Earlier today [I linked to the Curator’s Code](http://www.curatorscode.org/) crap — actually I linked [to *The Loop’s* take on it because I agree with Dalrymple](http://www.loopinsight.com/2012/03/12/code-of-conduct-proposed-for-content-aggregators/):

>How about just stop stealing other people’s shit.

I have never been excited that someone gave me a `via` link. Often people ask if I want one when I share something with them via DM or iChat — I usually say “I don’t care.”

Because I don’t care.

I think the curator’s code deal is pretty stupid and inconsequential, [but Marco Arment brings up an interesting point](http://www.marco.org/2012/03/12/not-a-curator):

>The real problem is that these posts replace the need for the source link.

>Sites that do this can call this practice whatever they want. Often, it’s called aggregation, or simply reporting. There’s a continuum between 100% original reporting and zero value being added to the source content, but I don’t think I’m being unnecessarily inflammatory by labeling the posts on the far end of the continuum as rewriting.

I absolutely hate the way *The Verge* cites posts — so much so I can’t read the site. Rewriting is the true problem — not adding in more `via` attribution. The problem I face is when I write a post like this that is somewhere between a linked list post and an article post — on these types of posts I try to make source links really long, more than a few words. That seems decent enough to me.

I tend to find the people who whine about `via` attribution to fall under two categories (in general, as always, there are exceptions):

1. News breakers. These are the guys that break news and are truly *the* source of the news.
2. Small sites that linked to something and believe that a larger site *got* that link from them.

I totally agree with the first and the second — well I have been there, but let me share a secret: `via` attribution links don’t give you very much traffic and certainly not lasting readership.

I try to stay away from these debates, because blogging about blogging isn’t really interesting to anyone but bloggers. But I decided to write about this to state why/when I use such attribution.

I use `via` attribution when it feels right.

There’s no set rule and often I don’t remember where I found the link to begin with so I can’t put attribution on links that I sometimes wish to. Oh well: do what feels right.