Pity the flower that has to compete with THAT vase!

These are absolutely gorgeous!

stunning, though I suspect they're meant to be objects in space and not actually used to hold flowers.

This was originally posted at materialicio.us on 21Sept07 (http://tinyurl.com/yqsta3). The Style Files (where AT got this but doesn't tell you unless you follow the link) clearly indicates this. Should AT do so too?

Shouldn't the person who devotes time and creativity to actually identifying cool things rather than just surfing to other people's sites get some credit (and traffic to their site)?

Obviously, you can find this out if you follow the links but I'd argue that Materialicio.us deserves ABOVE THE FOLD credit from AT. Something like - "from Materialicio.us via The Style Files" would be most appropriate.

If AT is going to be a link aggregator, they should at least do it honestly.

the glog bowl was also fun. but is his work available in New York?

I love how, against a black background, you end up with the illusion of empty space.

Curtis [above] said it best. I'd give up gardening and concentrate on collecting the vases.

Beautiful!

southernwayfarer--
The credit appears, albeit "below the fold". How is that dishonest? And the original source is only two clicks away.

Anyone who works in the internet buisness will tell you why. AT is a business (getting bigger all the time). They make their money by advertising. Advertising rates are determined by traffic and retention. So, they want people to stay on their site. Hiding the sourse below the fold reduces the likelyhood that someone will follow a link away from AT's site. It also prevents people from knowing where the idea came from.

Two clicks is a world away in internet terms. I'd love to see the stats comparing how many people clicked through to the AT details page vs. the next link to The Style Files vs all the way to Materialicio.us. There's definitely not much incentive to go all that way for basically the same info. But I can assure you that Materialicio.us would be getting a lot more traffic if it said "from Materialicio.us (with link) via The Style Files" above the fold.

Sure, a lot of people don't care where it came from but that doesn't matter. If you're going to take the idea from someone, they should at least get a little credit. Materialicio.us has a website too. He makes money off of advertising just like AT.

I say that its dishonest of AT to hide the link and deprive Materialicio.us of the credit that is his/her due!

BTW, I love AT. I just think credit needs to be given where credit is due. Sometimes people get lazy when the become sucessfull. I think its everyone who loves AT's job to keep them honest but speaking up.

Materialicio.us is Justin Anthony's [aka Justin (the first one)] blog. He's a regular contributer to AT and I think he deserves a little link credit for his great site.

edit "by speaking up"

Hmm.

I'm sorry to read that your friend didn't get the credit you feel he deserved, but, speaking only for myself, I had no trouble or hesitancy clicking my way right through to the site of the artist who created the vases, which is why I asked about sources in New York.

AT's revenue model -- which is typical of most media entities -- has nothing to do with its honesty or lack thereof. Since the source is identified, there is no dishonesty per se. And regular readers -- the people advertisers want -- know that AT aggregates from other sites.

As for the above or below the fold -- brief pause while I wince at the misuse of the terms -- the actually term is jump -- usually the home page of any such site is filled with narrative hooks to get people to link into the more detailed article -- the exact opposite of what your assertion. It's not meant to give you all the information you may need or want, such hooks are meant to get you to link or turn to that page.

Now, really, that's like saying encyclopedias should cite their sources in the title of each article.

JonathanB,
To address the main points in your comment.
1)Materialicio.us (Justin Anthony) is not my friend and I am not speaking for him. He has an excellent blog. You should check it out.
2) You state that you clicked to the site of the artist which was on the home page. I never mentioned anything about the artist's link or its placement. You're off the point. The link to The Style Files was on AT's "more" page. You wouldn't have found the link to Materialicio.us unless you clicked through to The Style Files. This is my point. It has nothing to do with the artist's site, which obviously should be featured.
3) I never said that AT's revenue model had anything to do with honesty. I said it has to do with advertising. AT's link to The Style Files was the minimum necessary. I think they should be held to a slightly higher standard, which I state as linking to the person who made the original observation as best can be determined. In this case it was easy. Do you disagree with this? What about other readers?
4) You also mistake my point about linking. I stated that AT prefers to provide links to its own pages rather than to other sites. If it didn't, why not just put the link to The Style Files and/or Materialicio.us on the front page and forget about the "more" link? You could get the same info at Materialicio.us as was provided on the "more" page from AT. I'll tell you why, so AT can get more advertising revenue. That's fine by me but at least credit the person who you took the idea from. The accusation that it is the "exact opposite" of what I asserted is wrong.
5) Regardless of what term I use (below the fold) the point still stands. Ad hominem attacks are a good sign of a bad argument.