Great Avatar 93, I'm still getting yelled at for letting the girls watch Jaws on HBO with me one night. I like to let them watch River Monsters too. Wait, maybe Mrs. Dakota has a point.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

There is one side your commits are overlooking missing.... the money side of the argument.

Sites who have adds get money based on how many times the site is visited and/or viewed, so by taking the articles and copy and pasting them some where else makes the site possible earn less money.

So while it might be foolish to turn down exposure, it's also foolish to not try to get your money's worth, and since you need exposure to get the money and money to get living needs and sometimes used on the exposure, it all becomes a catch 22... of which comes first...

For what ever reason most sites have gone towards the money side of the catch 22 and not the exposure side...

Originally Posted by: beast 

What you're saying leads directly to what I had said and validates my point. Which is, more exposure = more money - if money is what you're after. If your material more widely spread, it increases the opportunity for someone to SEE your material, click your link and add 'ad' revenue to your wallet. If you limit your material to one site, then you're hoping that everyone finds your site first.

If my agenda if financially driven, I want others to spread material like a wild fire and link it back to the source as often as possible. to me it's marketing common sense. Know what I mean?

I get you're saying you want everyone funneled to one site, but wouldn't you rather that be a bigger funnel? If so, why limit yourself to the mercy of search engines when you can have search engines AND other sites funneling clicks?

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

What I'm thinking is that, the players did not try on their top 100 lists.

I mean really, for them to just sit down and rank the top 100 players, I'd guess half of them just spent about an hour on it, and their bound to forget someone or some other kind of laziness, also from what I've read in the NFL.com comments on each article about it, it seems the list qualifications weren't clear to the players that it was top 100 of this season, not body of work or potential. Also, the actual rules of making the list cause problems. I think everyone agrees that the top 2 WR's are Johnson/Johnson, but when you look at this year alone, roddy white's stats for this year alone, most TD's, most yards; you would think he is hands down the best receiver THIS YEAR. I still think calvin johnson is and was a better receiver regardless of stats. but if you decide to totally ignore the stats, you can blame anything on the supporting cast. So all of this together makes for a disorderly list.

Not that I think Raji doesn't belong above dockett, but when you see roddy white above megatron...

Originally Posted by: Jacob 

More exposure does not mean more money if no one goes to the site... and that's why they want you to go to the site, so they can get more of both.

Like I said it's a catch 22... which happens first the chicken or the egg?

Your arguing a good article will get more people to his site.... which is not always true. Other article on here are good but I don't always click the links when I don't have to. I clicked this link to see the article and they got an extra counting on who viewed it which makes them more money.

Those other good article, that I didn't click the link to didn't get any money from me reading it.

Originally Posted by: beast 

I know what Zero's point is an I agree with it (other than the "lacks confidence" and "foolish" parts. I'm saying there are two arguments to it and nether one is perfect, both have their weakness in the argument.

Why would I go to his site if his (and others) articles are posted on this great site? I wouldn't... cus this site already has his articles... and more...

And is he really getting any more exposure having the link and article posted vs. just the link? I would so but not much so...

Originally Posted by: beast