I usually start my search for interesting items by looking at Apple's Newest Files page, the Apple Club and then other s

I usually start my search for interesting items by looking at Apple's Newest Files page, the Apple Club and then other sources of original information, like company web sites. On Saturday morning around 8am EDT I found that Apple had released MacPPP 2.5.3 and that it was also available from the Apple Club. As usual, I then checked about 10 of the seemingly most popular Mac news sites and Version Tracker and found that none of them had posted MacPPP 2.5.3's availability. I posted the information for my readers about 8:30am EDT and decided to check the other sites every couple of hours and tabulated the results below on Saturday.

So what is the point? First, let me make it clear that I am not at all unhappy with the outcome as some who sent me e-mail had surmised. It is exactly the expected outcome. Apple posted the original information (a fact), not me. I attributed the information to the original source. Subsequent postings either just linked to Apple's server (also appropriate), attributed the "find" to Version Tracker or attributed the "find" to me. Apple was the source of the original information and, therefore, the only entity really needing attribution. Any additional attribution is a nice courtesy that is appreciated but should not be expected. As I stated in my previous note, it is virtually impossible in most cases to determine which of many sites is actually the first to pass along a fact. So this kind of event happens all the time and it should not be an issue, even if it is frustrating to those of us who spend a lot of time to get and publish factual information from an original source. Lesson over.