VEPP online video clips

[SpiderWebComm]

1) Dr. Dave STRIPS content from the best posters' posts on AZB and then posts them on HIS site, where it becomes HIS

2) When a question arises that's been covered before, instead of linking to the appropriate azb thread that covered it, he links back to his site....making him a sole-source self-appointed expert. He does this with stripped-out azb content (which he calls research)

3) He NEVER posts content on the very site he steals information from...he will, however, link your ass off this site and force you to read HIS site.

4) How azb allows this is beyond me...who knows, maybe Dave owns azb and we don't know it.

Who cares about aiming and cte...this is about Dave taking others' info, making it his, not supporting the content on azb, forcing people back to his site (sometimes to read the same info he/she once posted themselves on azb), and never supporting azb content (unless there's a dvd attached to it), and everyone then applauding his effort to do so.

He should at LEAST post content here once for every linked post back to his site.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk

 

[sfleinen]

1) Dr. Dave STRIPS content from the best posters' posts on AZB and then posts them on HIS site, where it becomes HIS

2) When a question arises that's been covered before, instead of linking to the appropriate azb thread that covered it, he links back to his site....making him a sole-source self-appointed expert. He does this with stripped-out azb content (which he calls research)

3) He NEVER posts content on the very site he steals information from...he will, however, link your ass off this site and force you to read HIS site.

4) How azb allows this is beyond me...who knows, maybe Dave owns azb and we don't know it.

Who cares about aiming and cte...this is about Dave taking others' info, making it his, not supporting the content on azb, forcing people back to his site (sometimes to read the same info he/she once posted themselves on azb), and never supporting azb content (unless there's a dvd attached to it), and everyone then applauding his effort to do so.

He should at LEAST post content here once for every linked post back to his site.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk

Dave:

I have to agree on all points. The sheer body of information that Dr. Dave pulled from AZB and squashed down onto his website, is so voluminous, and the linking so pervasive, that his website is starting to form an accretion disk around it!

-Sean

 

[nsainfreek]

Do you guys all hate the Huffington Post too?

 

[Mikjary]

Dave:

I have to agree on all points. The sheer body of information that Dr. Dave pulled from AZB and squashed down onto his website, is so voluminous, and the linking so pervasive, that his website is starting to form an accretion disk around it!

-Sean

That sounds like a solar hemorrhoid!

Best,
Mike

 

[nsainfreek]

Personally, I don't read these threads enough to know what Dr. Dave is doing to irritate people here but I have to say his website is very convenient. All the information is in one place. On his site he doesn't seem to claim that the information is all original and his. He links and credits other sources. As a data aggregator and compiler there really isn't wrong or illegal about it. Compilations are perfectly legal. If he's grossly linking in the forums then that's just how he chooses to communicate. If there's a rule against it, then he should be told to stop. If there isn't then complaints are just pointless. There are a lot of people on this forum that incite a lot of drama. I dislike how they communicate and wish they would stop but they really are free to say what they want unless they are violating a rule here.

 

[eezbank]

That sounds like a solar hemorrhoid!

Best,
Mike

LOL REP :thumbup:

 

[eezbank]

Personally, I don't read these threads enough to know what Dr. Dave is doing to irritate people here but I have to say his website is very convenient. All the information is in one place. On his site he doesn't seem to claim that the information is all original and his. He links and credits other sources. As a data aggregator and compiler there really isn't wrong or illegal about it. Compilations are perfectly legal. If he's grossly linking in the forums then that's just how he chooses to communicate. If there's a rule against it, then he should be told to stop. If there isn't then complaints are just pointless. There are a lot of people on this forum that incite a lot of drama. I dislike how they communicate and wish they would stop but they really are free to say what they want unless they are violating a rule here.

Try this thread. http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=229686

Pay extra attention to post #9

Also Blackjack has asked for things to be removed and Dave refuses.

Dave has taken part in the mocking of many aiming system users. I'm not at all surprised by some of what is going on here.

 

[ronscuba]

Personally, I don't read these threads enough to know what Dr. Dave is doing to irritate people here but I have to say his website is very convenient. All the information is in one place. On his site he doesn't seem to claim that the information is all original and his. He links and credits other sources. ....

I am new here too and agree with you. I don't know all the history to Dr. Dave, CTE, etc., but there are a lot of members selling various services, items, information, etc.. The potential for competition, controversy and conflict is high.

There is a lot of drama on here like most large forums on any subject. Add in a lot of members attempting to sell something and the result is a lot threads like this one. Threads that start off useful, but then make a big turn for the worse.

As a new member, I find this aspect kind of a turn off.

BTW, I have bought many books and videos. Dr. Dave's and other AZ members too.

