

Ask HN:  Framing other sites has always seemed scummy to me.  Am I off-base? - brandnewlow

One thing that never fails to tick me off is when a site frames one of my own.  Seeing someone else's URL and branding atop a page that I created and filled with original research/content/thoughts makes me feel just a tad violated.<p>It's arguably a fuzzy area, but there's nothing fuzzy about how I feel about seeing it happen.  It feels like theft.<p>When I first had this happen two years ago, I started adding a frame-breaker to all my blogs.  Problem solved. Most people don't know how to do that however.<p>For a while, it seemed that only shady sites like i-am-bored were engaging in massive framing of other people's content.<p>However, recently I noticed, to my disappointment, that Facebook frames the destination pages for all links shared on it.<p>And more recently I've seen some startup called Outbrain add "related content" links to popular blogging platforms.  These links lead to framed pages with a prompt at the top inviting visitors to log in to outbrain.  Major newspapers are now using this outbrain garbage on their blogs.<p>Aside from my decidedly negative emotional response to the practice as a content creator, are there other, perhaps more tangible detriments to being framed?<p>Does it hurt a site's SEO and create duplicate content problems?<p>Could it be argued that it's a form of IP theft?<p>Am I off-base in my intense hatred for sites that frame others?<p>I want to be able to concisely explain to non-techies why this gets me so mad. To techies as well I guess.
======
tokenadult
Yes, it is scummy. I sure don't set up many outlinks to sites that frame other
sites. I don't recommend them actively in online discussion either. I would
never set up framing like that in any site I administer.

------
chris11
That's why I've never really liked about.com. Looking into it, it seems like
all the content has been paid for by about.com. But content on their sites has
appeared elsewhere, and it looks like they frame content, so it's just
distasteful.

I do think it can be done well though. Isitfunnytoday.com frames content. They
are a web comic aggregator that lets people vote on web comics. On all their
out going links, they have a very small frame that lets you vote on the
displayed comic, vote on a different comic, and share the the comic on
websites like digg. The bar is not invasive, and you can easily get rid of it
by clicking the red x. It also helps that isitfunnytoday.com is actually
sending more traffic to the other site.

------
callmeed
I don't think it hurts your SEO–since it's framing your page at the same URL.
Google is smart enough to know that the frame comes from your site/blog.

Honestly, I don't think you should be too concerned about it. After all, RSS
readers, blog search engines, news search engines, meme aggregators, and other
sites all scrape content and republish it (in whole or part) in their own
pages–often profiting from ads at the same time. Is that any less shady to
you?

I'd say just make sure your pages clearly define you as the content creator.
People will get the idea.

~~~
brandnewlow
In some of those cases, the practice is just as shady. In others, not as much.

I don't use an RSS reader personally and never will. I visit the sites I like
so they can recoup advertising views from me reading the stories they paid
real money to professionals to write.

I also don't like how RSS readers make every story look the same no matter
where it comes from. It loses personality.

I think newspapers are partly in their current situation because they didn't
sue the pants off Google or charge for their sites to be spidered 10 years
ago, before the public grew comfortable with the practice. Google got all
their data for free.

If I'm expected to pay Twitter for use of their API, surely I could have been
expected to pay the NYTimes to spider their site and store local copies of all
their content.

------
inerte
1 - It doesn't hurt SEO. Sure, a directly link would be better, but a framed
one is better than nothing. If it creates duplicate content problems, it's for
the framer, not the framed.

2 - No. Why do you think it might do?

3 - No, I hate them too :) Except isitfunnytoday.com, because, you see...
that's the problem. Sometimes you can clearly see value being added by the
framer. But these are rare, most framers do it to stick the users, log
activity or show ads.

~~~
brandnewlow
1\. Ok. Good to know. Still seems scummy because...

2\. They're adding their branding/user experience to your site, usually up at
the top, in an effort to brand your content as their own.

According to think link: <http://www.publaw.com/framing.html>

There was a lawsuit back in 1999 in which some news orgs sued the pants off a
site that was framing their content and running ads around it.

Outbrain doesn't appear to be running ads, but it's definitely adding UI
elements and "login" and "about" links that I wouldn't want anywhere on my
site. That's why I wonder if there's grounds for legal challenge, the user
experience is being co-opted without prior consent.

~~~
ygalai
Hey brandnewlow - I'm the founder of outbrain... thought I'd drop by your
conversation here. The recommendations we make in the outbrain widget are
based on how readers rate blog posts. Therefore it is important to give
readers the rating functionality (which is why we keep the frame). We don't
promote our brand in the frame and did our best to keep the functionality and
UI to the absolute minimum. Furthermore - when a reader clicks on a link to a
page where our widget is installed, we don't show the frame at all as the
rating functionality is already available on the page. So a good way to
prevent the outbrain frame from showing up would be to install our widget on
your site... ;-) (<http://www.outbrain.com/get/ratings>)

We don't really like frames either, and are doing whatever we can to reduce
the use and minimize the UI intrusion when we do use them... but in some cases
there ain't much better ways to do this... I'd appreciate any ideas for
improvement.

~~~
brandnewlow
Thanks for dropping by and joining in.

