A good friend, who has been going through a rough patch recently, reflected on a couple of bad choices that he had made. "Actions become habits. Habits become character," he said.
I liked his perspective because it captures two ideas. First, it allows forgiveness of a single bad act, recognizing that each individual deed does not represent the whole of a person. Equally important, however, is that it cautions that individual bad acts become habitual, and a series of bad habits become character over time.
I think this holds true for societies as much as individuals. Each individual action in a society, whether in a traditional community or one that exists virtually like Gather, do not define the whole. Over time, however, they become accepted norms and those norms form the character of the place.
I raise this point because Gather has grown significantly in the last six months. We are on the eve of a second major interface release (planned for the week of July 10th, if all goes well). We have seen article and image publishing climb, comments climb, and messages climb week over week. Traffic to the site has climbed at the same time. In short, more talented people are connecting and exchanging ideas on a broader set of topics here every day.
But as the positive, healthy interaction has grown, so too have the occasional negatives. Comments that are off-topic, intentional negative ratings meant to manipulate rank, messages that are spam, and occasional personal critiques or criticisms (which add nothing of value to a conversation and discourage participation in the community) are becoming more common as well. Gather's editorial and customer service teams are reporting a gradual increase in the number of requests for "official action," from comment deletion or member reprimand.
Encouraging good acts and discouraging bad are critical to building an engaged, informed community here. Doing so will encourage participation. It will reward quality community contribution (something we have already started to do). It will also make it more likely that current members will invite friends to join the community (and more likely that those friends will decide to do so). It will develop the habits that will make Gather a better and better place over time.
On the other hand, failure to discourage bad acts will result in the creation of a less desirable community, where membership growth stagnates, member activity decreases, contributions are discouraged, and new member invitations decline. It is critical to the success of this community (and the company that depends on it) that we define good and bad behavior here and put scalable systems in place that encourage good acts (and therefore habits) among members while discouraging bad behavior.
Two questions are apparent. First, how do we define what's good and what's bad (and who defines it)? And, second, what (scalable) techniques do we employ to encourage the good and discourage (or outright prevent) the bad? How do we build a community that is thoughtful, engaging, and welcoming? How do we remain open to vigorous debate without allowing for unjustified personal attack? How do we prevent anti-social behavior like spam, tag spam, or off-topic commenting?
Over the course of the next couple of weeks, I hope to explore these topics with all of you. I will offer my thoughts (I can't help myself!), but frankly am more interested in yours. Gather isn't our place. It's yours. You comprise the community. You create the inspiration. You engage in the conversation. Your invitations determine Gather's membership. Your groups shape the interests explored here. Your vision drives our product development. Defining what, exactly, we want this place to be is within the community's purview as well.
Let's start tonight by identifying the questions we should ask. Have I captured the right set above? What do you think is critical to building a healthy community? Are their online or offline community-building examples that you think might inform our discussion? How about academic studies we might want to check out? What topics do you think we should cover with regard to building healthy community over time.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts (and thanks for the ones already shared in this forum and to our feedback address). With your help, good acts can become good habits here on Gather. And good habits will develop a strong character for our community.
|
|
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 173
I wouldn't want to focus too much on the negativity. After all, what you focus on will expand. You don't want to out and out avoid it but perhaps some sort of rating system would discourage such behavior.
Ignoring those that are abusive will take care of the problem, rather than give credit by commenting.
That said...I also wouldn't want to focus too much on the positive either. Let me explain: as Gather has grown, so has the amount of "fluff". While fluff is fine and increases traffic (traffic being good), it's not really good quality writing most of the time (which I thought was an aim of the site).
I guess what I'm saying is that it's hard to seperate the wheat from the chaff. It's time to ask: do the ratings really have relevence anymore?
The National Parliamentary Debate Association allows for "points of personal privilege" to be invoked "when he or she believes that an opponent has personally insulted one of the debaters, has made an offensive or tasteless comment, or has grievously misconstrued another's words or arguments. The Speaker will then rule on whether or not the comments were acceptable.
..... Like a point of order, a point of personal privilege is a serious charge and should not be raised for minor transgressions. Debaters may be penalized for raising spurious points of personal privilege."
This of course would mean involving an outside, unbiased party to monitor inappropriate behavior. It would also be necessary to ensure that frivilous accusations were punished and discouraged - in other words - no tattling because someone didn't like your article or image.
Over time, those whose comments are frequently blocked could be dropped entirely from the Gather community or, prior to that, they could be fined a certain number of Gather points.
While virtue is its own reward, vice needs to be challenged if it harms the community.
I believe the biggest problem is Gather's failure to define a goal. Is this a site where writer's publish, or is it competition for MySpace? My invitation to Gather billed it as a writer's site. I am a writer and a political activist. When I arrived and found there were actual debates and discussions in the comment sections, many of them involving politics, I was excited. However, it didn't take long to discover that few were interested in the quality of the content or writing. Some of the highest rated articles were very poorly written, and the authors made it clear (their words, not my perception) they either considered themselves perfect and accepted no criticism, or had no desire to become professional or even proficient writers. As a result, most of the serious writers I have invited here declined the invitation.
Now, we have people who want to publish their work on a writing site with ratings and comment sections, yet they don't have the professional backbone to accept an honest rating or a comment that isn't glowing, and are asking babysitters to come in and punish the people who offend them and permission to remove comments they don't like. I hope you will consider how unprofessional and immature it is for adults to voluntarily join a site and demand the site and everyone on it change because they can't handle what they volunteered to do, which is accept ratings and comments.