 

[dr_dave]

Personally, I don't read these threads enough to know what Dr. Dave is doing to irritate people here but I have to say his website is very convenient. All the information is in one place. On his site he doesn't seem to claim that the information is all original and his. He links and credits other sources. As a data aggregator and compiler there really isn't wrong or illegal about it. Compilations are perfectly legal. If he's grossly linking in the forums then that's just how he chooses to communicate. If there's a rule against it, then he should be told to stop. If there isn't then complaints are just pointless. There are a lot of people on this forum that incite a lot of drama. I dislike how they communicate and wish they would stop but they really are free to say what they want unless they are violating a rule here.

Very well stated. I think most people see it as you do.

I do sometimes quote stuff on my site from AZB forum users who contribute useful insight, but I always credit and acknowledge the source. My site also contains numerous links to useful online resources (videos, articles, supporting websites) from many other people (e.g., Bob, Jewett, Mike Page, Colin Colenso, Patrick Johnson, and other significant contributors to our sport). I see no need to apologize for this. I personally use my site often to quickly find information on a particular topic.

AZB is a great forum and I have learned a lot through many discussions and debates over the years. I think I have also contributed a lot to the forum over these many years. However, it is not easy to find specific information if you attempt to surf or search for stuff (even if you know what you are looking for). That's why I started quoting and categorizing useful info on my site. I've also contributed a huge amount of information and resources to my site on my own. I think most people (even the AZB owners) appreciate this resource which sometimes helps support AZB forum discussions; but obviously, some people don't like it. But as you say, these people have a right to there own opinions, as long as they stay within the forum rules in expressing their opinions.

Regards,
Dave

 

[sfleinen]

Very well stated. I think most people see it as you do.

I do sometimes quote stuff on my site from AZB forum users who contribute useful insight, but I always credit and acknowledge the source. My site also contains numerous links to useful online resources (videos, articles, supporting websites) from many other people (e.g., Bob, Jewett, Mike Page, Colin Colenso, Patrick Johnson, and other significant contributors to our sport). I see no need to apologize for this. I personally use my site often to quickly find information on a particular topic.

AZB is a great forum and I have learned a lot through many discussions and debates over the years. I think I have also contributed a lot to the forum over these many years. However, it is not easy to find specific information if you attempt to surf or search for stuff (even if you know what you are looking for). That's why I started quoting and categorizing useful info on my site. I've also contributed a huge amount of information and resources to my site on my own. I think most people (even the AZB owners) appreciate this resource which sometimes helps support AZB forum discussions; but obviously, some people don't like it. But as you say, these people have a right to there own opinions, as long as they stay within the forum rules in expressing their opinions.

Regards,
Dave

Dr. Dave:

<sigh> You still don't get it. You are obviously engaging in a little "see no evil, hear no evil" at the expense of the AZB contributors, *for* the benefit of your website. Ok, I'm going to have to break out the heavy machinery to get the point across.

Let's take an example:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/stance.html​

snooker stance

What are the recommended "best practices" for a snooker stance?​

from sfleinen:

The correct snooker stance implements the following key points:

Foot on same side of body as grip hand (i.e. the "planted foot") is planted onto, and pointing into, the shot line.
When weight is applied to the planted foot, the hip on that same side of the body will "seat" or shift inwards slightly. This is the natural effect of placing all of one's weight on one leg. (Try it -- go in front of a mirror and shift your weight so you're standing on one leg, with the other leg off the ground. Notice how your hip no longer "juts out" as it does normally when you're standing on two legs, but now seats inwards such that the edge of your hip is even/level with the side of your leg?)
The opposite foot is placed approximately a shoulder's distance away, and only slightly forward of the planted foot. By side-stepping a shoulder's distance like this, the combination of the hip seating inwards and the slight shift of the body away from the shot line, gives more than enough clearance for the grip hand to swing freely in pendulum fashion.
Once that opposite foot is placed, weight distribution between the two legs is approximately 70/30 or 60/40 in favor of the planted leg.
Placing the bridge hand on the shot line, and bending the upper body over onto the table, one finds that the seated hip and the body's already-implemented slight angle (via the placement of the opposite foot, which, remember, is slightly forward of the planted foot) is quite natural and automatically places the chin over the cue. You just bend over like a hinge, and your chin automatically is placed over the cue.

Now, let's pretend you're a outside reader reading this. This reader stumbled across your website, say, from a Google search. This reader may or MAY NOT also be a member of AZB. The reader finds this information interesting, and wants to follow-up with the original author of this information. But the following problems will prevent him/her from doing this:

1. The only "attribution" you give, is a plain text "from sfleinen:" intro. If the reader isn't an oft-reader of the AZB forums, the reader has no idea who, or what, an "sfleinen" is.

2. There is no indicator of any kind where this information was taken from. There's no URL, no reference, and no footnote at the bottom of *any* of your website pages where the user can go to pursue where you got this information. Again, in-touch readers of the AZB forums might recognize the "sfleinen" moniker, and put two-and-two together that this is the same "sfleinen" that posts on AZB. But it's left up to the reader to do the R&D gymnastics to find out who the original source is.

