

The Lack of Netiquette - texeltexel
http://www.romancortes.com/blog/the-lack-of-netiquette/

======
pmichaud
This is kind of outrageous. I sort of look at ajaxian as a reliable and
interesting source of info on webdev, but now I'm totally turned off. I'll
make it a point to not visit. Shame on them.

~~~
Semiapies
I've unsubbed from their feed.

------
gr366
First off, this is bad behavior on Ajaxian's part, and they should learn that
people will appreciate them just as much (more, actually) if they send the
user off-site to the content they're pointing at.

Second, shouldn't it be possible for Roman to prevent another site from
embedding his IFRAME? Either catching the window.parent.location in JavaScript
or only serving the IFRAME page if his own domain is in the referrer?

~~~
boundlessdreamz
yep.. there are iframe busters available.

------
Semiapies
Ajaxian's also been bad, now and again, about just copying and pasting the
entirety of a blog post as "their" content.

~~~
Pistos2
Examples?

------
byrneseyeview
Here's how their post starts:

 _Román Cortés is having a lot of fun with CSS tricks these days. He just
built an example rolling CSS coke can that uses background-attachment,
background-position, and a few other tricks to get the effect. No fancy CSS3
needed here!_

It looks like they gave him full credit for this. Unless he was selling access
to this blog post, I'm not sure why this is an issue. It seems even more
benign than piracy. (And as sophacles points out, this uses less bandwidth
than a direct link, too.)

Clearly, Román is willing to have his bandwidth used in order for people to
look at his cool CSS trick. So why is this a problem when it's a little less
bandwidth, plus a third-party endorsement?

~~~
otakucode
>It looks like they gave him full credit for this. Unless he was selling
access to this blog post, I'm not sure why this is an issue.

Perhaps you missed the quite important point that Ajaxian was using this post
to drive traffic to their site effectively and selling advertisements based on
its, and not their own, merits? They're not just linking to something and
showing it to their users, they're getting his paid-for account to serve the
content so that they can make advertising revenue off of his work. I think the
ethical issue with such an action should be clear.

~~~
byrneseyeview
They promoted him. They showed the same content he did, plus a strong
endorsement, minus some of the bandwidth costs.

And he's mad that they might have earned a few dollars from their ads?

~~~
Kejistan
He is angry that they effectively hijacked his bandwidth to earn them revenue
off of his work. And all without the courtesy of asking his permission. Twice.

------
sophacles
Doesn't a direct link cost more bandwidth? In which case does the one google
ad on your site make the difference in cost/income? Further, does the ajaxian
style hotlinking -- full credit and source link provided, constitute the same
think most people think of for hotlinking (no credit, just images from someone
else's site...).

~~~
boundlessdreamz
The satisfaction of getting visitors is very important. Don't read his post as
about costs alone. It is more like he paid the costs but got nothing in
return. No visitors, exposure or fame :)

~~~
sophacles
I tried to read it like that, but the part where his screenshot of the
rickrolling, which includes the whole ajaxian post, has attribution to him, as
well as a direct link to his site. Im not sure how that is not exposure/fame.

