@Mark, thanks for stopping by and and commenting. I thought you might be going through this problem due to the popularity of your blog. It is rather unfortunate that it's become so difficult for bloggers to track this type of thing. Thanks also for link sharing that article - more proof that things may be broken beyond repair.

@Adam, thanks for stopping-by and sharing your story. I find myself worrying about this sometimes myself. I read so much content that I wonder if I indeliberately am recalling thoughts, or even a coined term I've read somewhere. The rule is that if I think I might have seen/read it somewhere else, and can't recall the source, I just won't use it.

@Autom I agree. And it's funny that you mention the possibility of people taking this approach at wholesale. While writing this yesterday, I thought about how we automatically assume role of conservator with Twitter's ecosystem - whether it be calling out someone who spams, or making sure attribution of links/RT's is done using proper form and etiquette. Is it because the 140 character messaging makes it easier to manage? Have we allowed content from the other moving parts of the social Web to evolve and become too unwieldy or too difficult to manage, co-ordinate and/or preserve?

After Thoughts

I've noticed that many News sites have implemented javascript code which automatically alters any cutting and pasting done from any of their content. Meaning, if someone were to try to copy the title, short snippet, or article in its entirety, this code automatically inserts a link when it is pasted. This is one way to enforce attribution, and if the scraper uses the lame excuse that the scraping is being done by some automated tool, then there should be no reason for the attribution link not to appear when it is pasted on their blog or other social media platform.

I believe this code is part of a content management solution offered by a company called Demand Media. The thing I like about this most is that if you wanted to control the way your blog content is shared, you could use this code to force a "teaser" type of snippet, which includes a "Read More" link that will direct readers stumbling on the post in other parts of the social Web to your post. From a copyright standpoint, if someone decides they still want to rip off the entirety of your article, even though you'd prefer they only take a few paragraphs and read more link from the site the content originates, then if the content still gets mirrored in its entirety, you'll know the only way they pulled it off was to type it out. This may change things from the point of view of disabling automated scraping tools on terms that are agreeable with the content creators and perhaps even help enforce copyright.

I also don't imagine producing this type of functionality for blog sites will be too difficult a task - in fact it seems that it's the perfect time to pressure Wordpress and other blog software developers to produce plugins to help bloggers safeguard their work and nip the scraping/plagiarism problem at the bud.

stopped? hmm .. sadly i doubt it. for some there will always be an urge to take shortcuts at the risk of their own reputation and credibility

perhaps they don't care or quite simply have no imagination or are plain desperate

what could potentially be disconcerting is if say a given majority would view this online behaviour as perfectly acceptable and chalk it up to some lame excuse about how the seemingly gratuitous 'sharing' and 'openness' of the web "naturally engender" these tendencies

i would not be surprised if some actually do advocate that view .. while thumbing a ride to #area53 ;)

I had something similar happen, I wrote a blog about websites like Twitter and Facebook being a "social media highway"... someone who commented on it and liked it a lot ended up making their name on Twitter "SocialMediaHWY" or something to that effect.

Not that I don't appreciate her reading, but I was kind of perturbed when I realized that.

No, we can't stop it. I don't even know how to keep up with it. I would say I have a post completely ripped off and posted without attribution 1-2 times a month. But those are the ones I find out about. Most of the time I stumble upon something suspicious and it has often been translated into another language.

I usually write a polite note at least asking for attibution. Sometimes it happens sometimes it doesn't.

And by the way, here's a story about how famous film maker Michale Moore ripped of and took credit for a local news story: http://shar.es/mBgQu

The integrity and fairness of the Internet is permanently broken.

Thanks for the great post Joseph.

Thanks Autom! Totally agree - human involvement and response is the only way to approach content analysis.

oops - didnt; finish my train of thought there..was on iPhone that was close to juicing out haha

so to continue: but even then, without the human voice to validate intent m meaning, i would question the accuracy n authenticity of the automated sentiment

"isn't auto-sentiment human assisted and directed algorithmic reputational scoring anyway?" yes. and perhaps at the sci-fact speed thar tech is evolving singularity will be realized and AI will finally have useful, practical application..but even then, without the human voice to validate intent m meaning

gr8 post my friend ttys a

Wow! Incredibly well articulated Autom!

When writing this post, I wondered about the points on human/social capital you raise and the part it plays in influencing and informing business decisions on systems, software and IT infrastructure.

