original post's title probably would be a minor change with a huge effect as it would act as a separator between own content and reblogged content. So it would a bit look like the old "featured post" on the global (still in use on

    Are you sure? As far as I can see, reblog kills any links in the 75 words quoted. But reducing the number of words a bit certainly doesn't hurt. We all got used to cryptic facebook teasers ;-)

  6. @tfockler60 Got your point. As you can read above I partially misunderstood the functionality. I still disagree about the impact this feature would have (leaving aside picture blogs for now) if some minor modifications would be made.

    Let me just provide a link to a post where I manually made the reblogged post look like I thought it should look. You probably will get the idea, although the post is in German. I have the advantage that my theme optically inserts the quotation marks, you requested (But having them added automatically probably could be done in no time)

    I tried to reblog it and the text was stripped of all links. Yes, re-re-blogging can be a serious problem.

    The only solution I can think of at the moment is to provide a shortcode for the original post rather than just including its content into the new post so the original reference stays in place (yes, that's a bit like sharing a link on facebook, not all they do is bad stuff ;-) )

  7. @tfockler60
    You have asked questions of raincoaster that I know the answers to as thesarcedpath's experiments with relogging my post and then reblogging it again are known to me and have been posted into this thread earlier. And, aslo as I have experimented as well.

    @Rain. Thanks for that tip. Question. If you do as you suggest does it still strip the original link and yours too now from the second "re-blog"?

    The Reblogging Results
    1. All links to the original article are gone in the second-generation reblog.The read more and site link at the bottom of the second-generation reblog link back to the second blog, NOT to the original.

    2. The possibly related posts links to the reblogged post, NOT to the original.

    And do you have to have the purchased CSS upgrade to edit the number of words "Reblog" takes?

    No a CSS upgrade is not required to edit the number of words in the reblogged post. When reblogging we have the option of saving the reblogged post as a draft post. We can then edit it prior to publication.

  8. You can at least avoid having an image appearing in the splogged posts by inserting one of your own, with the style set to visibility:hidden; and height set at "1."
    That will then be the "first" picture in the reblog, essentially just little almost invisible outline rectangle.

    I'm not sure, but I think there might be SEO consequences to using hidden text or images, but, well, it's an idea.

    And while you are at it, you might as well include in the hidden text to write a non-live link to your blog and a message that this post has been re-blogged without permission.

  9. I'm not sure, but I think there might be SEO consequences to using hidden text or images, but, well, it's an idea.

    I've been wondering about the effects on SEO.
    Hidden text, links, images and videos > Google Webmaster central

  10. @timethief

    I have known about the information in your link for a long time.

    If your site is perceived to contain hidden text and links that are deceptive in intent, your site may be removed from the Google index, and will not appear in search results pages. When evaluating your site to see if it includes hidden text or links, look for anything that's not easily viewable by visitors of your site. Are any text or links there solely for search engines rather than visitors?

    But I have used the visibility:hidden; code for months to add a link to my blog, if not a year. My blog is still nicely visible on Google. My intent was never to deceive anyone: quite the contrary; I used hidden text to make it more difficult for sploggers to steal away my posts without attribution at least!

    I don't really know about what the SEO consequences are for using "style= vis ibility:hidden;" so I'm only telling about my experience with it.

    Perhaps I wasn't detailed/clear. Sorry for any problem or confusion.

  11. @Tess
    I didn't know that you knew, if you know what I mean, and I think you do. ... lol :D

  12. Check my posts on themes ( ) and tell me if it looks like I don't try features... The splog post does include audio or video (if the shortcode is at or near the beginning of the post, as I already wrote after I tried it) - why don't you try it first?

    I've just tested a post with video at the start and it definitely didn't come through on the reblog post. Do you have any example posts to test? The code should strip all short codes, so if it isn't I can fix that up. Thanks.

  13. Here is an example on a private test blog of mine:
    Does it being private affect whether the YouTube shortcode shows or not?

