Young fella starting his own media enterprise. High energy.
After he explained a bunch of gizmo web and software stuff I totally don’t comprehend -remember I still use 3×5 index cards and library style reference drawers- here’s what the explanation appeared to be:
Mr. Johnson uses some kind of internet search software within his research assembly. (I don’t understand it – if you do, you can expand for me). Essentially this creates some kind of increases in search parameters within the software he has deployed.
Because our stories were published on 8/26, 8/27, and 8/28, along with the hundreds of data base searches (example “Anthony Shahid”) we were doing prior to the publication of those lengthy research articles (8/23, 8/24, 8/25), we were generating “defaults” when his research was going on.
Meaning our research was somehow creating a higher profile for all subsequent searches that followed. (Does the internet categorize by date?) Hence, as the explanation goes, the “core” of our construct became the top hits on his own searches. This, he explains, created the similarity – he states he has never visited the site, yet admits there is a considerable amount of similarity between his produced content and our previously published material.
He explains pictures are a consequence of the same result, with additional images that Froggie created being uploaded to Twitter where there were only a few inbound search hits for Anthony Shahid. Mr. Johnson says he frequently captures twitter images as they are not considered proprietary content to the user. I guess if you put a picture on Twitter, twitter owns it – or so the explanation goes.
After some general discussion about other topics, I gave him some leads to follow regarding the Mike Brown family and affiliations. I also listened to his explanation of his business model for aggregating news information and the goals of his site GotNews.com
We finished the conversation with my saying, according to the operational model of his research aggregation – I don’t see how the same or similar situation will not arise again; and I cautioned him to consider this as he moves his business plan forward.
I don’t quite understand how almost all small, undigested, or vaguely searched, research – like the Mr. Shahid example will not generate the same problem again in the future.
It would seem to me that a fully composed analysis of whatever you are researching will be the primary hit for any search engine -or software- so long as the analysis is written on a rare subject. But, again, I don’t understand all the new stuff going on.
We left on good terms.
Charles Johnson is ripping off our extensive Mike Brown research, repackaging some of it, and claiming it as his own.
I’ve tried for three days to get it to stop – but he’s refusing to correspond. Out of respect for all of the dedicated Treepers who have poured thousands of hours into this case you should know.
Not only is it unethical. But he is fundraising by claiming he needs money to continue the research. In actuality all he is doing is stealing the information we are gathering. It is a typical con pulled by those too lazy to do their own work.
FYI – from what I can determine this is essentially his business model. It’s typical of a con artist scammer. You will remember the same thing has happened with multiple stories we have researched in the past. All repackaged, or not, and then sold to a gullible audience as original content and material. It’s the same lack of character as Lee Stranahan.
Go to his site and determine for yourself. The lack of integrity therein speaks for itself.
Just thought you should know.