From my observations and experiences, it seems most SMM vendors are making themselves extremely flexible, and their pitches and messages certainly reflect an overall willingness to help organization understand the hidden potential in leveraging SM as BI - still I wonder if the seeming cautious and sometimes inflexible reception has to to with the things you and I raise - or is there something we're missing?

the short answer is a resounding 'yes'

my sense is that the overall reticence from organizations who typically adopt the "approach with caution" mentality with respect to social media, in essence, stems from a confused perception of social media's one, bold and naturally disruptive proposition: transparency.

all the expected checks and balances voiced (and typically enforced) by social media practitioners, stakeholders and regulatory bodies, watchdogs alike are driven by disparate (sometimes diametrically opposed) views on what "being transparent" really means in social media

because the natural tendency (à la knee-jerk) is to immediately substantiate the viability of transparency versus providing a clear and comprehensive schema of all the possible scenarios in which *transparent intentions* may be expressed and applied, the overall governing sentiment is to mitigate (if not quell) potential negative implications which may come in the form of compromised reputations, misrepresentation, deceit, counter-productivity and the like.

now more than ever, monitoring and analytics are called to play a role that *must* underpin the social media movement. that it is being proposed to be part and parcel of an overall business intelligence model not only makes complete sense but also, and more importantly, provides sound context from which organizations can begin to truly understand social media's potential and long-term impact.

Hi Andy,

First off, thanks for stopping-by our blog.

I appreciate and completely respect your point of view on the topic - it does make logical sense that the pragmatism or "new" ways of thinking will eventually have it's way with revising the "old." This potentially could mean an increasing tolerance or "fashion" for things we currently find unacceptable or repulsive.

I guess what's most worrisome aside from the slippery slope argument is that we might find ourselves placing conditions on the things we accept as "cool" or "taboo", and how that might lead to undue reputation risk.

Today, we sort of see this type of thing play out with companies jumping on the edgy campaigns or even those jumping on the "green" bandwagon. While there are good intentions behind the initiative, the reaction could get quite heated if online audiences perceive it as being crude, insensitive, misinformed or as hype-driven greenwash that does more harm than good.

On your last point, our ability to forgive and regard incidents, people and reputations with greater empathy is certainly a redeeming aspect of the social Web that gives us reason to look towards the future with hope and optimism.

I agree, serious transgressions will not be overlooked.

However, as the current college generation matures, they will look back at their own mistakes differently than the current generation does. Right now, the majority of observers did not have to live in a world where that drinking binge was captured by someone's cell phone and posted to Facebook. Therefore, we look at any such action as being reckless and we judge them--maybe too harshly.

The next generation will have empathy for those types of situations. So, you are right, major transgressions will not receive a "get out of reputation jail free" card, but minor faux pas will not have the same impact on one's reputation.

That's more than 140 characters would let me share! ;-)

Yep, you said it - and I'm very glad you did. I was a bit apprehensive about using the analogy of drinking behind the wheel, but this really was a post - like you said - that made me wonder "what is this guy smoking."

I couldn't agree more with:

TC post was weak and true-to-form sensationalist.

Certinaly one of the most sweeping and powerful statements in your comment.

Thanks Autom!

Joesph - it's not surprising that TechCrunch's Arrington, given his tendency to share randomly radical views, push the proverbial envelope (recall: controversy over publicly disclosing Twitter internal docs) and call attention to er..well, himself, really.

However, to your point and those of others—my guess being a silent majority—the underlying reality is quite different.

When I read this passage from Arringtard (a name I've seen used by others on Twitter):

"We’re going to be forced to adjust as a society. I firmly believe that we will simply become much more accepting of indiscretions over time. Employers just won’t care that ridiculous drunk college pictures pop up about you when they do a HR background search on you."

my first reaction was "okay, and what have YOU been smoking? what planet do you think you're on?"

Such sweeping propositions are simply quite out-of-touch with how society actually works. Not only are such suggestions sorely naive (oh yeah sure 'force society to adjust'—who says these things?) but also indirectly mock the very serious and intricate dynamics of socialization on all levels, whether such social perceptions or interactions occur live or online. Moreover, those already leery of social media to begin with would come across this infantile posturing and may well look at it and say "see? told you so..social media's a crock."

I typically appreciate diverse, frank points of view on both longstanding and evolving social norms and behaviour, as all forms of opinion in that area of study are worthy of analysis intelligible or not.

