Voxilla You're Killing Me!

Come on Tom, how does this differ from your very own "related Stories" being taged with "rel="nofollow" ???

>>Come on Tom, how does this differ from your very own "related Stories" being taged with "rel="nofollow" ???

There's a huge difference. First of all, I have no control over what displays within the Related Stories. This is done via a Google API search within the MovableType interface.

Often times what Google picks is irrelevant or even points to "spammy" sites. I'd rather not give PR to sites I have not directly and manually given a link to.

This method is very common in the blogging community.

When I directly cite a source, 99% of the time I do not use the rel="nofollow" tag. I only use it for sites that INTENTIONALLY don't directly link to me or don't cite my stories.

What Voxilla did was take my article premise (for the 2nd time that I'm aware of) and then go get some quotes from some VoIP industry members and then "package" it all together.

I'm sorry, but that's not the same as my automated bot that pulls Related Stories from the Google search engine.

And besides, PR isn't everything. Anytime you link to an outside website STILL brings traffic to that website. So I don't see what my linking to related stories has to do with anything.

Tom, while we at Voxilla appreciate your work very much, and in fact feature your blog (including this entry) in our Blogrolling section on the front page of the site, your attack here is untrue, and you could have very easily reached this conclusion yourself.

I can assure you, with total certainty, that in neither case you mention did your blog have anything to do with our editorial coverage.

It is impossible for us to do the kind of journalism (sourcing, research, fact-checking, editing, etc) we practice on every story we publish within a matter of a few minutes after you post your blog, as you have accused us of doing here.

Tom, it is actually very easy for you to verify whether your accusations are correct or not. You are an influential member of the VoIP community and those people we quote in our stories, I am sure, would be very pleased to speak with you.

So please call -- any of them, all of them. Ask a very simple question: When did Carolyn Schuk from Voxilla conduct the interview with you that appeared in Voxilla's story?

Now, I think you would agree: If Caroline had done those interviews BEFORE you posted your blog, then your blog had nothing to do with the story. I ask that you do this in relation to each of the stories you have accused her of stealing from you.

It's an easy thing to do and certainly something you SHOULD do given the seriousness of your charge against Caroline Schuk's journalistic integrity.

I look forward to reading here what you have discovered with this very fundamental research.

Marcelo Rodriguez
Editor
Voxilla

PS: A previous message in this thread appears to come from a Voxilla email address. For the record, there is no "Jeff" associated with Voxilla and no such email address.

First off, let me state that I respect Carolyn and her VoIP articles. They are well researched and contain very good industry quotes.

There are certain unwritten rules when it comes to the blogosphere, including linking to the original article, trackbacks, blogrolling, and what's known as "hat tips" -where you give credit for a particular blogger bringing something to your attention. i.e. "Hat tip to John Smith at GameDude.com for bringing to this out attention."

As you mentioned, Voxilla uses blogrolls on its web pages which includes several well-known bloggers, including myself. I certainly thank you for including me on your web pages. However, by using a popular blogging feature (blogrolling) Voxilla is positioning itself or in essence following the "blogging model". As such, when it comes to journalism, the blogging model differs from the main stream media (MSM) in subtle ways. For instance, when MSNBC breaks a story, you will not see CNN cite MSNBC as the source. CNN will confirm the story through other sources and then use those sources and quotes in their story. There is a form of "elitism" in the MSM that generally speaking is not present in the blogosphere. Thus bloggers are always happy to cite where they got their news from or what inspired them to expound on a particular idea. The blogosphere is a community that shares ideas with fellow bloggers and gives credit where credit is due.

Thus, as a blogger, when I see other "blogging-type" websites use an idea of mine and then expound upon it by getting other sources and crafting a story, it goes against blogging etiquette.

My RSS reader shows that the Voxilla story in question ( http://voxilla.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=168 ) from July 20th arrived in my RSS reader at 2:52pm, which is obviously after my 12:54pm posting time for my article. My RSS reader checks every 15min, so this too seemed to point to the fact that I posted my article first. I can show you a screenshot of my RSS reader if you want proof. I also check Voxilla's home page regularly and did not see this article in the morning, though I could have missed it. You state that it was published at 9am, so I will take your word for it. It's possible you don't update your RSS feed regularly.

Even if your July 20th article was posted a few hours before minr, I should mention that the FCC e911 deadline possibly knocking VoIP customers offline is not a recent idea of mine. In fact, I proposed this nearly two weeks ago in my http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/voip/surrender-to-e911-or-lose-your-voip-calling-privileges.asp article. I initially chose not to cite this story as the "source" of yesterday's Voxilla story, since I already had enough ammunition that seemed to point to copying my http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/voip/vonage-e911-warning.asp blog entry. I figured it was the July 20th one since it was on the same day, but it could have just as easily have been my July 10th post.

Even for argument's sake if Voxilla posted the story yesterday before I did, the fact that I proposed this idea nearly two weeks ago was sufficient evidence in my mind that Voxilla took my idea and then expounded on it. Is it technically plagiarism? No, it's not. The MSM does this sort of thing all the time "borrowing" info from other news organizations and then providing their own analysis. But in the blogosphere, this is a big no-no. When it comes to blogging, you don't steal even an idea or premise without giving credit for the idea, no matter how much other good information is added to the article.

I did contact the sources cited in the Voxilla article and the earliest cited contact was on July 12th. The source told me that Carolyn was working on a July 29th deadline. So it would appear that she was indeed working on it for awhile, but still two days after my initial July 10th blog post where I brought the e911 mandate possibly affecting VoIP service to the VoIP industry's attention.