3. The above is an example of what many of us have issues with. You "say" you "give attribution" to the information, but you actually don't. All you give attribution to is some screenname, without any kind of hint where that screenname is from or where it lives.

4. You don't include any links to that information so that the reader can follow the information to its source. You've intentionally broken that relationship by sanitizing the information of its source. There's no way an AZB-unfamiliar reader can find out it's from the AZB forums, much less the thread and the context in which it was posted. There's no context for this information at all. The information lives, and dies, with YOU. The only recourse the reader has, it to email YOU to find out where you got it from, and ask for contact information for "sfleinen". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you would give that info, but something also tells me that you'll also exploit that opportunity to see what else you can "give" that reader who contacted you -- e.g. perhaps more links to related information on your website concerning the topic that my information above was about (e.g. to *keep* the user glued to your website)? Perhaps sales pitches on your commercial products?

5. Proper attribution to information includes the person's full name, and the full resource path (including ISBN in case of a book, or URL in case of a website). Without this information, the source author and *the context* in which the information is posted, is LOST. With a full name, ISBN, and/or URL, the user has a full uninterrupted path back to the original author, and the context that the original information was posted in. When I see an excerpt from a book, I can go get that book, and find out why the author said what he/she said -- the full context is right there. By breaking that linkage to the original source as you've done all over your website, you've DESTROYED that reader's ability to do that!

Ok Dr. Dave, *NOW* do you get it? Again, I do think you're a valued contributing member of AZB. I don't think anyone can doubt that. But the issue is the way in which you HANDLE information that is NOT YOURS. As a published author myself, I have a huge beef with how you handle information.

I hope this helps explain it. Please contact me for more details, or if you want to follow up. This is a big issue.

Respectfully,
-Sean F. Leinen
(aka: "sfleinen" on the AZB forums -- a take on the old 8-character limitation on the UNIX /etc/passwd file for usernames)

 

[Mikjary]

Dr. Dave:

<sigh> You still don't get it. You are obviously engaging in a little "see no evil, hear no evil" at the expense of the AZB contributors, *for* the benefit of your website. Ok, I'm going to have to break out the heavy machinery to get the point across.

Let's take an example:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/stance.html​

Now, let's pretend you're a outside reader reading this. This reader stumbled across your website, say, from a Google search. This reader may or MAY NOT also be a member of AZB. The reader finds this information interesting, and wants to follow-up with the original author of this information. But the following problems will prevent him/her from doing this:

1. The only "attribution" you give, is a plain text "from sfleinen:" intro. If the reader isn't an oft-reader of the AZB forums, the reader has no idea who, or what, an "sfleinen" is.

2. There is no indicator of any kind where this information was taken from. There's no URL, no reference, and no footnote at the bottom of *any* of your website pages where the user can go to pursue where you got this information. Again, in-touch readers of the AZB forums might recognize the "sfleinen" moniker, and put two-and-two together that this is the same "sfleinen" that posts on AZB. But it's left up to the reader to do the R&D gymnastics to find out who the original source is.

3. The above is an example of what many of us have issues with. You "say" you "give attribution" to the information, but you actually don't. All you give attribution to is some screenname, without any kind of hint where that screenname is from or where it lives.

4. You don't include any links to that information so that the reader can follow the information to its source. You've intentionally broken that relationship by sanitizing the information of its source. There's no way an AZB-unfamiliar reader can find out it's from the AZB forums, much less the thread and the context in which it was posted. There's no context for this information at all. The information lives, and dies, with YOU. The only recourse the reader has, it to email YOU to find out where you got it from, and ask for contact information for "sfleinen". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you would give that info, but something also tells me that you'll also exploit that opportunity to see what else you can "give" that reader who contacted you -- e.g. perhaps more links to related information on your website concerning the topic that my information above was about (e.g. to *keep* the user glued to your website)? Perhaps sales pitches on your commercial products?

5. Proper attribution to information includes the person's full name, and the full resource path (including ISBN in case of a book, or URL in case of a website). Without this information, the source author and *the context* in which the information is posted, is LOST. With a full name, ISBN, and/or URL, the user has a full uninterrupted path back to the original author, and the context that the original information was posted in. When I see an excerpt from a book, I can go get that book, and find out why the author said what he/she said -- the full context is right there. By breaking that linkage to the original source as you've done all over your website, you've DESTROYED that reader's ability to do that!

Ok Dr. Dave, *NOW* do you get it? Again, I do think you're a valued contributing member of AZB. I don't think anyone can doubt that. But the issue is the way in which you HANDLE information that is NOT YOURS. As a published author myself, I have a huge beef with how you handle information.

I hope this helps explain it. Please contact me for more details, or if you want to follow up. This is a big issue.

