

PHP Q&A website - creatom
http://phpispoetry.com/

======
Piskvorrr
Hmm, interesting site. Looks familiar ... almost too familiar ...
waaaaaitaminute: <http://phpispoetry.com/question_page/question/16> looks
_just_ like [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2283937/how-should-i-
ethi...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2283937/how-should-i-ethically-
approach-user-password-storage-for-later-plaintext-retrie) . Yup, an exact
copy, right down to mentions of "bounty system" and "thanks to all the Stack
users", and the only answer you have is likewise word-for-word identical to
SO's highest voted answer. Is that both _your_ question and _your_ answer that
_you_ asked on SO, back there in 2010? If not, see this for proper CC-
attribution guidelines - SO allows for republishing of user contributions, it
just requires a few simple rules to be followed for it:
<http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/> Quote:

"If you republish this content, we require that you: \- Visually indicate that
the content is from Stack Overflow, Meta Stack Overflow, Server Fault, or
Super User in some way. It doesn’t have to be obnoxious; a discreet text blurb
is fine. \- Hyperlink directly to the original question on the source site
(e.g., <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12345>) \- Show the author names
for every question and answer \- Hyperlink each author name directly back to
their user profile page on the source site (e.g.,
<http://stackoverflow.com/users/12345/username>)

Alas, you aren't doing any of these things on the site; worse, the texts seem
to suggest that you and "peter" have written all of that yourself.
<http://phpispoetry.com/user/best> That is an unfortunate issue that you've
overlooked; people tend to get all possessive of the stuff they're written ;)

As for the site, it looks nice and clean, and feels very responsive. Perhaps
making the tags interactive would be good - but I feel you're working on that
even as I'm typing this :)

~~~
creatom
There are just 6 questions, I copied it from SO just to test it. :)

~~~
Piskvorrr
Yup, I was thinking that was the case, and that you didn't "act in bad faith",
so to speak :) In other words, copying SO's content would actually be a good
way to "preseed" the site with interesting q&a - if the attribution
requirements are followed (some people get really angry when they see their
own content misattributed).

Anyway, I was a bit confused about the +1/+share buttons; you might want to
differentiate them a bit further. Apart from that, I like the site's extreme
simplicity, both in look and operation.

