Brian Oberkirch and I had an ugly dustup yesterday over his having used Social Media Today, a web site I facilitate that pulls together–with the permission of the individual bloggers–material from 40 or so of the best social media blogs, to illustrate a post called Should You Get a Say in How Your Posts Are Used? 

Although the post didn’t say so explicitly I felt it left the impression that I was using Brian’s posts on SMT without his knowledge or permission, which is not true.  Some of the early comments suggest that others had that impression, too.  Like all of the other bloggers who participate, Brian was formally invited and some of his posts have been appearing there for several months with, at least, his tacit approval.  (I say “tacit” because I can’t lay my hands right now on the original e-mail exchange.)

But, that’s all so yesterday and Brian and I have agreed to move on to some of the more substantive issues he raised in the post, beginning with the question he poses in his headline.  My short answer is: “Of course you should have some say in how your posts are used.”  No one should be able to simply re-post full posts of another author on another web site without the consent of the creator.  

What is unclear is how much is too much since a certain amount of ”syndication” is valuable.  I’m not sure there is an enforceable rule at this stage of web development (except for celebrities and big media companies who can a afford a lot of lawyers) but there need to be clearer guidelines.

Aggregation is not inherently a dirty word.  Everyone who starts a blog hopes, I suppose, that they are going to become a Michael Arrington or Om Malik.  Most are not.  Your chances of becoming an “A’ list blogger who can make a living from sponsors and ad revenues are roughly the same as winning the Mega Millions lottery. 

Most bloggers realize (or soon learn) this and they blog for other reasons.  They view themselves–not their blogs–as the brand and they use blogs to market themselves and their services or products.  For these people (and I’m one of them), having your posts appear on multiple blogs means a bigger audience and is a positive thing. It is such a positive thing that Blogburst was able to build a successful business around aggregation and has only recently started to pay contributors something.   Many of my posts appear not only on Enterprise Web 2.0 but also at WebProNews, the FastForward Blog, and Social Media Today.  

Now, if you’re more interested in trying to crack the “A” list, as many “B” level bloggers (say, 500 to 10,000 in the Technorati rankings) are, then you want all the hits and comments to go to your own page.  The emphasis is on turning yourself into a power broker or your blog into a media property or maybe just proving to blogger rivals that your dick is bigger.   Nothing wrong with that but it’s a different game from that played by most of us blue collar slugs. 

Brian raises a point about finding a site on SMT labeled ‘Brian Oberkirch’s site” that he didn’t know about.  That’s my fault for not explaining properly to SMT participants how the software that runs the page works. 

SMT is a de facto demo site for Blogtronix (no money involved, although they let us use the platform for free and host the site), whose extremely social software was orginally designed primarily for enterprise collaboration and community building.  Although I’m not sure the nice folks at Blogtronix anticipated it at the beginning, it has emerged as one of the best and most useful publishing platforms because it makes life so easy for editors–all feeds are pulled into a centralized staging area where a single editor can review dozens of new posts in a few seconds and instantly approve the ones he or she wants to use and they immediately appear on the front page. 

When a new “member” is added to the site and the system is set up to collect “autoposts” of the new member’s feed, the system automatically generates a user page called “Dah Dah’s site,” that pulls all of the individual’s posts, not just those approved for the front page.  The individual’s page (or site) accomodates a photograph and a link to background information and expertise.  This is just one of the social, community-building features of the software and I’m sure you can see how it would be useful, particularly in enterprise settings.   

What the page really is at SMT, and what it really should be called is “Dah Dah’s page” or “Dah Dah’s SMT page,” not ”site.”  Alas, there is not currently a way to turn this feature off but I will ask my Bulgarian friends if they can re-label it for this context.  

Jeremiah raised the issue of losing a comment from his site to SMT.  This is not much of problem, at least in my view, because in order to even see the “comment” or ”rate a post” buttons, viewers must be logged in.  The only comments you’re going to get there are from other members of the group who have SMT user names and passwords.  Casual viewers are not even aware that there is a comment function.

As for revenue-sharing,  I believe sites that depend on aggregated content should split the revenue with bloggers, once (and if), they have something to split.  SMT has no revenues.  There is no paid advertising on the site. There are a couple of things on the page that look like ads under a Friends of the Family heading. That’s exactly what they are. Companies that have been friendly and supportive of the web site. No money has ever changed hands.  Should we be fortunate to get the point where we attract a sponsor, there will be an equitable revenue sharing plan which contributors will help devise.  At our current readership level, we might be able to generate $5 a month for each of the 40 or so bloggers.

Finally, Brian raised the point that there are “several other authors aggregated on the sidebar, some of whom I would never associate with.”  I have no idea who he is referring to or what the issue may be but I don’t think that being on the same blogroll as someone whose opinions you disagree with constitutes an endorsement. 

I have tried to avoid politics when selecting people to be part of SMT and simply base my choices on whether their writing is interesting and contributes something to the social media discussion that readers will find useful.  I am a journalist by training and inclination and I believe deeply in a diversity of opinions. 

A few SMT bloggers have complained about the not-very-anonymous “Amanda Chapel” being on the list.  For the record, I didn’t invite “Amanda” to be part of the group, but he/she/it was the only person so far to figure out how to register themselves and create a subsidiary blog on the site without being invited (a glitch that will be corrected in the next version of Blogtronix when it comes out in a few days).  I could block “Amanda” but the three or four posts “she” has left there have been extremely civilized and well-written.  On the other hand, I have not given Amanda access to the e-mail back channel where the family secrets are kept. 

I don’t know who else Brian might have a problem with or why but I don’t believe you can manage a good and fair publication if you allow every contributor to black list all the people they don’t like.

I hope this clears the air a little.  Let’s keep the conversation going.