A few questions:

1\. Do you request the content creator's permission before framing their site?
I checked out Outbrain.com but it doesn't appear that you have any sort of
submission form. I'm assuming you just index whatever sites you choose. I
don't see any sort of opt-out form on your site either.

2\. I understand that your model is based on getting recommendations from your
users, and that you get those recommendations by framing people's sites so you
can make the rating interface impossible to ignore. That's a decision on your
end, not my problem as a content creator. You do not promote the brand you
say, but you do promote your service and its ends.

3\. As your model is based on a practice I find distasteful, I'm not sure why
I'd want to install your widget.

4\. What is your business model? Will you eventually sell advertising on the
frames across the top of these sites once your widget is getting enough use?

5\. Can you really not find a better way to engage users other than framing
other people's content? Your reasoning here seems to boil down to "We can't
think of a better way to do this."

I appreciate you coming in here and look forward to your responses. I don't
see how a business based on framing other people's content is defensible
though but I'm sure there's enough framers out there ready to prove me wrong.

~~~
ygalai
Hey - before answering the specific questions, I'd take a step back and say
that the ultimate judge on web services like outbrain should be the user, not
the court (assuming the service is legal, and I believe that both linking and
framing are perfectly legal). I think outbrain offers great value to all 3
stakeholders - the reader, the blogger installing us, and the site receiving
traffic - and so I hope these stakeholders keep us honest and let us know if
we're doing anything that's distasteful in their mind. If you search for
references about outbrain on the web you'll find that they are all very
positive.

Specifically - 1) We do not request the content creator's permission, and
don't think we need to. The content we link to is published publicly, and
linking to it is perfectly legal. As I mentioned before, we'll gladly block
links to any site that's not interested in them promptly after getting a take-
down request. (BTW - why would you expect services like outbrain to ask for
upfront linking permission, but not from say Google?)

2) I think what you said is reasonable... we're in business for providing a
great product and getting people to use it. I think that is fine. As for the
crawling - our crawler respects your robots.txt settings, so if you wish to
prevent us from indexing your site you can easily do so.

4) Our business model will likely evolve around advertising, though the frame
will probably not play a major role on that. As I said above - we hope our
bloggers and readers keep us honest and let us know as soon as we breach their
respect of our product. Our users' loyalty is paramount to us, and we would
not breach that trust too easily...

5) Any solution other than framing would require us to pull the target page
and insert our code into it. That is something we would not do because that
really is distasteful - for example, it would affect the site's ability to
properly serve and count their ads.

Bottom line - a frame is far from perfect - I agree with you about that - but
I don't think it's inherently evil if used with some care.

------
The_Sponge
It's perhaps only tolerable in situations where a site has to deal with
phishing on a large scale basis, perhaps on a forum targeted towards a younger
audience. And even then, only if it is only a banner which says "WARNING:
Don't give out your password to sites you clicked on from us!" as well as a
swift way to see the page in full.

------
NoBSWebDesign
As long as it's relatively unobtrusive and has a prominent "remove frame"
button, I don't see what the big deal is. If it weren't for their link to you
(framed or not), that user would not have found your content in the first
place. I would be grateful for them driving traffic to your site and move on
to more important issues.

------
chris11
"Facebook frames the destination pages for all links shared on it."

Where does Facebook do this? I just checked it with a site for a food drive
that I'm advertising on my news feed, and it wasn't framed.

~~~
brandnewlow
Click on a "posted item" in your news feed.

Example:

[http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=52798147212&h=...](http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=52798147212&h=0C-c4&u=mHSaK)

Instead of

[http://www.myrecipes.com/recipes/gallery/0,28548,1708361,00....](http://www.myrecipes.com/recipes/gallery/0,28548,1708361,00.html)

FB adds a blue bar across the top with the profile info of the person who
shared the link.

------
timf
Here's the only example of where I like it: <http://playericious.com/>

------
kbrower
For me it boils down to whether or not the frame is adding any value to the
page, unobtrusive, and easy to close.

------
anotherjesse
stumbleupon is now doing this for their non-extension based experience.

~~~
kw
StumbleUpon is an example of framing content right...a simple unobtrusive
toolbar. I used that site as inspiration for a website I created during my
spare time. Link: <http://www.picahuna.com>

I don't think there's anything necessarily scummy about framing content. In
the case of StumbleUpon and my site, there's a benefit to the user experience,
and visitors can immediately start using the site without installing an
extension. Furthermore, StumbleUpon actually increases traffic to your site.

~~~
brandnewlow
See, I'd be annoyed if I saw that on one of my sites.

And I understand I could be in the minority here with this discussion. It's
good to hear the counter-argument from people who organize, scrape, and
aggregate other people's content.

And I ask in part because my main project right now is an aggregator. There
are a whole host of practices that would help from a business standpoint that
I have questions about, like framing.

~~~
kw
When I made the site I debated whether to include frames or not. The
justification I used was that I as a user (not just the creator of the site)
would actually want a small toolbar that would allow me to navigate quickly
between aggregated sites (it aggregates image sites, so I tend to move quickly
between pages), and view the sometimes funny captions people give the images.

I can understand your annoyance though. Content creators should have a choice
whether to be framed or not... and they do, but like you said not a lot of
people know about framing sites and/or how to break them.

