I’ve got this rather huge, rambling tutorial web site (about something art-related). And every once in a while (and twice just this last week), I’ve had people from other sites ask to “republish” part of my site on their site and give me credit.
So far I’ve written one guy back and told him “thanks but no thanks.” I explained that I felt that my site worked best as a whole (it’s got over 100 pages and people can drift around). But it’s also because I looked at the site of the people (it’s a business, actually) who want to “republish” my site and they just have collected content from other people, copied and pasted it onto their site, and given some credit (I’m not sure even a link) to the author, and that’s it.
And I kind of figure, sheesh, if you like my tutorials so much, just link to them (opening up a new window so visitors won’t lose track of the original site) and leave it at that. Why do you need to republish them?
I’ve got another query from an art-related newsletter (presumably emailed out) and that might be a different matter so I haven’t made up my mind about that yet.
I am more or less set against allowing parts of my site republished on others’ sites, but I may be short-sighted. Can anyone think of a reason why I should allow this, as a general rule? I should add that part of the way I support this site (web hosting, time spent, etc.) is through links to Amazon.com (I get a small commission fee for each book that I help “sell”). If there are less people reading my actual site, then less chance of me selling a book and helping pay for web hosting, etc.
However, I could see the prudence in allowing a BIG site copying some of my content (and very obviously giving me a link) but so far that’s not happening. So, my question is—is there something here I’m missing? Any reason why I should allow this?
Marketing! Make sure you get proper attribution and a link (however they want to work it) to drive people to your site. The links will help with Google searches.
My main concern would be the “other” sites, and the ramifications of my association with them. If this were fantasyland, I suggest that you hook up with these guys until that big fish comes along, at which point you say “thanks for the ride now take me off”. I have a sinking feeling that getting removed would not be as easy as signing up.
Tough dilemma indeed, get some of your stuff out and spread the word, or retain more control over your work.
Never been in this position, so I’m just offering my personal opinion.
I would not give permission either. If they want to pay you a fee to get your content, great. If they want to link to your site (so you can pay your bills), great. Otherwise, yeah, they’re just getting content for free. If they’re selling adds or something based on your content, that makes it particularly odious.
One exception I can think of is if you’re dying to “get your name out there.” A lot of authors starting out would have no problem giving a story to a small magazine for free or nearly free, to build interest. Which seems like what you’re saying when you state that you would consider letting a “big site” copy your content, because the increased exposure would benefit you.
Regardless, a link to your site doesn’t seem like too much to ask.
Do you have the bandwidth to support a direct link from these guys? Maybe they are suggesting republishing because of problems with some of their sources not being able to handle the traffic.
If you do agree to let them republish, I would put into writing (part of your approval letter) what kind of acknowledgement/links you want to see on your work. Make it a condition of their use of your material.
Thanks everyone! And World Eater, you’re right—I used to have a “babe” at the end there and you’re also right—getting the links up would be no problem, but getting them down would be a difficulty. And Tower Dweller, I think we’re on the same page here. cj finn, I would be more open to doing it if I felt they “promoted” my site sufficiently, but I don’t think they’ll be doing that. Just some small credit line, with or without a link. Eh.
I should add here that the site gets (in my estimation) a decent amount of traffic. I can’t remember how many hits it gets a month, but I think the traffic (for just straight html and graphics—nothing fancy) is 10 GB or more. That’s pretty good for just a one-woman operation, though certainly not HUGE or anything.
I also get a decent amount of links from schools, libraries, and other art sites. (Even, I am thrilled to say, links from sites like Apple.com and bbc.co.uk—buried in the bowels of their huge sites, but hey—the link is there and I’m pretty tickled!)
I could always use more exposure, of course. You can never have enough exposure. But I’m wondering what is in it for me, if they all they do is strip the Amazon.com link I have embedded in my tutorial and copy it to their site? How is this helping me, even if they give me some link at the bottom or top? I don’t see how it’s much good to me, unless they are a BIG BIG site, which so far, they are not.
On preview: Tastes of Chocolate, yes, so far, I’ve got the bandwidth. 10 GBs isn’t insignificant, but it’s not HUGE. I’d much prefer they simply link to my site, rather than republish.
Naw, you really don’t. But thanks for your interest!
(I indulge this delusion that I can keep my identity private if I don’t give out URLs to my “major” sites in my posts. If anyone is really curious, however, do email me. I am sometimes sucky about checking my email regularly, but I will get back to you.)
It certainly sounds like they’re in the “let’s be cheeky, some sucker’s bound to say yes” camp. It might help if you provided a link or two, though I understand why you might not want to.
I can think of some circumstances where republishing could make sense, eg. being included in a well known publication, or wikipedia, or something. Or as basically a mirror. But none where your name shouldn’t be as prominent as you please.
But thanks for your interest! 