Updated: Readability Directs Shared Articles To Own Servers, Cuts Out Original Publishers -- AppAdvice


22 bookmarks. First posted by elgar march 2012.


AppAdvice.com: Is Readability stealing articles? Kind of, yeah.
http://t.co/jggRjeuP
from instapaper
may 2013 by klausness
READABILITY, READITLATER, INSTAPAPER ... ALL THESE GUYS MUST BE CRUSHED FOR RAMPANT THEFT
internet  readitlater 
april 2012 by maoxian
"reason: Readability is run by scumbags" Readability Directs Shared Articles to Own Servers...
from twitter
march 2012 by symtym
Offline reading apps have become a mainstream, sought-after utility in the mobile ecosystem. From Instapaper to Readability to Read It Later, it’s clear that more and more users value the…
from readability
march 2012 by gunnar
@rvr tweeted a link: why i won't user readability. http://t.co/Eb4C5t11
ifttt  twitter 
march 2012 by rvr
John Gruber, Readability Directs Shared Articles to Own Servers, Cuts Out Original Publishers:

A.T. Faust:

Regardless of your computer or mobile platform, when an article link is emailed or tweeted from inside Instapaper or Read It Later, those services will share the original article link (or a shortened version thereof). That way, the article’s official host is properly rewarded for its content. The standard economic model of internet publishing requires this kind of basic cooperation, and most blogs, aggregators, and apps are pretty good about citing sources and redirecting traffic.

Readability is not.

For some reason, when an article gets shared via this particular service, it ends up on Readability’s own servers. If viewing the article on their mobile devices, readers are presented with a formatted facsimile of the original content, and — though a small link of citation is provided — readers are not compelled to seek out or visit the original site. This approach neither drives traffic to the appropriate place nor properly cites the author’s work, and it violates the inherent goodwill required of such service providers.

I’ll give you the reason: Readability is run by scumbags. They collect money on behalf of publishers they have no relationship with, and now they collect page views too.

 ★ 
greader  starred  ebookmarks 
march 2012 by schmitz
I’m a little disappointed in and his apparent knee-jerk “scumbag” comment toward :(
from twitter_favs
march 2012 by aviflax
from Daring Fireball

A.T. Faust:

Regardless of your computer or mobile platform, when an article link is emailed or tweeted from inside Instapaper or Read It Later, those services will share the original article link (or a shortened version thereof). That way, the article’s official host is properly rewarded for its content. The standard economic model of internet publishing requires this kind of basic cooperation, and most blogs, aggregators, and apps are pretty good about citing sources and redirecting traffic.

Readability is not.

For some reason, when an article gets shared via this particular service, it ends up on Readability’s own servers. If viewing the article on their mobile devices, readers are presented with a formatted facsimile of the original content, and — though a small link of citation is provided — readers are not compelled to seek out or visit the original site. This approach neither drives traffic to the appropriate place nor properly cites the author’s work, and it violates the inherent goodwill required of such service providers.

I’ll give you the reason: Readability is run by scumbags. They collect money on behalf of publishers they have no relationship with, and now they collect page views too.

 ★ 
ifttt  daringfireball 
march 2012 by josephschmitt
A.T. Faust:

Regardless of your computer or mobile platform, when an article link is emailed or tweeted from inside Instapaper or Read It Later, those services will share the original article link (or a shortened version thereof). That way, the article’s official host is properly rewarded for its content. The standard economic model of internet publishing requires this kind of basic cooperation, and most blogs, aggregators, and apps are pretty good about citing sources and redirecting traffic.

Readability is not.

For some reason, when an article gets shared via this particular service, it ends up on Readability’s own servers. If viewing the article on their mobile devices, readers are presented with a formatted facsimile of the original content, and — though a small link of citation is provided — readers are not compelled to seek out or visit the original site. This approach neither drives traffic to the appropriate place nor properly cites the author’s work, and it violates the inherent goodwill required of such service providers.

I’ll give you the reason: Readability is run by scumbags. They collect money on behalf of publishers they have no relationship with, and now they collect page views too.

 ★ 
march 2012 by rufous
What's up with and sending shared articles to its own servers?
from twitter
march 2012 by nschaden
Readability Directs Shared Articles To Own Servers, Cuts Out Original Publishers –
from twitter
march 2012 by holgr
RT @marcoarment: My concern with implementations like http://t.co/yRLCBUc1 is that it make publishers think ALL such services are pagevi ...
via:twitter 
march 2012 by MugunthKumar
RT : My concern with implementations like is that it make publishers think ALL such services are pagevi ...
from twitter_favs
march 2012 by sujal