Respectfully,
-Sean F. Leinen
(aka: "sfleinen" on the AZB forums -- a take on the old 8-character limitation on the UNIX /etc/passwd file for usernames)
sean@leinen.net

Sean, I get it now! The F isn't really an initial. It's like B"F"D. :grin-square:

Tell me if I'm wrong here. My exwife used to put the F initial in the middle of my name, too! J/K Trololo

Best,
Mike

 

[Rich93]

Dr. Dave:

<sigh> You still don't get it. You are obviously engaging in a little "see no evil, hear no evil" at the expense of the AZB contributors, *for* the benefit of your website. Ok, I'm going to have to break out the heavy machinery to get the point across.

Let's take an example:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/stance.html​

Now, let's pretend you're a outside reader reading this. This reader stumbled across your website, say, from a Google search. This reader may or MAY NOT also be a member of AZB. The reader finds this information interesting, and wants to follow-up with the original author of this information. But the following problems will prevent him/her from doing this:

1. The only "attribution" you give, is a plain text "from sfleinen:" intro. If the reader isn't an oft-reader of the AZB forums, the reader has no idea who, or what, an "sfleinen" is.

2. There is no indicator of any kind where this information was taken from. There's no URL, no reference, and no footnote at the bottom of *any* of your website pages where the user can go to pursue where you got this information. Again, in-touch readers of the AZB forums might recognize the "sfleinen" moniker, and put two-and-two together that this is the same "sfleinen" that posts on AZB. But it's left up to the reader to do the R&D gymnastics to find out who the original source is.

3. The above is an example of what many of us have issues with. You "say" you "give attribution" to the information, but you actually don't. All you give attribution to is some screenname, without any kind of hint where that screenname is from or where it lives.

4. You don't include any links to that information so that the reader can follow the information to its source. You've intentionally broken that relationship by sanitizing the information of its source. There's no way an AZB-unfamiliar reader can find out it's from the AZB forums, much less the thread and the context in which it was posted. There's no context for this information at all. The information lives, and dies, with YOU. The only recourse the reader has, it to email YOU to find out where you got it from, and ask for contact information for "sfleinen". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you would give that info, but something also tells me that you'll also exploit that opportunity to see what else you can "give" that reader who contacted you -- e.g. perhaps more links to related information on your website concerning the topic that my information above was about (e.g. to *keep* the user glued to your website)? Perhaps sales pitches on your commercial products?

5. Proper attribution to information includes the person's full name, and the full resource path (including ISBN in case of a book, or URL in case of a website). Without this information, the source author and *the context* in which the information is posted, is LOST. With a full name, ISBN, and/or URL, the user has a full uninterrupted path back to the original author, and the context that the original information was posted in. When I see an excerpt from a book, I can go get that book, and find out why the author said what he/she said -- the full context is right there. By breaking that linkage to the original source as you've done all over your website, you've DESTROYED that reader's ability to do that!

Ok Dr. Dave, *NOW* do you get it? Again, I do think you're a valued contributing member of AZB. I don't think anyone can doubt that. But the issue is the way in which you HANDLE information that is NOT YOURS. As a published author myself, I have a huge beef with how you handle information.

I hope this helps explain it. Please contact me for more details, or if you want to follow up. This is a big issue.

Respectfully,
-Sean F. Leinen
(aka: "sfleinen" on the AZB forums -- a take on the old 8-character limitation on the UNIX /etc/passwd file for usernames)

Sean - Respectfully, I think you protest too much.

The same Google user who stumbled upon Dr. Dave's website can pretty easily hone in on the source by googling "sfleinen 'correct snooker stance'" (the latter three words in quotes). Try it - the AZB page containing your post turns right up. Also, it's not too likely that a web-surfing billiards aficionado would be unfamiliar with AZB, though obviously it's possible.

I suppose Dr. Dave could make things easier for such readers by saying "from AZ Billiards Forum poster sfleinen ( forums.azbilliards.com, or a more complete URL). However, it would be difficult to attribute to real names when most posters don't use their real names. Dr. Dave might not feel free to use real names even if he knows them if the person he's quoting is not using his real name in the original post.

Dr. Dave has made an effort to extract from AZB and other sources much information that he considers helpful, or at least worthy of consideration, to someone wanting to play better, and he's put it all in one place. He has chosen a post of yours. You could look at that as a compliment - I would. In any event, his site is a great resource, and free.

As for his doing this to make a profit - I have no idea how much money he and Tom Ross have made on VEPS or how much he and Bob will make on VEPP, but I suspect that it doesn't amount to a very high rate of compensation for the time they put in on these projects. It's a pretty small market, and they have invested many hundreds of hours in their planning and creation. I think it's at least partially a labor of love - if it wasn't fun for them to do it I doubt that it would have been done.

