Hmm, interesting site. Looks familiar ... almost too familiar ... waaaaaitaminute: <a href="http://phpispoetry.com/question_page/question/16" rel="nofollow">http://phpispoetry.com/question_page/question/16</a> looks <i>just</i> like <a href="http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2283937/how-should-i-ethically-approach-user-password-storage-for-later-plaintext-retrie" rel="nofollow">http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2283937/how-should-i-ethi...</a> . Yup, an exact copy, right down to mentions of "bounty system" and "thanks to all the Stack users", and the only answer you have is likewise word-for-word identical to SO's highest voted answer. Is that both <i>your</i> question and <i>your</i> answer that <i>you</i> asked on SO, back there in 2010? If not, see this for proper CC-attribution guidelines - SO allows for republishing of user contributions, it just requires a few simple rules to be followed for it: <a href="http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/" rel="nofollow">http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/</a> Quote:<p>"If you republish this content, we require that you:
- Visually indicate that the content is from Stack Overflow, Meta Stack Overflow, Server Fault, or Super User in some way. It doesn’t have to be obnoxious; a discreet text blurb is fine.
- Hyperlink directly to the original question on the source site (e.g., <a href="http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12345" rel="nofollow">http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12345</a>)
- Show the author names for every question and answer
- Hyperlink each author name directly back to their user profile page on the source site (e.g., <a href="http://stackoverflow.com/users/12345/username" rel="nofollow">http://stackoverflow.com/users/12345/username</a>)<p>Alas, you aren't doing any of these things on the site; worse, the texts seem to suggest that you and "peter" have written all of that yourself. <a href="http://phpispoetry.com/user/best" rel="nofollow">http://phpispoetry.com/user/best</a> That is an unfortunate issue that you've overlooked; people tend to get all possessive of the stuff they're written ;)<p>As for the site, it looks nice and clean, and feels very responsive. Perhaps making the tags interactive would be good - but I feel you're working on that even as I'm typing this :)