  14. No, I don't think being private or not matters. I reblogged to another of my blogs which is not open to search engines, and there is the video from YouTube. As an employee of, I assume you can find that blog without advertising it on the forums here.

    None the less, the video or audio shortcode being visible is not an issue for me. What is an issue is that my posts can be reposted without me ever being notified of them being re-posted.

    If someone is reposting my posts, then I want to know about it.

  15. If it's true that when person does a second re-blog that it only references that persons blog isn't that a form of wordpress authorizing and encouraging plagiarsm which in many instances would open Word press to lawsuits because they ignorantly and without forethought allowed their users to steal copyrighted material as in the case of timethief's blog.
    She specifically states that she only allows 50 words maximum to be copied and your re-blog feature takes 75. That is a direct violation of her copyright.

    I think if word doesn't start allowing bloggers to turn off the feature if they don't want people doing this to their hard work there should be a class action law suit.

    To simply say if you don't like it leave is asanine and setting yourself up for liability issues.

    You marketed yourselves as a place to seriously blog and showed your premium and vip hosting and you said that there would be occasional advertisements on peoples blogs.

    You never said until recently anything about allowing your users to start stealing peoples work and thoughts.

    You never gave any warning that you were going to start doing anything like this.

    As far as there is a minor amount of users complaining about this sort of thing you might want to look at the type of users that are complaining versus the type of user that comes from facebook or twitter and just wants a simple blog versus the high quality blog of yesteryear.

    The mere fact that you are forcing users into something that you never gave any warning of ahead of time and you're not allowing your users to remove this atrocious re-blog feature from their blog if they don't want it is tantamount to an unfair practice not previously listed in your terms of service.

    Is this an attempt to force users into paying for your css upgrade? Are you just interested in increasing numbers not maintaining quality?

    I would say shame on the masters of the ivory wordpress tower. Very bad show.

  16. I wonder how much of a dead horse this will be when someone who's unethical messes with the wrong blogger and word press gets sued big time for not allowing users to opt out of this suck-an-egg feature?

  17. @Grubler, I apologize if I came across as harsh. I understand that there is a lot of misunderstanding surrounding this new feature and in part that is the fault of WordPress for making blantant false claims about what this feature is intended for and what it actually does. That is why it is so great that this conversation is happening because those who HAVE tested it out and can point out the actual truth about what it does and doesn't do aid in dispelling a lot of that misunderstanding.

    @Time, thanks for answering those questions. I had feared that would be the case and that really concerns me because if on the second generation reblog if it is only linking back to the first generation and not the original author then that IS a major issue that opens WordPress for some big time lawsuits. I can tell you this. I have spoken to an copy write attorney because as a publish author should someone here decide to "steal" anything from my blog because WordPress has facilitated it and ignore the posted Copywrite I have clearly displayed, I will seek legal recourse.

    @apeatling, Video isn't so much of an issue as the amout of text being taken, the ability to take images and convert them to full size from the thumbnail and the stripping of attribute linking the ORIGINAL author and redirecting them to the theif on the second generation. What makes you think that someone who is deceptive enought to use this feature to "steal" content isn't also deceptive enough to create a second generation reblog to then make it appear as if it was theirs to begin with since THEIRS would then be the link provided? Why doesn't WP and you "key masters" just "man up" and do the right thing? Its looking more and more like a "profit driven" idea and less and less about making WP users (the ones who keep you viable btw) happy.

    As for the SEO consequences of "hiding text" etc, when it is clearly defind as a breech of the TOS, I am not so sure that would not turn out to be yet another nail in the WordPress coffin because they are placing their users in a positon of having to breech because they fail to offer any other viable solution (short of leaving the WP community or having to purchasing an upgrade that was not made clear before hand)

    For now I am wrapping up my Blog and posting a notice that I have a copywrite in place on ALL my works and any attempt to REBLOG any portion will be viewed as an intentional copywrite infringment and I will use the full power of the IP tracking system I have in place to seek legal recourse.

    I am greatly disappointed in WordPress and I am quickly loosing my trust in them. Perhaps if more people would follow suit then WP would get the message that this is not just going to disappear, there will be consequences.

