<story><title>I&apos;m not a &quot;curator&quot;</title><url>http://www.marco.org/2012/03/12/not-a-curator</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>rmccue</author><text>I think &quot;via&quot; is the original source, and &quot;hat tip&quot; is how you found it (i.e. another site that linked to it).&lt;p&gt;(Or the other way around. I agree with Marco on that one, I think it&apos;s confusing.)</text></item><item><author>zalew</author><text>&amp;#62; I didn’t even know the difference between “via” and “hat tip” until today.&lt;p&gt;I still don&apos;t know. What is this hat tip?&lt;p&gt;Frankly I never understood the concept of &apos;stealing&apos; links. Once ago a friend on fb got very offended that I posted a link which was on his fanpage without &apos;via&apos;, like everybody is obligated to advertise random sources for stuff that already have thousands of views/shares. Maybe back in the day linking was worth something and I remember all those linkblogs like halfproject, surfstation, k10k, etc., but today with all those tumblrs and other tools to aggregate, suggest, reshare, cross-post, I don&apos;t see any particular value in clicking &apos;share/repost/+1&apos; that needs to be credited. I&apos;m with Marco on this &lt;i&gt;But regardless of how much time it takes to find interesting links every day, I don’t think most intermediaries deserve credit for simply sharing a link to someone else’s work.&lt;/i&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>Steko</author><text>Curators Code wants it to mean this but that&apos;s not what it means in my experience.&lt;p&gt;In practice there is 90% overlap between these terms and both denote the tertiary source you became aware of the link through.&lt;p&gt;The difference when it exists is that &quot;HT&quot; is less likely to add anything you don&apos;t see in the source whereas &quot;via&quot; will sometimes be worth clicking through to see that person&apos;s insight.&lt;p&gt;Hat Tip:&lt;p&gt;A -&amp;#62; B -&amp;#62; Me&lt;p&gt;B added nothing, you should visit A for the source.  Goodwill link to B, you should check out his site.&lt;p&gt;Via:&lt;p&gt;A -&amp;#62; B -&amp;#62; Me&lt;p&gt;B may have added something.  You should visit A for the source and if you have time B might be worth it.</text></comment>
<story><title>I&apos;m not a &quot;curator&quot;</title><url>http://www.marco.org/2012/03/12/not-a-curator</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>rmccue</author><text>I think &quot;via&quot; is the original source, and &quot;hat tip&quot; is how you found it (i.e. another site that linked to it).&lt;p&gt;(Or the other way around. I agree with Marco on that one, I think it&apos;s confusing.)</text></item><item><author>zalew</author><text>&amp;#62; I didn’t even know the difference between “via” and “hat tip” until today.&lt;p&gt;I still don&apos;t know. What is this hat tip?&lt;p&gt;Frankly I never understood the concept of &apos;stealing&apos; links. Once ago a friend on fb got very offended that I posted a link which was on his fanpage without &apos;via&apos;, like everybody is obligated to advertise random sources for stuff that already have thousands of views/shares. Maybe back in the day linking was worth something and I remember all those linkblogs like halfproject, surfstation, k10k, etc., but today with all those tumblrs and other tools to aggregate, suggest, reshare, cross-post, I don&apos;t see any particular value in clicking &apos;share/repost/+1&apos; that needs to be credited. I&apos;m with Marco on this &lt;i&gt;But regardless of how much time it takes to find interesting links every day, I don’t think most intermediaries deserve credit for simply sharing a link to someone else’s work.&lt;/i&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>zalew</author><text>real world examples look like this&lt;p&gt;Flickr photo (ori) -&amp;#62; example.tumblr.com -&amp;#62; my blog &quot;photo via example.tumblr.com&quot;&lt;p&gt;Youtube clip (ori) -&amp;#62; John Doe on FB -&amp;#62; your FB &quot;youtube clip via John Doe&quot;&lt;p&gt;so &apos;via&apos; is the place where you clicked repost/share not the original content</text></comment>