When you share content from gimmebar, they're no longer sure the original source is still displaying the item in question, or even that the URI chosen was canonical (think the root url on a blog). What choice do they have?

To go a step further, I think you're freeing the person sharing the content prematurely. If I see something funny on cracked.com, and decide to grab that content, upload it to imagur, then share the imagur link… Imagur getting the traffic instead of cracked is on me, not imagur.

i guess they could put a hoverbar at the top of the page when they link to the original content. if there's a 404 or redirect, the user can click the hoverbar to see gimmebar's copy.

i'm not sure how to do it, exactly, but i know it's possible to do this in a way that isn't so... swipey.

How do you know you're seeing the wrong content?

On any Gimme Bar asset page, you'll find a direct link back to the original URL where it was grabbed from. You don't need to use the short link if you don't want to, but we do make it slightly more convenient.

I guess it's the difference between: a) blogging your thoughts about an article and linking back to it, which encourages people to read the original so they know the context for what you've written.

VERSUS

b) quoting all or almost all of the interesting bits from the article, and providing a link to the original.

In the latter case, there is no reason or incentive for the user to visit the source. In the past couple of years I've begun to think this is the wrong way to go about things.

To be fair, the intent of Gimme Bar is to be a personal web-saving tool first, and a "social" tool a very, very distant second.

There are enough tools and applications out there that let you share links and pictures of stuff you like, but not many that are completely focused on ensuring that those things you like stick around in an easily searchable and backup-able way.