Skip to main content

Engadget Busted Stealing Content

Ah, the wonderful world of Engadget. I always forget how unbelievably pretentious Engadget is until they decide to step in it publically. Like today when they got called out for ripping off content from another site (one which they've apparently had a spat with).

Until one of those sites breaks a story. This one is the Ubiquitous Multimedia Informator, aka Brick. DapReview.net got their hands on a unit and broke the story. Engadget originally posted the picture DapReview.net had used and linked to the site. Then, someone got a hold of the post and changed it, cropping the photo to remove the link to DapReview and no link to the original story. DapReview has some pretty damning screenshots.

Digg picked this up and the comments are off and running. Ryan Block, Peter Rojas, and Jason Calacanis all have (apparently) weighed in on the subject but all seem to be missing the point. They're saying this is a "mistake". How exactly did a posted article get revised to carefully remove all reference to the originated article. Mistake indeed.

Others claim Weblogs Inc. has done the same thing in the past (check the comments).

Seems like Jason and Co. are getting pretty good at apologizing.

Update: I didn't know how prescient the previous statement was. Jason and Ryan Block stopped by; check out the comments. Links updated.

Comments

  1. It was in fact, a mistake, one I'm not super excited to admit I made (but one that I take full accountability for). We're a small team of writers working on staggered shifts every day having to keep track of hundreds of feeds, hundreds of links, hundreds of tips. Things get mixed up and confused, and I misattributed credit on a story under a false impression. It happens. I corrected and apologized, which is the only right thing to do. Hope people can understand!

    Best, Ryan

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is pretty simple... we posted the story then changed it to credit another group which we mistakenly thought had the origional story.

    We found out they didn't and we switched it back.

    When you're a large site like engadget you get 100 people claiming to be the source of a story and sometimes we make mistakes... when we do we admit the mistake and fix it.

    That's what we did here.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh comon, a photograph that had the URL of the site from which the photo was taken, and you thought it came from a different site? Give me a break.

    When you're a large site like Engadget you have the responsibility to check the source. In this case, it looks like you did that because the original post had all the right attributions. What still stumps me is that someone went back, took the time to crop the photo, remove the attribution, and re-post the story. That's a purposeful, meaningful process.

    I appreciate you guys fanning out to comment on everyone's blog now that the story is out, but I don't buy it. I don't buy the excuse that someone (Ryan, apparently) spent what is obviously valuable time to significantly alter the article. The fact that you're now spending even more amounts of valuable time to damage control is even more telling to me.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Austin here, from DAPreview.net

    To clarify, the issue is not relevent with Engadget and ALL blogs, just some - including DAPreview. Peter and Ryan have a personal problem with us dating back to 2004, as I explained in the article.

    So, do you buy their response?

    "Ooops, we didn't really mean to do that, it was all an accident."

    OK, so, they took the time to go back and edit an article that was already published, from another author. They took the time to rewrite the credit, removing all reference to DAPreview. They took the time to edit the picture and repost it, cutting out the DAPreview logo. They did all this - for no apparent reason - and without checking a single fact?

    Keep in mind, out of the 100+ items that they credited to us before August 2005, only a handful of our images were ever watermarked. The few that were, had been originals of ours taken at CES or CeBIT... never once have we watermarked someone else's photo.

    Their explanation is ridiclous, but what else can they say? We didn't expect them to admit anything.

    Anyway... we had to call them out, it's done, and we're moving on.

    Thanks for bringing this issue to light on your blog.

    Regards,
    Austin

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Happy Retirement Pat Sweeny!

In a previous life, I was an active member of the West Michigan Shores Chapter of the STC. I met a lot of really cool people there and learned a lot about what it meant to be not just a technical writer, but more about how technical writers can break out of the mold and accomplish things.

One of the people who did that was Pat Sweeny. Pat is (or was, by this point) the President and owner of The Bishop Company, a contract do-it-all house; they document, streamline and illustrate your process, and they do it damn well. Pat was one of the first people in that chapter to "get it", which is to say, he and his company understand that technical writing isn't going to be a department for very much longer, it's going to be a business.

He had the foresight to actually make it a business, but he also had something else. Pat was forever trying to better those around him. He would come to meetings (which was a big step beyond most people) and teach you things. Or he would come to …

Google Inbox: A classic Google product

My work domain (an EDU) recently had Google Inbox enabled so I had a good chance to try it out. My personal email is relatively quiet and, I believe, doesn't provide a good Inbox experience. Work is more active and requires actual management, something I've tossed many a tool at over the years. As part of my work life, I supported the Google Apps for EDU installation here and took a pretty extensive presentation to campus about how to manage large amounts of email.

Inbox is a classic Google product: the distillation of a number of excellent ideas into a set of half-complete features built for a use case most people don't meet. We've seen this in the past in products like ChromeVox, Google's Chrome extension for accessibility. ChromeVox works great on ChromeOS devices, but completely ignores the point that most users of accessibility tech (AT) don't have or want ChromeOS devices and come to services with their AT in tow. ChromeVox also ignores decades of convent…

Evernote

Evernote, for better or worse, is the best note-taking service for my needs. It works across all my devices/computers/modes. It's fairly easy to get stuff into it. Hell, they even have 2-Factor authentication. The Windows app is a little clunky and my girlfriend and I have never been able to get shared notes to work properly (conflicted note! three times in the same grocery trip!), but what service is perfect? At least they have nice socks.

Everything, in fact, is pretty good as long as you don't screw up. And screw up I did. I'm not very regular about making backups, but I do make them every month or so. Once you figure out how to create a backup, that is.

There's a helpful Export Note option (which turns into Export Notes when you select multiple notes HINT). The export process is essentially opening All Notes, selecting every note, and then choosing Export Notes. Or something like that; Evernote never tells you, you're left to figure it out on your own. The file…