Thus, in my mind the Voxilla July 20th article is based on information from the July 10th blog entry. Now is Voxilla obligated to "link" to my July 10th blog entry if that was the original source for the July 20th Voxilla article? Well that's the "grey" area that I think is the source of confusion. If Voxilla wants to be more like a traditional mainstream media site, then the answer is "probably not" - no need to link to me as the original source. However, since Voxilla also appears to have "blogging elements" such as the blogrolling, and I even recall the ability to post comments to articles which appear in forums, I would think that Voxilla would want to be part of the blogging community and therefore include a link to the original source. Bloggers will reciprocate in kind to Voxilla for doing so. Bloggers know for the most part the MSM won't cite them, which is why the blogosphere expects to be cited from fellow bloggers or news organizations such as Voxilla that list the last 12 blog posts from the VoIP bloggers.

Of course, it's possible Carolyn did not use my July 10th posting as the "source" for her July 29th article. But after seeing my NextAlarm article seemingly plagiarized (was very similar) can you blame me for thinking the worst the 2nd time? Just to reiterate what happened - on Feb 17th, I had a scoop on NextAlarm, (http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/voip/nextalarms-voipcapable-alarm-system.asp) I had an inside source that gave me a scoop on their product and I became very familiar with NextAlarm and impressed with its features. I know Voxilla is now a partner with NextAlarm to resell their product. Perhaps I brought this product to Voxilla's attention which set in motion this partnership? Perhaps not, who knows? Then on April 20th, both Voxilla and I wrote about the "hoopla" surrounding the Vonage/Alarm.com announcement. My blog used the word "hoopla" and Voxilla used "PR blitz". In both articles our premise was about the buzz surrounding this announcement and how Alarm.com wasn't first. Both articles then point out that NextAlarm was first. Thus, we both used almost the identical "lead-in" for our respective stories.

Again, it is plausible that great minds think alike and that both Carolyn and I used identical lead-ins for our NextAlarm story and then a few months later we once again came up with a near identical article about how the e911 FCC mandate could result in VoIP customer outages. I don't discount this possibility of multiple coincidences. Wow if Carolyn thinks just like me than maybe I should hire her away from you? ; )

In all seriousness, I hold no ill will towards Carolyn or Voxilla. As you can see by the evidence I have presented above, I had good reason to think the way I did. While I can't apologize since I did do some due diligence and research and I did have evidence that suggested copying, I also don't have irrefutable proof. Coincidences happen in life, and this may be one of those occasions. Only Carolyn knows whether or not she did use me as the source for her story. If she didn't use me as a source, then she can be proud of her hard work and excellent article. If on the other hand she did use me as the source, then she has to live with the guilt. As for me, I'm over it - it's done. If you want me to remove the blog post, I'd be happy to, since it only presents (mostly) my side of the story

Tom, this is by no means a criticism of your work, but I never read your blog until yesterday.

Let me set the record straight: I am the sole author of both the stories you reference - I orginate my own stories and do my own research. I published my first story on VoIP and 911 on May 10 and my first notes on that subject go back to to April 5. I began work on on the story you reference on June 29 and, since that time, have been in regular communication with the FCC in an effort to get clarification on this issue. Since that date I have also been in regular communication with the service providers in that story. It can hardly be surprising to you that two reporters covering the VoIP industry would write on an issue of the magnitude of 911 and its impact on providers.

Though I haven't read your blog in the past, I promise to do so in the future. It makes for great gossip.

I have to admit, the articles were very similar, especially the lead-in for the NextAlarm.

Although, I think there was another site already talking about NextAlarm on the Internet that beat Tom's initial NextAlarm post by about two weeks.

What strikes me though is like Tom says, the lead-in for the Voxilla NextAlarm story is nearly identical to Tom's. Sure, they could have come up with the same analysis simultaneously on the same day within hours of each other.

But if that's the case, then you would expect at least one of the other premiere blogs or other news outlets such as VoIP Watch, CNet, ZDNet's IP Telephony, Aswath, EuroTelco blog, and others to come up with a similar lead-in.

I checked and although some of them mention NextAlarm, none of them tie the Vonage/Alarm.com news with NextAlarm. Only Tom & Voxilla did.

I find Carolyn's comment that she's never read Tom's VoIP blog before very hard to believe. (i.e. "I never read your blog until yesterday.")

Tom is one of the premiere VoIP bloggers on the Net and he works for Internet Telephony Magazine no less.

Not only that, but Tom's blog entries show up on Voxilla's home page in Voxilla's Blog Rolling. How is that possible that Carolyn works for Voxilla, posts stories to Voxilla's website and yet never saw Tom's articles appear on Voxilla?

So to me Carolyn doesn't seem very credible. Well, at least she got in a parting shot at Tom by stating: “Though I haven't read your blog in the past, I promise to do so in the future. It makes for great gossip.”

Ouch! Surprised Tom left her comment in. You're a bigger man than I, Tom! I'd of deleted it if this were my blog!

My guess is Voxilla and Tom were BOTH working on the story simultaneously and Tom posted his first by several hours. Then Voxilla noticed Tom's post and then copied Tom's lead-in to round out the article.

I agree with Tom that isn't very nice.

Thanks for the support Fred, but like I said, I'm over it.

I should probably close comments on this blog before this gets out of hand.

I wouldn't want my blog to become a gossip-mill.

In fact, rumor has it that I am off to the lab area to play with IPFones - a USB-based phone that integrates with Skype and rumor is that I will be posting the review shortly.

But shhhh, don't tell anyone. it's just a rumor!