meta: premium information policy

Submitted by Brian on April 19th, 2010 at 2:55 PM

Earlier today a thread got pulled because it was too specific about paywalled content. A slightly vaguer thread popped up and will stand even though it relates the gist in about four different replies. (Gist: w00t Dee Hart, something that was apparent from Tom's interview Saturday.) So what's the policy around here?

Hell if I know, really. Pulling the first thread was pointless. A new one popped up instantly and provided basically the same information. I think it's actually worse for us legally to pull certain threads for counterintuitive DMCA reasons. In any case you can't copyright a fact, only its expression, legal attempts to revive "hot news doctrine" aside. Strict policing is a waste of time for little benefit, done on behalf of a site that nukes links to mgoblog on sight.

The information will spread whether or not we deploy the iron fist. The net impact of strict policing of premium content will be to obscure the source of the information. Instead of something coming from Rivals it will be a step removed or just asserted with no backing. A recent example: a premium post was replicated verbatim on HailVictors.com and then linked here pointing to HailVictors, not Scout.

So:

  • You might as well relate the gist of some paywalled content. It'll come out anyway.
  • Do not C&P. Rephrase.
  • Don't relate every last detail. Leave the paywalled content some value. In this case, "it looks good for Dee Hart and we should be getting good news relatively soon" would probably work.
  • If you do so, provide a link. Don't just say "Site X says." The link will draw some traffic, may spur conversions, and will help the site with search engine rankings.

This is not a license to rephrase every rumble from an insider or the entire contents of an ITF. Sporadic and important are your watchwords.

What gets deleted. Copy and pastes of any premium content, even small sections that would be fair use of publicly available information. Posts that talk about premium content and do not link to the original source. Posts that relate every detail. And some posts that don't rise to the "this will be reposted in twelve seconds" standard.

Comments

Blue_Bull_Run

April 19th, 2010 at 3:02 PM ^

I'm glad to see Brian taking an open point of view. Brian is correct that "inside information" is very tough to protect. I'm glad to see him accepting that for what it is and allowing us to post (relatively) freely.

Too many sites try to restrict content, and it's frustrating and ultimately futile. So yeah, Kudos to Brian for taking a view that makes much more sense, yet isn't followed nearly enough.

BornInAA

April 19th, 2010 at 3:04 PM ^

people pay for these sites.
Any news that is reported gets around almost instantly anyway.
Does it really matter if I know who committed to what a few hours earlier than everyone else?
This instant transmission of news is what is killing the newspapers.
I would cancel my hard subscription to the news if my wife didn't live for the Target ads. Consume!

Magnus

April 19th, 2010 at 3:24 PM ^

Why do you pay for TV? Why do you pay for magazines? Why do you pay for good food?

When it comes down to it, people subscribe to these sites because they want to. They find it entertaining. They find it useful. They want to be "in the know." They want to watch the highlight videos. Etc.

If you don't think it's a useful way to spend your money, that's fine. But it's not hard to understand why people do.

jg2112

April 19th, 2010 at 3:34 PM ^

I think if you closely read the post of the person you responded to, you could understand that he knows why people have premium subscriptions, because he rationalized why he didn't find such a subscription necessary.

As usual, I await your final word.

Wolverine318

April 19th, 2010 at 3:47 PM ^

I am a premium member of rivals and I ask myself that question. For the most part whatever content is posted on The Wolverine is posted on this site and others in less than five minutes. I was recently blacklisted on the Fort for repeated linking of mgoblog diaries. I consider it wasted $100 for the annual subscription. With mgoblog basically the only real value I get out of The Wolverine are the hockey mods. I can receive hockey recruiting updates that I cannot get elsewhere.

zohizzle101

April 19th, 2010 at 4:10 PM ^

and the reason that these sites exist is because the moderators of these sites spend a lot of time and effort getting information on recruits. They have relationships with various coaches and parents and if it weren't for a rival moderator getting in touch with the parent, none of this information would be out right now and we wouldve found out on May 22nd on what the decision would be

ish

April 19th, 2010 at 4:57 PM ^

i subscribed to scout for two years, and rivals for one. now i subscribe to neither. they get information out instantly and often post minor details that you don't necessarily see here. however, the content here quickly became better than both premium sites and so the value of the premium sites reduced. still, if you have an insatiable need to know things immediately, those sites provide a good service.

energyblue1

April 19th, 2010 at 6:22 PM ^

cut and paste info from one site to the next. Reality is info spreads quickly. Mlive, rivals, this board and gbw and umgoblue all get info spread from their writers nearly instantly or within a day.

Tate was in a boot and 5 blogs had it up and 3 message boards had discussions on it that day within hrs....

johnvand

April 19th, 2010 at 10:12 PM ^

"Strict policing is a waste of time for little benefit, done on behalf of a site that nukes links to mgoblog on sight."

Shove it rivals. Your instant post nuking is really getting on my nerves.