 

[lfigueroa]

Dr. Dave:

<sigh> You still don't get it. You are obviously engaging in a little "see no evil, hear no evil" at the expense of the AZB contributors, *for* the benefit of your website. Ok, I'm going to have to break out the heavy machinery to get the point across.

Let's take an example:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/stance.html​

Now, let's pretend you're a outside reader reading this. This reader stumbled across your website, say, from a Google search. This reader may or MAY NOT also be a member of AZB. The reader finds this information interesting, and wants to follow-up with the original author of this information. But the following problems will prevent him/her from doing this:

1. The only "attribution" you give, is a plain text "from sfleinen:" intro. If the reader isn't an oft-reader of the AZB forums, the reader has no idea who, or what, an "sfleinen" is.

2. There is no indicator of any kind where this information was taken from. There's no URL, no reference, and no footnote at the bottom of *any* of your website pages where the user can go to pursue where you got this information. Again, in-touch readers of the AZB forums might recognize the "sfleinen" moniker, and put two-and-two together that this is the same "sfleinen" that posts on AZB. But it's left up to the reader to do the R&D gymnastics to find out who the original source is.

3. The above is an example of what many of us have issues with. You "say" you "give attribution" to the information, but you actually don't. All you give attribution to is some screenname, without any kind of hint where that screenname is from or where it lives.

4. You don't include any links to that information so that the reader can follow the information to its source. You've intentionally broken that relationship by sanitizing the information of its source. There's no way an AZB-unfamiliar reader can find out it's from the AZB forums, much less the thread and the context in which it was posted. There's no context for this information at all. The information lives, and dies, with YOU. The only recourse the reader has, it to email YOU to find out where you got it from, and ask for contact information for "sfleinen". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you would give that info, but something also tells me that you'll also exploit that opportunity to see what else you can "give" that reader who contacted you -- e.g. perhaps more links to related information on your website concerning the topic that my information above was about (e.g. to *keep* the user glued to your website)? Perhaps sales pitches on your commercial products?

5. Proper attribution to information includes the person's full name, and the full resource path (including ISBN in case of a book, or URL in case of a website). Without this information, the source author and *the context* in which the information is posted, is LOST. With a full name, ISBN, and/or URL, the user has a full uninterrupted path back to the original author, and the context that the original information was posted in. When I see an excerpt from a book, I can go get that book, and find out why the author said what he/she said -- the full context is right there. By breaking that linkage to the original source as you've done all over your website, you've DESTROYED that reader's ability to do that!

Ok Dr. Dave, *NOW* do you get it? Again, I do think you're a valued contributing member of AZB. I don't think anyone can doubt that. But the issue is the way in which you HANDLE information that is NOT YOURS. As a published author myself, I have a huge beef with how you handle information.

I hope this helps explain it. Please contact me for more details, or if you want to follow up. This is a big issue.

Respectfully,
-Sean F. Leinen
(aka: "sfleinen" on the AZB forums -- a take on the old 8-character limitation on the UNIX /etc/passwd file for usernames)

Sean, I have to agree with Rich -- you're nit-picking.

Any kind of a halfway competent Google search will turn up the desired references. No one here is doing Talmudic research and if you really need more info on a snooker stance you will quickly leave Dr. Dave's site and come across any number of works by Joe Davis, Clive Everton, Jimmy White, Goodwill & Morgan, Thomas Hein, David Jenner, and on and on.

AZ and the pool forums at large are not the world of academia, though Dave follows most of its tenets -- no one here (except you) cares about a bibliography, footnotes, and "proper" attribution. Give me a break. We are talking about pool players.

And if you, or anyone else, truly cares a wit about proper attribution you could start by posting your real name at the end of every one of your posts.

Lou Figueroa

 

[PoolSharkAllen]

Let's take an example:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/stance.html​

Now, let's pretend you're a outside reader reading this. This reader stumbled across your website, say, from a Google search. This reader may or MAY NOT also be a member of AZB. The reader finds this information interesting, and wants to follow-up with the original author of this information. But the following problems will prevent him/her from doing this:

1. The only "attribution" you give, is a plain text "from sfleinen:" intro. If the reader isn't an oft-reader of the AZB forums, the reader has no idea who, or what, an "sfleinen" is.

2. There is no indicator of any kind where this information was taken from. There's no URL, no reference, and no footnote at the bottom of *any* of your website pages where the user can go to pursue where you got this information. Again, in-touch readers of the AZB forums might recognize the "sfleinen" moniker, and put two-and-two together that this is the same "sfleinen" that posts on AZB. But it's left up to the reader to do the R&D gymnastics to find out who the original source is.

3. The above is an example of what many of us have issues with. You "say" you "give attribution" to the information, but you actually don't. All you give attribution to is some screenname, without any kind of hint where that screenname is from or where it lives.

