Comments on: How to eHow http://www.johnon.com/728/how-to-ehow.html I think there's an opinion on that subject lying around here somewhere.... Mon, 20 May 2013 02:55:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7 by: Wendy Piersall http://www.johnon.com/728/how-to-ehow.html#comment-132325 Wed, 27 Apr 2011 21:54:32 +0000 http://www.johnon.com/728/how-to-ehow.html#comment-132325 I don't need an automated plagiarism checker to know if eHow writers stole my content. I can tell you eHow has 50-70 pages of content that reference my sites as the "source". The writers take my original projects and tutorials, rewrite my instructions, and post it as a 'new' How To. I can assure you, scraping from other websites is among eHow’s *most egregious* sins. I don’t need an automated plagiarism checker to know if eHow writers stole my content. I can tell you eHow has 50-70 pages of content that reference my sites as the “source”. The writers take my original projects and tutorials, rewrite my instructions, and post it as a ‘new’ How To.

I can assure you, scraping from other websites is among eHow’s *most egregious* sins.

]]> by: john andrews http://www.johnon.com/728/how-to-ehow.html#comment-130263 Wed, 31 Mar 2010 20:02:31 +0000 http://www.johnon.com/728/how-to-ehow.html#comment-130263 @ritchie I agree it's more fun with duscussion, but this technology is not good for discussion. I will be upgrading to something better this summer...and look forward to conversations. Thank for reading. @ritchie I agree it’s more fun with duscussion, but this technology is not good for discussion. I will be upgrading to something better this summer…and look forward to conversations. Thank for reading.

]]> by: ritchie http://www.johnon.com/728/how-to-ehow.html#comment-130250 Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:22:01 +0000 http://www.johnon.com/728/how-to-ehow.html#comment-130250 It's always annoying when you detect such scraper sites; but is this also the reason why you shortened your blog feed? (If I remember correctly, Johnon.com used to offer a full feed, right?) Actually, I'm thinking about doing the same thing. Reading blogs is much for fun when you participate in the discussion anyways. It’s always annoying when you detect such scraper sites; but is this also the reason why you shortened your blog feed? (If I remember correctly, Johnon.com used to offer a full feed, right?) Actually, I’m thinking about doing the same thing. Reading blogs is much for fun when you participate in the discussion anyways.

]]> by: Gareth james http://www.johnon.com/728/how-to-ehow.html#comment-130249 Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:33:40 +0000 http://www.johnon.com/728/how-to-ehow.html#comment-130249 Nice one John :) Nice one John :)

]]> by: john andrews http://www.johnon.com/728/how-to-ehow.html#comment-130242 Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:40:17 +0000 http://www.johnon.com/728/how-to-ehow.html#comment-130242 Well, let's take a look at the baseless accusations you have made in your comment: - all eHow articles are checked with a perfect "plagiarism checker" at eHow - it "isn't possible" to get copied content re-published on eHow - I jumped to conclusions, and didn't "check my facts" - I fabricated the story about eHow publishing "copies" or published materials Aside the the obvious "fact" that your comment is full of baseless, not-fact-checked conclusion jumping, I'll address your comment. If I look for "how to transfer a domain away from [registrar]" and find an eHow "article" ranking, it is an "article" that is little more than a repeated list of items from one of many registrar websites helping their users transfer domains to them from other registrars. It is very safe to assume eHow did not write this article, and a freelancer did not write this article and submit it to both eHow and a registrar FAQ. This is but one of many examples of eHow republishing content from other sites. Don't feel too bad... you're not the only slimeball on the Internet. Wikipedia used to instruct its authors to check if content could be dis-intermediated by a simple rewrite, as part of the criteria for whether an article should be added to wikipedia. There are many rascals on the Internets; none deserving of respect. I don't work for eHow, so I won't bother to check if : - free or almost free automated "plagiarism checking" tools can notice that a list of items was lifted from another site - One or two lines of "unique introduction" to a list of items is considered by what you seem to consider the Gold Standard for Integrity measurement - free plagiarism checking software - as unique. I'd bet my lunch that it passes. I am not doing any more work here.. I am not an investigative journalist, and I won't be doing your homework for you. I'll stick with my considered opinion -- eHow is "scraping" content, Google is ranking it, and your comment is of even lower value (based on quality of content within it) than the scraped eHow articles. Well, let’s take a look at the baseless accusations you have made in your comment:

- all eHow articles are checked with a perfect “plagiarism checker” at eHow
- it “isn’t possible” to get copied content re-published on eHow
- I jumped to conclusions, and didn’t “check my facts”
- I fabricated the story about eHow publishing “copies” or published materials

Aside the the obvious “fact” that your comment is full of baseless, not-fact-checked conclusion jumping, I’ll address your comment.

If I look for “how to transfer a domain away from [registrar]” and find an eHow “article” ranking, it is an “article” that is little more than a repeated list of items from one of many registrar websites helping their users transfer domains to them from other registrars. It is very safe to assume eHow did not write this article, and a freelancer did not write this article and submit it to both eHow and a registrar FAQ.

This is but one of many examples of eHow republishing content from other sites. Don’t feel too bad… you’re not the only slimeball on the Internet. Wikipedia used to instruct its authors to check if content could be dis-intermediated by a simple rewrite, as part of the criteria for whether an article should be added to wikipedia. There are many rascals on the Internets; none deserving of respect.

I don’t work for eHow, so I won’t bother to check if :

- free or almost free automated “plagiarism checking” tools can notice that a list of items was lifted from another site

- One or two lines of “unique introduction” to a list of items is considered by what you seem to consider the Gold Standard for Integrity measurement - free plagiarism checking software - as unique. I’d bet my lunch that it passes.

I am not doing any more work here.. I am not an investigative journalist, and I won’t be doing your homework for you. I’ll stick with my considered opinion — eHow is “scraping” content, Google is ranking it, and your comment is of even lower value (based on quality of content within it) than the scraped eHow articles.

]]>