What you say is the standard line of thought on the AP that lots of hackers and new media folks take, but it's not based on reality.
If you link to an AP article instead of publishing the whole thing, you lose out on Google hits from both organic search and Google News. Even if 100 other people run the same article on their sites, Google's algorithm will reward you more for publishing it for the 101st time than it will if you just link to it on someone else's site.
Sending people away is great if it's the only thing you do. But if your strategy includes racking up pageviews with ads on them, then you MUST keep them on your site. So you rewrite other people's stories (Gawker), you quote/steal big chunks of other people's copy (Business Insider) and you make attribution links as small as posisble (Gothamist).
As long as you get more hits from running a full article over just linking to someone else's article, there's no incentive for publishers to do the sorts of things that seem so intuitive to us geeks.
What you say is the standard line of thought on the AP that lots of hackers and new media folks take, but it's not based on reality.
If you link to an AP article instead of publishing the whole thing, you lose out on Google hits from both organic search and Google News. Even if 100 other people run the same article on their sites, Google's algorithm will reward you more for publishing it for the 101st time than it will if you just link to it on someone else's site.
Sending people away is great if it's the only thing you do. But if your strategy includes racking up pageviews with ads on them, then you MUST keep them on your site. So you rewrite other people's stories (Gawker), you quote/steal big chunks of other people's copy (Business Insider) and you make attribution links as small as posisble (Gothamist).
As long as you get more hits from running a full article over just linking to someone else's article, there's no incentive for publishers to do the sorts of things that seem so intuitive to us geeks.