4. You don't include any links to that information so that the reader can follow the information to its source. You've intentionally broken that relationship by sanitizing the information of its source. There's no way an AZB-unfamiliar reader can find out it's from the AZB forums, much less the thread and the context in which it was posted. There's no context for this information at all. The information lives, and dies, with YOU. The only recourse the reader has, it to email YOU to find out where you got it from, and ask for contact information for "sfleinen". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you would give that info, but something also tells me that you'll also exploit that opportunity to see what else you can "give" that reader who contacted you -- e.g. perhaps more links to related information on your website concerning the topic that my information above was about (e.g. to *keep* the user glued to your website)? Perhaps sales pitches on your commercial products?

5. Proper attribution to information includes the person's full name, and the full resource path (including ISBN in case of a book, or URL in case of a website). Without this information, the source author and *the context* in which the information is posted, is LOST. With a full name, ISBN, and/or URL, the user has a full uninterrupted path back to the original author, and the context that the original information was posted in. When I see an excerpt from a book, I can go get that book, and find out why the author said what he/she said -- the full context is right there. By breaking that linkage to the original source as you've done all over your website, you've DESTROYED that reader's ability to do that!

But the issue is the way in which you HANDLE information that is NOT YOURS. As a published author myself, I have a huge beef with how you handle information.

I hope this helps explain it. Please contact me for more details, or if you want to follow up. This is a big issue.

Respectfully,
-Sean F. Leinen
(aka: "sfleinen" on the AZB forums

This morning I was reading the following article by Morningstar.com: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Thanksgiving-Over-These-ms-581623363.html?x=0 . Just like AZB, Morningstar has their own discussion boards in which posters expressed their comments similar to the ones shown below:

"Stockvapors quipped, "Fairholme is the toasted turkey this year. It was my favorite, but ...."
"Yogibearbull, meanwhile, was feeling much less charitable, counseling investors to consider selling ...."
"Pirate noted (with more than a little disgust), "The previous management 'team' ...."​

Dr. Dave is following established conventions for quoting people from online discussion forums. Since Dr. Dave is quoting people who for the most part want to remain anonymous, about all he can do is list the person's screen name and their comment. In addition, at the top of the FAQ page, http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads.html, Dr. Dave does mention that most of the information is from the CCB and AZB online discussion forums, as shown below:

Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
About Various Billiards and Pool Topics
mostly from the Billiards Digest online CCB discussion forum
and the AZBilliards online discussion forum​

For anyone to expect further attributions and credits beyond this is impractical and not legally required.

 

[dr_dave]

... Let's take an example:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/stance.html
snooker stance

What are the recommended "best practices" for a snooker stance?​

from sfleinen:

The correct snooker stance implements the following key points:

Foot on same side of body as grip hand (i.e. the "planted foot") is planted onto, and pointing into, the shot line.
When weight is applied to the planted foot, the hip on that same side of the body will "seat" or shift inwards slightly. This is the natural effect of placing all of one's weight on one leg. (Try it -- go in front of a mirror and shift your weight so you're standing on one leg, with the other leg off the ground. Notice how your hip no longer "juts out" as it does normally when you're standing on two legs, but now seats inwards such that the edge of your hip is even/level with the side of your leg?)
The opposite foot is placed approximately a shoulder's distance away, and only slightly forward of the planted foot. By side-stepping a shoulder's distance like this, the combination of the hip seating inwards and the slight shift of the body away from the shot line, gives more than enough clearance for the grip hand to swing freely in pendulum fashion.
Once that opposite foot is placed, weight distribution between the two legs is approximately 70/30 or 60/40 in favor of the planted leg.
Placing the bridge hand on the shot line, and bending the upper body over onto the table, one finds that the seated hip and the body's already-implemented slight angle (via the placement of the opposite foot, which, remember, is slightly forward of the planted foot) is quite natural and automatically places the chin over the cue. You just bend over like a hinge, and your chin automatically is placed over the cue.​

Now, let's pretend you're a outside reader reading this. This reader stumbled across your website, say, from a Google search. This reader may or MAY NOT also be a member of AZB. The reader finds this information interesting, and wants to follow-up with the original author of this information. But the following problems will prevent him/her from doing this:

1. The only "attribution" you give, is a plain text "from sfleinen:" intro. If the reader isn't an oft-reader of the AZB forums, the reader has no idea who, or what, an "sfleinen" is.

2. There is no indicator of any kind where this information was taken from. There's no URL, no reference, and no footnote at the bottom of *any* of your website pages where the user can go to pursue where you got this information. Again, in-touch readers of the AZB forums might recognize the "sfleinen" moniker, and put two-and-two together that this is the same "sfleinen" that posts on AZB. But it's left up to the reader to do the R&D gymnastics to find out who the original source is.

3. The above is an example of what many of us have issues with. You "say" you "give attribution" to the information, but you actually don't. All you give attribution to is some screenname, without any kind of hint where that screenname is from or where it lives.

