I think it makes sense. I’m on both sites and think it would be good to merge.
1 Like
My preference is no one can do anything with my work without explicit written permission.
1 Like
As a former Hound now mining the actually quite fertile ground of Central Ohio now (and as someone who visits the Bay Area still regularly) I’m very happy to see a bit of a return to what had been with this site and FTC.
No real dog re: merge vs. no merger, but I’m glad to have more of a reason to check in more often.
1 Like
“My preference is no one can do anything with my work without explicit written permission.”
Did I just violate your preference by quoting your post with credit?
No, since by posting here I’ve agreed to the Creative Commons deal. But I probably wouldn’t post reviews on a site with that policy.
Robert. You doing a good job with your site and Sampson is also doing a good job too. The two sites can talk about merging in the future. For now, it seems we are not ready yet.
Your opinion is appreciated about what you would and won’t post reviews on a site with whatever policy, but please keep in mind that you are the owner/host of another site, and it calls into question when you lecture people due to your unique position. If a site is doing something you don’t like, just leave it be. It isn’t like we are doing something illegal or immoral. If someone wants to put ketchup (as opposed to mustard) on their hot dogs. Let them do it.
4 Likes
Minor tangent: FTC includes “New,” along with “Latest” and “Unread,” in the page-top navigation. Can “New” be enabled here as well? It’s more convenient than first clicking the burger icon.
Robert : One point you should keep in mind is that, while you are fully within your rights to clarify remarks made about you and your site, please don’t over do it as you can easily cross the thin line between clarification vs self-promotion/ veiled advertisement.
The other point being, private correspondences between you and Sampson are exactly that, private. Please keep them private, unless you both agree to release them. We don’t need to see them.
2 Likes
Robert Lauriston writes: “My preference is no one can do anything with my work without explicit written permission.”
And jolly good luck on that one! As someone who has been plagiarized (with regularity) on the web, has had her identity stolen by someone who posted as her on several websites, who has had false and damaging information published about her on Google, only to find you CANNOT contact Google directly about a slandering crawl in its search engine, the REALITY is that ANY crime or near crime committed on the world wide web is for all intents and purposes “un-prosecutable.” Travel these roads at your own risk, because even a registered copyright (I hold a bunch) can be plagiarized care free on the web.
Folks who empathized deeply with me when my identity was stolen, then told me there was nothing they could do were: The Federal Communications Commission, my local FBI office, the FBI’s Electronic Crime Division in Wash. DC, and both Stanford and Harvard Universities’ grad student law labs.
If you want to be safe and secure from the wild wild west conditions of the web, there’s only one way to do that: disconnect!
Sorry for delivering such bad news, but better you find out by me telling you than by first hand experience. 
5 Likes
I believe that the owners of the site were in touch with each other but perhaps their long range goals are different. Can’t remember the details. I also wish they could merge.
1 Like
I would also favor a merger. 2 sites is too much to keep up with.
Plus I need time to rubberneck at Chowhound.
But Robert, people can quote your reviews, with credit, on your site, too, unless I’m very much mistaken (and if I am, I need to read the FTC rules more carefully). Quoting something while crediting it is not theft, although of course if you quote the entirety of a long review that’s copyrighted on another site, you are required to get permission.
I don’t think Robert is lecturing here. He’s simply explaining, in his own words, what he perceives to be the differences between FTC and this site, and I think that should be appreciated.
3 Likes
He is more than explaining. No one said that he is not appreciated, but he either came very close or has crossed the line.
What exactly are you criticizing him for? I’m not sure I get it.
2 Likes
I have already written what I said, and I wasn’t even the only point who pointed this out. I don’t think I need to drill down to the exact phrase one by one, and post a live-action criticism.
I think you guys should stop criticizing Robert. He didn’t say anything inappropriate as far as I can see.
2 Likes
I think bringing this up again and again front and center is not helping. These were one time comments, and I still stand by my original statement.
I am going to close the thread now. We’ve dedicated enough energy towards this topic and I prefer that we don’t let the discussion deteriorate because of the unique role Robert plays, and let that drive a wedge between Hungry Onion and FTC. Robert is doing a great job there. Regardless what his style is and what was said here, he has contributed his own time and energy towards FTC. The two sites share a software platform and for now, a source of audience, but time will tell whether these factors, the philosophy, operating style and discussion focus will be similar, even though it may seem so now.
One thing to keep in mind is that CH became arrogant because of its dominant market position. There is plenty of room for multiple food-related sites to flourish and fill the needs that CH used to fill and creates new space that CH never addressed. Heck, maybe a year from now, CH becomes good again. Everyone goes back there and nobody remembers Hungry Onion or FTC. Who knows. For now, please enjoy the food discussions, wherever they may be.
I have a whole list of things that I want to do differently vs CH, so I am excited to share them over the next few weeks. We’ll talk about that plenty for sure.
Cheers!
12 Likes
