I still don't know. What is this hat tip?
Frankly I never understood the concept of 'stealing' links. Once ago a friend on fb got very offended that I posted a link which was on his fanpage without 'via', like everybody is obligated to advertise random sources for stuff that already have thousands of views/shares. Maybe back in the day linking was worth something and I remember all those linkblogs like halfproject, surfstation, k10k, etc., but today with all those tumblrs and other tools to aggregate, suggest, reshare, cross-post, I don't see any particular value in clicking 'share/repost/+1' that needs to be credited. I'm with Marco on this But regardless of how much time it takes to find interesting links every day, I don’t think most intermediaries deserve credit for simply sharing a link to someone else’s work.
(Or the other way around. I agree with Marco on that one, I think it's confusing.)
In practice there is 90% overlap between these terms and both denote the tertiary source you became aware of the link through.
The difference when it exists is that "HT" is less likely to add anything you don't see in the source whereas "via" will sometimes be worth clicking through to see that person's insight.
A -> B -> Me
B added nothing, you should visit A for the source. Goodwill link to B, you should check out his site.
B may have added something. You should visit A for the source and if you have time B might be worth it.
Flickr photo (ori) -> example.tumblr.com -> my blog "photo via example.tumblr.com"
Youtube clip (ori) -> John Doe on FB -> your FB "youtube clip via John Doe"
so 'via' is the place where you clicked repost/share not the original content
I always interpreted them as mostly meaning the same thing.
"Via" should not mean the original source because it means "through" or "by means of".
I don't know what hat tip is but original sources are important and the least someone can do when they rewrite your content is offer up a direct link to you. The whole rewriting content thing is kind of annoying in the online news sites though.
Despite his throw-out-the-baby-and-bathwater approach, the discussion is worth having instead of dismissing the idea wholesale.
The NYT article he refers to covers the modest goals quite well. It's not a panacea that is just about using "via" and "hat tip" correctly. It's about making attribution clearer and putting in place some guidelines about attributing things to the original source.
Perhaps two odd symbols will solve the problem.
He never takes a marginal approach to an issue. There's a clear line down the middle and he is well and truly on one side.
Who does and is interesting to read?
Not everyone enjoys the Zed Shaw style spit-flecked rant, some of us enjoy reading thoughtful commentators who are not %150 sure of themselves.
Businessinsider apology types -
"We don't "scrape"
content, at least not in
the way Marco thinks we
Cameron koczon in http://m.alistapart.com/articles/orbital-content/ mentioned the same orbital content strategy, which my blog coverage - http://mjux.tumblr.com/tagged/strategy on aggregation and curation. The whole point of ".. this
transformation of our relationship with content will
force us to rethink existing
reputation, distribution, and
all for the better."
is move away from "read once and save".
The via and h/t links make the same flaws but place only bits for twitter content.
/edit: As much I enjoy the apropos elements in instapaper. It provides the same "context and immediacy" in twitter - http://twitter.com/mjux/statuses/179422000517873666
I have started working on a technical solution to news attribution. The original Atom spec had a definition for a 'source', which isn't being used. It didn't get adapted into hNews. I am working on extending Microdata so that links to the main source of the story can be attributed and read by search engines and aggregators.
The idea is that with the support of search engines blogs and websites that don't properly attribute with microdata markup can be penalized as duplicate content. A lot of the re-blogging content networks rely on search referrals for traffic and revenue, and referrals from aggregators for readers. This would also solve the problem where stories from wire sources such as Reuters and AP are republished hundreds of times on hundreds of different news sites and pollute search results.
The standards already exist, they just need to be documented and adapted (and added to the BlogPost schema). It just as important for applications to be able to read attribution links as it is for readers.
for eg. at the moment when Business Insider reposts one of Marco's posts there is no way for a crawler to know which is the original. Microdata can help that and help keep mirrored or ripped content out of search engines and aggregators (like Google News, etc.)
The other problem I have with this group is that the entire committee is made up of representatives from large media companies, and they are all writers. Not a single independent blog, or indy blogger represented, or part-time blogger, or designer, or programmer, or software implementor, etc.
I think this is a great article because the idea of curation has and is continuing to become something that's very trendy. And of course, with trends, people feel the need to redefine things that often don't need to be redefined. (And on the way they're bastardizing the meaning of curation as well)
Marco hits on a number of great points and the notion of being credited for discovery is a huge one. Like many ideas (startups, creative or otherwise), discoveries can happen in parallel. Discovery tends to be heavily overrated
If I saw it in a piece, I would think that someone had tried to use some clever bullet point without specifying the character set properly.
- via, means which way you passed "through" before getting the information. It's the site/blog/curator that sent you to the original…
- source, is the source of the information on the internet. Sometimes information comes from non-public press statements, real world interviews, or other media. But the website that publishes the information, is IMHO the one deserving the "source" link (and the only one to which we can effectively link).