WingNews logo WingNews GitHub [2]
top | item 462984

Ask HN: Framing other sites has always seemed scummy to me. Am I off-base?

20 points| brandnewlow | 17 years ago | reply

One thing that never fails to tick me off is when a site frames one of my own. Seeing someone else's URL and branding atop a page that I created and filled with original research/content/thoughts makes me feel just a tad violated.

It's arguably a fuzzy area, but there's nothing fuzzy about how I feel about seeing it happen. It feels like theft.

When I first had this happen two years ago, I started adding a frame-breaker to all my blogs. Problem solved. Most people don't know how to do that however.

For a while, it seemed that only shady sites like i-am-bored were engaging in massive framing of other people's content.

However, recently I noticed, to my disappointment, that Facebook frames the destination pages for all links shared on it.

And more recently I've seen some startup called Outbrain add "related content" links to popular blogging platforms. These links lead to framed pages with a prompt at the top inviting visitors to log in to outbrain. Major newspapers are now using this outbrain garbage on their blogs.

Aside from my decidedly negative emotional response to the practice as a content creator, are there other, perhaps more tangible detriments to being framed?

Does it hurt a site's SEO and create duplicate content problems?

Could it be argued that it's a form of IP theft?

Am I off-base in my intense hatred for sites that frame others?

I want to be able to concisely explain to non-techies why this gets me so mad. To techies as well I guess.

24 comments

order
[+] tokenadult|17 years ago|reply
Yes, it is scummy. I sure don't set up many outlinks to sites that frame other sites. I don't recommend them actively in online discussion either. I would never set up framing like that in any site I administer.
[+] chris11|17 years ago|reply
That's why I've never really liked about.com. Looking into it, it seems like all the content has been paid for by about.com. But content on their sites has appeared elsewhere, and it looks like they frame content, so it's just distasteful.

I do think it can be done well though. Isitfunnytoday.com frames content. They are a web comic aggregator that lets people vote on web comics. On all their out going links, they have a very small frame that lets you vote on the displayed comic, vote on a different comic, and share the the comic on websites like digg. The bar is not invasive, and you can easily get rid of it by clicking the red x. It also helps that isitfunnytoday.com is actually sending more traffic to the other site.

[+] callmeed|17 years ago|reply
I don't think it hurts your SEO–since it's framing your page at the same URL. Google is smart enough to know that the frame comes from your site/blog.

Honestly, I don't think you should be too concerned about it. After all, RSS readers, blog search engines, news search engines, meme aggregators, and other sites all scrape content and republish it (in whole or part) in their own pages–often profiting from ads at the same time. Is that any less shady to you?

I'd say just make sure your pages clearly define you as the content creator. People will get the idea.

[+] brandnewlow|17 years ago|reply
In some of those cases, the practice is just as shady. In others, not as much.

I don't use an RSS reader personally and never will. I visit the sites I like so they can recoup advertising views from me reading the stories they paid real money to professionals to write.

I also don't like how RSS readers make every story look the same no matter where it comes from. It loses personality.

I think newspapers are partly in their current situation because they didn't sue the pants off Google or charge for their sites to be spidered 10 years ago, before the public grew comfortable with the practice. Google got all their data for free.

If I'm expected to pay Twitter for use of their API, surely I could have been expected to pay the NYTimes to spider their site and store local copies of all their content.

[+] inerte|17 years ago|reply
1 - It doesn't hurt SEO. Sure, a directly link would be better, but a framed one is better than nothing. If it creates duplicate content problems, it's for the framer, not the framed.

2 - No. Why do you think it might do?

3 - No, I hate them too :) Except isitfunnytoday.com, because, you see... that's the problem. Sometimes you can clearly see value being added by the framer. But these are rare, most framers do it to stick the users, log activity or show ads.

[+] brandnewlow|17 years ago|reply
1. Ok. Good to know. Still seems scummy because...

2. They're adding their branding/user experience to your site, usually up at the top, in an effort to brand your content as their own.

According to think link: http://www.publaw.com/framing.html

There was a lawsuit back in 1999 in which some news orgs sued the pants off a site that was framing their content and running ads around it.

Outbrain doesn't appear to be running ads, but it's definitely adding UI elements and "login" and "about" links that I wouldn't want anywhere on my site. That's why I wonder if there's grounds for legal challenge, the user experience is being co-opted without prior consent.

[+] profgubler|17 years ago|reply
Google has said many times there is no duplicate content penalty. And Google actually can't read anything inside a frame, so there would be no content to duplicate anyway. Duplicate content is an issue, because you are letting Google decide which page is the most important. It is better to control for yourself which page you feel to be the most important.
[+] The_Sponge|17 years ago|reply
It's perhaps only tolerable in situations where a site has to deal with phishing on a large scale basis, perhaps on a forum targeted towards a younger audience. And even then, only if it is only a banner which says "WARNING: Don't give out your password to sites you clicked on from us!" as well as a swift way to see the page in full.
[+] NoBSWebDesign|17 years ago|reply
As long as it's relatively unobtrusive and has a prominent "remove frame" button, I don't see what the big deal is. If it weren't for their link to you (framed or not), that user would not have found your content in the first place. I would be grateful for them driving traffic to your site and move on to more important issues.
[+] chris11|17 years ago|reply
"Facebook frames the destination pages for all links shared on it."

Where does Facebook do this? I just checked it with a site for a food drive that I'm advertising on my news feed, and it wasn't framed.

[+] anotherjesse|17 years ago|reply
It is shown when someone posts a link (not every external link)
[+] kbrower|17 years ago|reply
For me it boils down to whether or not the frame is adding any value to the page, unobtrusive, and easy to close.
[+] anotherjesse|17 years ago|reply
stumbleupon is now doing this for their non-extension based experience.
[+] kw|17 years ago|reply
StumbleUpon is an example of framing content right...a simple unobtrusive toolbar. I used that site as inspiration for a website I created during my spare time. Link: http://www.picahuna.com

I don't think there's anything necessarily scummy about framing content. In the case of StumbleUpon and my site, there's a benefit to the user experience, and visitors can immediately start using the site without installing an extension. Furthermore, StumbleUpon actually increases traffic to your site.