PLEASE change the URL from the blog spam Petapixel site to the photographer's own!
https://www.paulreiffer.com/2019/07/photographers-instagramm...
https://www.paulreiffer.com/2019/07/photographers-instagramm...
All site content © Paul Reiffer 2019 and may not be used without permission
And Petapixel's post credits him, and includes in the end:
About the author: (...) This article was also published here [link to author's blog].
So, I assume it has been authorized by the author? Does he prefer to have a link to his own blog directly?
I don't see why one wouldn't want to link the source and at the same time support the writer directly instead of hoping a fraction of the readers will find and follow the links in the footnotes on Petapixel.
Isn't that between the author and Petapixel? The author seems to have granted permission to reproduce his work there.
I wasn't the one who downvoted your comment but in this particular case I disagree. I wouldn't call this "blog spam". The petapixel post is more like the author strategically choosing syndication[1].
As a reader of articles, I find the petalpixel url more relevant than the photographer's own website. After I'm done reading the 1 article, I can see more "trending" articles on the righthand side to read more.
In contrast, the photographer's website is less relevant because I'm not interested in buying prints that cost $1100 to $13000 USD or contacting him to book luxury expeditions.
Just wanted to provide a different perspective and why I think the Petapixel url is more appropriate for the HN audience. In fact, sending a potential "HN hug of death" directly to the author's website with virtually no one "adding to shopping cart" while using up his hosting bandwidth seems to be the opposite of supporting the photographer.
I suspect the author has decided to republish it for SEO as there is a follow link back to their site.
For intrigue:
petapixel.com domain authority is 90
www.paulreiffer.com domain authority is 48