  18. @tfockler60: You don't even need a second generation splog post. As I mentioned in previous posts, you can delete the reference to the original blog in the title box even before you hit Publish, and you can edit the post afterwards just like any other post and delete the link to the original blog.

  19. @Tess: Great idea!

    Expanding on it: At the beginning of each post we can add a suitable invisible image. Image can say "Please do not reblog", or "Reblogging is for Apes" (as ludusnaturae aptly put it), or various other things about the brain of sploggers and the sympathetic ear of WP.

    Improving on your code suggestion: You don't need to mess with the height - you can do it more neatly this way:
    <div style="display:none;">IMAGE CODE HERE</div>

  20. @apeatling: You want me to provide you with test posts?

    Since you continue to refuse to add an opt-out, and continue to refuse to give a plausible reason why, I will politely refuse to do your job for you. I will only say that I've tried six different video shortcodes: one of them doesn't come through, five do.

    Bonus: So do at least three other shortcode objects.

  21. @panag, thanks for that heads up! In reading the multiple pages here I guess I must have just missed that the first time so yes THANK YOU.

    @Tess...I agree that is a great Idea! and thank you again Panag for expanding on it and giving us back a bit more control again.

    It is nice to see that there are others who are dedicated to protecting the users here when WP refuses to, but it is also very sad that we are being put in that position to start with. But is what it is right? So if that means you have to resort to fighting fire with fire...I will bring the Marshmellows!

  22. @gruebler : it's not about you, its about the misuse of the tool. Think twitters could not be retweeted. Then would this much of traffic be generated ? No. But if there was no retweet feature, then couldn't we manually retweet some content ? yes we could. Both ways we could we could make a retweet, but making a retweet feature extends the reach of the retweeting. Another example, if introduces graphical CSS editor, it would be much more used than now, but note that in both the case the same thing is being done, ie, editing CSS. So the tool introduced increase the domain of people using them.

    But is a very good blogging service, and not a crappy "social" networking site, where there is no original content. The main thing is about the encouragement a certain group would get to reblog.

  23. @Panos!
    Great. Elegant.

  24. check out the results of reblogging :

    search i google with the below string
    "21 Realistic X-Rays and Skeletons of Fictional Characters"
    and see the results.

  25. I have a new blog here and am totally against this reblogging. I thought duplicate work was frowned upon by search engines, and how boring is it going to be when people search for something and get a load of blogs with the same content. I'm sure WordPress will fall out of favour with Google in a few months time when all they get is a monotonous flow of repetition. I can't believe someone actually thought up this idea, and that they actually think EVERYONE likes to reblog. Count me out. It is giving people the wrong idea, by allowing them to plagiarise. WordPress are saying "yes, it's ok to take others' work without their permission"..well, IT'S NOT OK!! And how are the DMCA (can't remember if that's the correct department initials, sorry if it's wrong) going to cope with all the complaints of plagiarism?

  26. @phoxis So what can we see from the results? First, re-re-blogging isn't a big issue in this particular case. Mostly the link to the original post is provided

    A serious problem is that the original post's title is taken as the new post's title and in some themes it in fact appears as if the reblogger is the author of the reblogged content.

    I would suggest do make the following modifications to reblogging:
    - Add the original post title as a <h2> headline (preferrably with a link) within the blockquote
    - Add the original authors name (by <author>) in the second line before the actual reblogged content starts.

  27. I usually don't like closing threads, but there seems to be a spiral of misinformation going on here. People are confusing our feature, which drives traffic to your blog, increases engagement, and builds your community, with spammers who leech off the internet.

    I would like everyone to try out this feature for two weeks. See if your blog disappears from Google, if aliens come and attack you, if your traffic goes up, down, or stays the same. Reblog a few posts and see what it looks like. Like a few things. In two weeks I'm happy to have a discussion with everyone on their concerns, ideas, bugs, and hugs, but we really need people to actually use and comprehend the feature first!

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.

About this Topic