But that TC post was weak and true-to-form sensationalist. I wish so-called influential tech bloggers would just get over their own hubris and focus on *educating* the public on the more tangible value people can obtain from technology's intensely rapid evolution, instead of getting distracted and carrying on as if they were rebellious, maudlin high school geeks entrapped within their 'radical', insular existence.

Yikes. Did I say all that? Yep. I did.

Thanks Autom! I quite like your artful manner of describing the elephant sitting in the board room knocking heads. We also share the same sentiment on both the mind-boggling part, and on the concern that if it continues to advance in an unfettered way, it's the kind of threat that will eventually have directors ducking under their desk to hide, and will make even some of the best online reputation attacks we know today seem like a walk in the park.

"Unless a dialogue exists where we can trace and pick apart the types of suspicious activity going on in social media, we can't possibly understand what hit us, much less be able to reason or explain how it was allowed to happen."

you are clearly part of the movement that is encouraging this dialogue. and i also agree with you that more concrete, actionable measures need to take place to address this looming issue NOW rather than wait for white elephants to start sitting on directors in board rooms just to hit them over the head and make them realize that proactive (not reactive) action MUST be the order of the day.

it boggles my mind how we've historically seen this all too typical sit-n-wait approach when dealing (or not) with the malware that also burgeons exponentially as an expected function of all other advancing technologies..and yet, the overall behaviour seems unchanged..it's more than disappointing, it's actually quite worrisome

kudos for bringing this issue to the fore, my friend. only those who really care enough about the long term will sincerely put effort into making a difference. it would appear that those who share this sentiment are few and far between

Steve, I've seen your name appear in comment steams on this topic, with views very similar to mine. If it is apprehension or complacency that is coming in the way of taking serious and concerted action, let's hope our advocacy on the topic and posts like this act as the much needed spark.

Thanks for stopping-by and sharing your comment Steve!

Joseph, it's a huge issue and the trends are proving that it is only going to get worse. Unfortunately, until there are serious financial consequences (ie: ROI) as we've previously experienced with Identity Theft and email spam, it will not get the attention it needs. Right now, Social Media in general is easy pickings for fraudsters.
The steps you've taken are admirable but more attention is needed across the board.

Mark, you bring some excellent thoughts to the discussion, and your ideas on analysis advancements are very much in alignment with mine. Namely this idea of a computational aspect to speed-read through incidents, and highlight or flag posts which have a skewed or disproportionate sentiment scoring that gets determined by some form of cursory language assessment. The usefulness of this kind of machine assistance is further complimented by this idea of discovering all spin-offs or references in blog-land, message boards, Twitter, Facebook, etc.

This aggregated tally or score-keeping could mean off-loading the discovery portion (and using the example of Olivier's post, this could be a significant time-saver) to allow the people part to take over (i.e. question asking, strategy, engagement, etc.).

I've always believed that machines are only as smart as the people using them, so any advancement in the pursuit of measurement must strike that balance of taking the machine portion as far as it can go to let the smarter (people) portion figure things out.

A lot of information here but the Blanchard example is a good illustration of the measurement conundrum. Sure you can put sentiments into "buckets" but a real-live reader probably is not going to wade through 250 comments but may still come up with an overall of idea of winners and losers.

How do they do this? I think a statistical analysis of reader behavior will probably be completed at some piont. My guess is that the original blog and first five comments may get read throughly enought to form an impression. So in a sentiment analysis they should get extra weight. I think the sentiment of any "big name" commenters anywhere in the post would get a little extra credit as well as maybe the last few questions ... just my guess of how a real analysis might be made more meaningful.

Then you have to look at all the spin-off blogs (and comments) of course. This whole thing is a mess isn't it? : )

Glad people smarter than me are figuring this out.

Excellent points all the way through Autom!

I particularly feel that jotting down rudimentary models (your example of a comment log) is the way to start. As a point on how our firms assigns tonality, we do factor in the handling of a post (based on positive/negative/neutral commentary) to arrive at an overall score. Some of the more advanced frameworks for determining influence may actually begin to compile more analysis on the people who have participated. Did they post anonymously? Does the link in their sig or their comment reference a discussion on the topic or incident?

The alignment and convergence of models is perhaps the most challenging. A part of me believes this can be accomplished in a way that can be meaningful to more than the people involved with advancing it. Though I also believe that there is significant meaning derived from treating incidents on a case study basis and using the experiences in dealing with different situations as a useful reference point without the slavish adherence to let the ruler dictate.