I like sensational titles and clickbait. If you think about it snapzu is specifically designed for such things, advertising a given submission via an image and a short phrase.
I hate the mainstream media because of the message it sends, and the content it offers, not because of the way they advertise.
You have worked in advertising, haven't you? How did you go about that without sensationalism?
Each submission here has a title and a photo. Submissions without a photo can never make the front page. No snaps I have seen mention the photographer of the image they are advertised with here, and if the wording of the snap descriptor (or the image) does not catch the interest of a viewer they will not click, upvote or discuss.
You have a different spin to be sure, but the website we know each other from (SU) is less about clickbait and sensational titles and more about content tailored to your preferences by people of your choosing. More like the home page here, and less like the grid view (which I argue lends itself to clickbait and sensational titles, and not in a bad way).
Have a look at the grid view on the main page. Perhaps your tribes are different from mine, but I only found a couple of snaps with sources listed for images, and they were both you and Nick.
"As for the homepage here, it is more like Reddit's homepage for logged out users (not tailored) than StumbleUpon's (tailored). Your "home feed" (the home icon) here is more like StumbleUpon, tailored based on people you follow or tribes you follow (you can switch between the two and even add your own filters)."
Yes, that was what I was saying, amongst other things.
Regarding sourced images, I am aware they exist, but they seem very rare. Most of what you link to are from a couple of users. Go over the gridview and see how many you don't find.
I understand the perspective, and I laud your for your attributions. I am not a believer in intellectual property however, and feel strongly compelled to share not only my own views but those of others as well.
I often explain it this way: If you had never heard Bach in your life, and I play you a pirated song on my MP3 player, should you thank me for sharing or scold me for not attributing / compensating? Who is more deserving of your gratitude or scorn, me, the manufacturer of the MP3 player, the musician who played the song, the pirate who uploaded it, the record label who owns the rights to that version of the song, or Bach himself?
Am I wrong to share? I certainly don't think so, but I do praise those who (like yourself) make it easier to find the origin of a given view.
Great quote. I absolutely hate it how people call beautiful images "earthporn" "cityporn" etc. I think it says a lot about those people that they look for a word for something inspiring/breathtaking/beautiful and then come up with the word "porn".
[This comment was removed]