4. You don't include any links to that information so that the reader can follow the information to its source. You've intentionally broken that relationship by sanitizing the information of its source. There's no way an AZB-unfamiliar reader can find out it's from the AZB forums, much less the thread and the context in which it was posted. There's no context for this information at all. The information lives, and dies, with YOU. The only recourse the reader has, it to email YOU to find out where you got it from, and ask for contact information for "sfleinen". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you would give that info, but something also tells me that you'll also exploit that opportunity to see what else you can "give" that reader who contacted you -- e.g. perhaps more links to related information on your website concerning the topic that my information above was about (e.g. to *keep* the user glued to your website)? Perhaps sales pitches on your commercial products?

5. Proper attribution to information includes the person's full name, and the full resource path (including ISBN in case of a book, or URL in case of a website). Without this information, the source author and *the context* in which the information is posted, is LOST. With a full name, ISBN, and/or URL, the user has a full uninterrupted path back to the original author, and the context that the original information was posted in. When I see an excerpt from a book, I can go get that book, and find out why the author said what he/she said -- the full context is right there. By breaking that linkage to the original source as you've done all over your website, you've DESTROYED that reader's ability to do that!

Sean,

You've made some good points. I agree with you that when I quote something, I should provide a link to the source page. I will do this for any new quotes I add. And when I can find some time, I will also try to do this for all of my existing quotes; although, this isn't always possible because sometimes posts and threads get edited and/or deleted and/or moved.

BTW, I've always had the following at the top of my FAQ resource page:

mostly from the Billiards Digest online CCB discussion forum
and the AZBilliards online discussion forum​

but I agree with you that this, along with the the user names, is not enough for interested parties to find the source and context of the quotes. I will do better with this in the future.

I honestly didn't know this was the main things that has been bothering you lately. Thank you for clarifying.

And thank you for the excellent suggestion.

Regards,
Dave

 

[sfleinen]

Sean - Respectfully, I think you protest too much.

The same Google user who stumbled upon Dr. Dave's website can pretty easily hone in on the source by googling "sfleinen 'correct snooker stance'" (the latter three words in quotes). Try it - the AZB page containing your post turns right up. Also, it's not too likely that a web-surfing billiards aficionado would be unfamiliar with AZB, though obviously it's possible.

Hi Rich, thanks for your reply, and my apologies for the belated reply on my side.

The LOGICAL search that one would do, would be the one you quoted. However, it does not turn up the results you think it does. In fact, it only turns up two results -- both leading to Dr. Dave's website, as the attached screenshot attests to.

Now, could one "finagle" with the search terms and ultimately turn up the real source for the information? Sure. But the question remains -- WHY? Why should someone have to do this with obviously-lifted and incorrectly attributed information?

I suppose Dr. Dave could make things easier for such readers by saying "from AZ Billiards Forum poster sfleinen ( forums.azbilliards.com, or a more complete URL). However, it would be difficult to attribute to real names when most posters don't use their real names. Dr. Dave might not feel free to use real names even if he knows them if the person he's quoting is not using his real name in the original post.

Real names have nothing to do with it, Rich, other than my example of using them when quoting from a book (e.g. full name, ISBN). In the case of a website, obviously, you quote the screenname and the URL where that post is found. This is NOT difficult to do -- AZB makes it easy by right-clicking the post number itself and copying the link URL. In fact the very same effort that Dr. Dave expended in lifting the information and reformatting/modifying it, he could've inserted the link in one fell swoop. Dr. Dave's obviously very fond of linking -- to his website -- but he's not fond of linking back to the original source.

Dr. Dave has made an effort to extract from AZB and other sources much information that he considers helpful, or at least worthy of consideration, to someone wanting to play better, and he's put it all in one place. He has chosen a post of yours. You could look at that as a compliment - I would. In any event, his site is a great resource, and free.

Rich, whether he quotes me, or Lou, or Dave S., or Stan, or... whomever -- I don't care. The point is not that he's quoting "me." The point is he's not correctly attributing back to the original poster, irrespective of who it is. Dr. Dave has made it very clear -- exemplified by his obsessive-compulsive linking to his website -- that he's trying to glue the reader to that website. Unless you get very creative with the search terms (which all of us Googlites are), many times the search begins and ends at Dr. Dave's site. I'll give Dr. Dave the benefit of the doubt by assuming it's an oversight, and not by design.

I agree -- his webiste *is* a great resource. But I'm addressing the one BIG caveat with it, in light that it can be corrected, as well as to stop the "see no evil, hear no evil" games of glossing by those issues at 100mph.

As for his doing this to make a profit - I have no idea how much money he and Tom Ross have made on VEPS or how much he and Bob will make on VEPP, but I suspect that it doesn't amount to a very high rate of compensation for the time they put in on these projects. It's a pretty small market, and they have invested many hundreds of hours in their planning and creation. I think it's at least partially a labor of love - if it wasn't fun for them to do it I doubt that it would have been done.

