You’re just fine by my own definition of poaching. It’s your co-blogger’s more stringent definition you need to watch out for!

Steve,

No one important reads the ‘nacle, period. So I don’t see how that can be a distinguishing factor.

I posted mine because a) it was, technically, a different topic and b) BCC tends to focus on problems and I want to look for solutions and suggestions.

At the very same time that Davis Bell was explaining his theory of poaching on this thread (it’s all about keeping comments on the original thread, see comments 32 & 35), Davis’s own co-blogger Ben Spackman (who I don’t wish to criticize) posted a follow-up to the very same BCC polygamy post that I followed up on (with the result that Davis, Steve, and others accused me of poaching).

A lively conversation has followed at M* on Ben’s post, with one of the very first participants being Mr. Davis Bell. And there hasn’t been a peep about Davis’s theory (explained here) that “these conversations should be held at the original site.” (There’s been no sign of Steve’s poaching-bot, either.) I don’t see any principled reason why Davis’s theory ought to apply to me, but not to his own co-bloggers. So I’m wondering why he isn’t chastising Ben for breaking off a conversation and taking it to M* rather than continuing it on the original site.

This isn’t meant to sound like a criticism of Ben’s post. I continue to believe that such follow-up posts can be valuable contributions.

But I would like to know how a proponent of the Davis Bell theory of poaching can differentiate between T & S poaching and M*’s apparent fair use. Is there really a discernable standard at work here?

The same thing seems to happen here. Someone mentions a difficult issue in a post. In the comments people discuss the need for a forum to discuss that issue. Then suddenly a post springs up on another blog addressing the issue of a need for a forum in general. At this point there are so many blogs and so many posts that I can’t keep track of my own posts, much less remember where I read someone else’s post. It seems that attribution if you know your source is a fine idea. Forgiveness of those that don’t remember you as a source is probably a good idea as well.

Typically, I will compose a post (or at least have one partially composed in my head), and before I get a chance to actually post it, I read something in the Bloggernacle that is similar, or occasionally identical, to what I am about to say. I then feel an obligation to modify my post and reference the other Bloggernacle comment. My reasons are simple:

(1) I don’t want people to think I’m ripping off someone else’s idea without attribution. Better to throw a bone to the other blogger, even if I know that I really thought of the idea first; and

(2) I am horribly insecure, and want my readers to recognize that I really am well-read in the Bloggernacle, having never missed a comment since T&S’s inception (yeah, right).

Of course this all probably makes no sense to anyone, since I haven’t posted at BCC in months. I keep meaning to start up again. Maybe if Kaimi will link to BCC in “Notes from all over” and announce a profound post from Aaron B BEFORE I actually put it up, this will serve as a motivator for me to get off my ass.

Aaron B