Originally Posted by McThor
Not sure why DougieB got all pissy. But apparently a toe or two was damaged by your post.
I may well have picked this up wrong, apologies if I have. But it sounds like this guy is trawling the Internet looking for content, to re-use in an article he'll construct about a subject he knows nothing about and has no experience of. So, taking this site as an example, skimming off content and passing it off as your knowledge (implied if you are listed as the author of the article) is taking the piss. And, why generate a second, third, fourth copy of original content, which you'll have to alter slightly to make it look semi-original?
My point is that the Internet is full of 'experts', dishing out advice and opinion with either no or extremely limited authority.
Based on skimming content from this site alone I could write an article on the 1200GS and the Enfield Bullet. I'd only by qualified to do the Bullet, as that's the bike I have plenty of experience with. Would you not feel cheated to discover the 12000GS article you just read on about.com was written by someone who'd never even sat on one?
if the question had been, 'Guys, I want to do an article on motorcycle tours in Africa but don't have any experience. Can you recommend some tours that I can go on, which will give me first hand experience to be able to write an article.' Then fair enough. But it wasn't.
It's more like, I've constructed this article, can you look over it and point out anything that makes it look fake. As I really don't want people to realise I have no experience upon which to write the article.
About.com needs to generate traffic, in order to generate revenue from adverts. The more content, the more site visits, the more revenue they make. Same as a lot of sites, including this one. I think we're all happy to contribute to this site, as it gives back more than we probably contribute. And our contributions rightly generate traffic, which earns this site money through advertising. If about.com takes some of the traffic from HU, that's bad enough (advertisers pay less for low traffic sites). But the idea that their travel writers are creating articles based on other peoples content, which could include content from here, is not good.
If the guy is a travel writer, then why is he not writing about actual travelling? Most do, whether by plane, boat, motorbike, cycle, feet. Travelling via Yahoo! doesn't really count...