Rich, my issue is NOT with Dr. Dave's commercial products. As I've mentioned over and over, I think Dr. Dave deserves some leniency with being able to occasionally advertise his commercial wares, for as much as he helps out with offering the free information. The commercial wares have nothing to do with what I'm talking about, other than being a "while you're here, you might as well be interested in looking at these" pull-through offer. And I agree -- it obviously is a labor of love, and I commend Dr. Dave for it.

Rather (and again), my issue is with correct, and uninterrupted, attribution to his original sources of information. It's not asking much at all. Whenever you write a book, or you compile information of the magnitude that Dr. Dave has, the importance of proper attribution is crucial.

When I read a book, and I want to "read further" (as a book or website often suggests), I want to be able to go to those original sources of information. I shouldn't have to go through "search engine" gymnastics to find it. It's not asking much -- again, the same effort Dr. Dave expended in lifting the information and reformatting it for his website, easily accommodates the insertion of the link to that source.

I hope that helps clarify,
-Sean

 

[dr_dave]

It's not asking much -- again, the same effort Dr. Dave expended in lifting the information and reformatting it for his website, easily accommodates the insertion of the link to that source.

I agree 100%. You must not have seen my recent reply to you post yet.

Catch you later,
Dave

 

[sfleinen]

Sean, I have to agree with Rich -- you're nit-picking.

Any kind of a halfway competent Google search will turn up the desired references. No one here is doing Talmudic research and if you really need more info on a snooker stance you will quickly leave Dr. Dave's site and come across any number of works by Joe Davis, Clive Everton, Jimmy White, Goodwill & Morgan, Thomas Hein, David Jenner, and on and on.

AZ and the pool forums at large are not the world of academia, though Dave follows most of its tenets -- no one here (except you) cares about a bibliography, footnotes, and "proper" attribution. Give me a break. We are talking about pool players.

And if you, or anyone else, truly cares a wit about proper attribution you could start by posting your real name at the end of every one of your posts.

Lou Figueroa

Lou:

Please see my reply to Rich, since it addresses much of what you're asking above. Let's lose the fixation on the real names thing, ok? I only used that for the example of quoting from a book, where you quote the author's name, the title, and the ISBN. Obviously, when you quote from a website where screennames are used, you attribute to the screenname (the privacy issue of not attributing to the full name, even if you know it, is a valid concern).

And this thinking of "we're talking about pool players" is precisely the wrong stance to take on this. One leads by example, not by perceived "educational" or "intelligence" perceptions of his/her audience. (And as a pool player, I'd take issue with your "perception" that we as a group don't care if information is not correctly attributed to the original author.) This is obviously a polarizing issue, and it appears we have folks on both sides of the fence here. So in this instance, I'd err on the side of ethics and correctness, not "what I can get away with, because I think Joe Barbanger doesn't care."

As for the proper attribution idea, in the spirit of following along with the screennames concept, I add my first name just as a friendly "gimme", but I've often mentioned my full name. Not always, of course, because it gets pedantic after a while, but if I have to, in the spirit of "every post can be tracked back to me," I will do so. Again, please lose the full names thing -- it was only an example for the purposes of quoting a book, not a website with screenenames.

-Sean Leinen

 

[sfleinen]

I agree 100%. You must not have seen my recent reply to you post yet.

Catch you later,
Dave

That's correct, Dave. I had not seen it yet, because when you posted it, I was in the process of posting that reply. I was offline pretty much all day today, and am only now getting back online and catching up on things.

Thank you for that reply, btw.
-Sean

 

[sfleinen]

Sean,

You've made some good points. I agree with you that when I quote something, I should provide a link to the source page. I will do this for any new quotes I add. And when I can find some time, I will also try to do this for all of my existing quotes; although, this isn't always possible because sometimes posts and threads get edited and/or deleted and/or moved.

BTW, I've always had the following at the top of my FAQ resource page:

mostly from the Billiards Digest online CCB discussion forum
and the AZBilliards online discussion forum​

but I agree with you that this, along with the the user names, is not enough for interested parties to find the source and context of the quotes. I will do better with this in the future.

I honestly didn't know this was the main things that has been bothering you lately. Thank you for clarifying.

And thank you for the excellent suggestion.

Regards,
Dave

Dr. Dave:

Thank you. If you make just this one change -- to allow the user to follow back to the original source (and the context in which it was posted), this will address my main concern. Obviously, Lou disagrees with me, knowing that he supports you unflinchingly, and probably because he might be sensitized to the negative attention you've received from the aiming systems devotees and may be "globbing" my issues in with them. But I hope I addressed those concerns.

Like I said, it's not asking much (and I've been pointing this out to you for a while, but I had to step it up a notch for it to finally get noticed). It's not asking for much, and it's EASY to solve.

Thank you for finally acknowledging my points.

Regards,
-Sean Leinen