Standards?
I know better than to disagree. However, I disagree. “Unoriginal” content may, in fact, provide value to the reader. On the other hand, it’s a good “standard”. On the third hand, STANDARDS are not laws; rather, they provide (usually unreachable) goals toward which people should strive. This is all to say, you are not providing standards, you are providing excuses for deleting blogs. And you are wrong to delete blogs (no excuses). While it isn’t necessarily wrong to encourage people to bring their blogs up to YOUR (arbitrary) standards. Nonetheless, this move is not “encouraging”. Rather, you are playing “judge, jury, and EXECUTIONER”. In fact, this is “illegal” (not *in the spirit* of the law). For example discriminating against foreign speakers (or, as in a previous case, against religions and charities): Such may be considered HATE CRIMES. Though perhaps this isn’t an ACTUAL crime; nonetheless, it IS a form of “hate”.
Unoriginal Content?
Do we have need of Andy Warhol’s Campbell Soup Cans when we have Campbell’s Soup? The medium is the message.
A Blogging Network?
As an (old fashioned) “blogging” network: You can promote only low-tech blogs if you want. But advances in blogging software will continue to outdo your definitions of what an acceptable “blog” is. Seems you are limiting your definition to journaling and to only one format (all posts on one page, newest first). Wordpress (for example) has improved that format. Now, there are blogs with aggregators, blogs with static posts, blogs with intro pages, blogs with magazine-style front-covers, photo blogs, blogs with ads, bloggers who accept paid postings, and bloggers who post all sorts of content other than personal diaries. Wake up!
Reserves the Right?
As I’ve said: You are looking at content when the answer is more artistic than that (the MEDIUM is the message). ALL websites ran on blogging software are “blogs”. And the appeal of them goes way beyond content. There’s a big difference in the message different blogs present depending on the way those blogs use design and technology to repackage even “unoriginal” content. So, you can “reserve” the right to remove whatever site suits your fancy. But that doesn’t make it right.
Illegal Files?
BTW: The internet isn’t capitalistic. Rather, it’s a free “nation”. And, as of now, capitalists are losing. Movies are still available for free online. And people still download them. You can choose to support the losing side of the battle if you want. The internet will be around long after the profiteers are gone.
Acceptable Content?
A blog is defined by a community of users. The different personalities of the visitors help make each blogging community special and different from other sites. The comments people leave, their special perspectiveve on the topics chosen (even if aggregated from some other place)… as well as the personality of the blog author all play a part in making each site “original”. The author, regardless, chooses the focus, the design, the topics to be included, and what content is appropriate (with feedback). Plus there’s regular posting, editing, and site upgrades on the backend . And all of this is more important than the “standards” you’ve chosen to make an issue of. It is just WRONG for you to decide what comprises “acceptable” format or content! And you’ve stepped WAY over the line refusing access to people of other ethnicities and religious beliefs (yes, this might end you up in a lawsuit that you won’t win whether fitting your definition of “legal” or not).
Value?
How can you judge the “value” of these sites: Sites with artwork. Sites with fiction. Even sites that attempt to define what constitutes a “good” blog. Will you apply your own “standards” to these blogs as well?
Specifically…
“[W]here did we say we were deleting any of the following? “blogs with static posts, blogs with intro pages … blogs with ads, bloggers who accept paid postings, and bloggers who post all sorts of content other than personal diaries.”
That pretty much sums up your genocide program except you presume to know how old the “static” posts should be, how many posts should be on the front page… and even how the site redirects from a front page to sub pages (as well as which sub-page it should redirect to). Re-read what Graham posted above.
A Troll
Hitler had rules, too.
My Idea…
My idea is to let the internet police itself. If people don’t want to visit “splogs”, fine. If they don’t then those formats won’t survive. My complaint is when self-righteous power-hungry people presume to know what constitutes a “blog”. Your record is splotchy on this. Your excuses are lame. And your tactics are inappropriate. You use force. You create rules. You delete blogs instead of helping bloggers reach your “standards”. And, in the end, you resort to statements like “we have stated our rule… and our rule stands” (which is a blatant example of what should NOT survive on the internet the counter-example being open discussion and reasonable debate).
An Aside
“I think Google can be quite a powerful tool when you know how to use it correctly.”
So what about a site run by an author who “knows how to use” Google? If the author skillfully chooses the topic, edits the content, and packages the results in a way that even those people who DON’T know how to use Google can benefit from the information… would that constitute a website which provides “value” or would that violate EC “standards”? Then, when the author shares his personality, and a community of users evolve — each leaving a piece of himself or herself behind in the form of comments and suggestions… wouldn’t that then constitute an “original” site or, rather, does that fit EC’s definition of “unoriginal”?
Entrecard Infrastructure
That’s the real problem? Your “infrastructure” (network, system)? You can’t afford a successful business? Who are you fooling, us or yourselves? If you don’t upgrade to new servers (your own, if you don’t have them), and regularly, then YOU will fail. Splogs will either survive, or not. But you aren’t powerful enough to make or break them, in spite of your self-aggrandizement. In the meantime, you abuse your authority to make yourselves look important, make lame excuses for your behavior, and otherwise operate like a fly-by-night organization. 1. You can’t discriminate, period. 2. It is wrong to mass delete blogs for no reason and without warning, and 3. You are not an expert on what constitutes proper blog format and content (In fact, Entrecard is NOT a “blogging community”: It is an advertisement widget community)! These are all forms of self-destructive behavior. And you will not survive such bad business practices for long.
Democracy?
Are your users playing hall monitor? But YOU set up the reporting process in the first place! And what’s democratic about setting rules? A broad “guideline” would suffice (short): Websites should be in good repair, regularly updated, and contain “useful” information (still, the word “useful” is troublesome). Then, a WARNING would be appropriate. Short: Your site doesn’t meet our guidelines: Make sure your links point to a valid address (or Update your posts more regularly, or Add more content, etc). Finally (three warnings are the general rule): We thank you for your continued support but regretfully inform you that your site is not appropriate for our network: Please remove our widget from your website. Speaking for “splog farm operators”: Perhaps you aren’t looking beyond the content (or, more specifically, you aren’t looking AT the content)? Nonetheless, there are sites with content that I disapprove of… and I don’t visit those sites.
(from Updated Quality Standards for Entrecard)
Brett on 25 Sep 2008