I find Yes Man's constant insults annoying, and Candida's endless habit of accusing anyone who says something she doesn't like of being her lifelong stalker, and I know others are tired of hearing me whine about editing before publishing and taking an interest in how we write, but I think it would be a huge mistake for Gather to tell any of us we aren't allowed to say what we want, or to allow us to remove one another's comments. Soon, there will be nothing left by "aren't you wonderful, hug hug" or, in some cases "look how wonderful I am, love me love and give me or ten or you're blackballed" – which is almost the situation now.
I believe Gather needs to define itself, either as a site for adults who either want to write well, or read and converse/debate with writers about what they publish, or as a chat room, in which case it will have to also decide it is G-rated to please many.
I will address my others concerns privately.
Seriously though, you said what I didn't have the energy to say. Gather's direction (or lack thereof) has been slightly disappointing to me. It doesn't bother me that less serious writing is here, but that serious efforts are on a par with the "rah rah! love me!" stuff.
I put effort into the stuff I write, but find that I cannot compete with the social networkers. This leaves me somewhat cold.
By the way, who do I have to cross to get blackballed? I hate bullies and would love to cross one, and besides...I feel that being blacklisted would give me a certain cachet that I seem to currently lack.
I've yet to have anything original to contribute to this comment thread, but man, am I liking what some other people have to say.
I notice your contests bring quality entries and I encourage Gather.com to continue those, perhaps partnering with others to bring these about.
I would like to see more works or photos of works from sculptors, illustrators etc..
Hope this is spelled ok ... ditto grammar as I am down to one less sore hand after trying for pavement diving yesterday. Think I'll write an ode to that tree that was looking at when I toe chucked and nose ducked downward to take a second in the senior klutz program.
Watch you thoughts they become words
Watch your words they become actions
Watch your actions they become habits
Watch your habits they become character
Watch your character it is your destiny
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
~~
is this another one of those articles about what's wrong with gather?
c'mon, jake - it's another points-whore cage match.
~~
now, everyone - is this considered 'what's wrong with gather', or 'what's right about gather' ?
sandy and candida - tom said, "Gather isn't our place. It's yours."
i agree with that. we shape this community.
there are tools available to those who enjoy 'praisey chains'. they're called groups. form the "don't hurt my feelings group," publish to it and moderate it until you die smiling - or from boredom, whichever comes first.
carol - "Richard, I think your idea is very interesting and should be further explored."
won't work. professional trolls don't care about points or keeping the same screen name. too easy to get around that one.
gisela - "This of course would mean involving an outside, unbiased party to monitor inappropriate behavior."
sounds exciting. call it "the brown shirt brigade". they can get a cut of our points for the effort - gathertaxes.
i think that the ratings system should have stopped a long time ago, it's a failed experiment. why can't we control our own home pages? arrange our articles in the order we'd like them to be presented, arrange our network activity in the way we'd like to see it, etc.
if there must be points - then why not make it basic? article published - two points. commented on another's article - once or 100 times - one point. commented on your own article - no points.
or how about this - you have to pay some points to comment.
think about that one for a bit.
Therefore, this really isn't about rating systems or whether we should or should not critique each other's work, it's about at what point do one's comments become antagonistic, versus constructive, versus downright rude and insulting? And should we as a community define and control it, or should Gather step in and take over by moderating or censuring (...and before I hear about freedom of speech, I said "censuring" not "censoring")
I'd love to say that we don't need intervention, but judging from some of the explosions I've witnessed recently, I think we need to set some guidelines and expectations or rules of conduct for our society. While we obviously can't teach manners to adults who have never learned them, we can choose not to help feed the frenzy.
There seems to be a culture war on this site between those who wish to have real, valuable content and those who want to post poems about their cats and express their feelings without value judgments.
Now with all due respect John you make that "culture" line more visible with comments such as this. And so do some others who, instead of working on creating their own masterpieces, choose to criticize other's work in the form of derogatory, inciteful articles (note inciteful, not insightful!), simply because it's not a genre they care for, or because they think someone is getting too much attention for something they don't feel is worthy of it.
I stopped reading political articles months ago because I have enough stress in my life without butting heads with those who are obviously and always be on the other side of the fence from me. No world problems will be solved on Gather and end of the day, the best we can hope for is enlightenment, mutual understanding and an agreement to agree to disagree -- but from what I've seen that rarely occurs. More often it digresses into ugliness.
So my suggestion to you John, and others who feel the same, is that if you don't like "poems about cats" or reading about "feelings without value judgments", simply don't read those articles. I keep you and many others in my Network because I like to check out your work and occasionally I do find something we can come together on.
And ultimately Tom, I think you nailed it when you said, individual action in a society, whether in a traditional community or one that exists virtually like Gather, do not define the whole. Over time, however, they become accepted norms and those norms form the character of the place. Let's hope we can maintain our "character" as a diverse, intelligent, and tolerant society.
no world problems will be solved by saying, "you're great" all day, either.
"So my suggestion to you John, and others who feel the same, is that if you don't like "poems about cats" or reading about "feelings without value judgments", simply don't read those articles."
what if you like weddings, and when you click an article called The Wedding - it turns out to be a vague account of violent spousal rape, one that leads the reader to ponder that it may have actually happened to the author?
then, when people ask the author what it's really about - the author hems, haws, then freaks out and deletes it?
this kind of thing has been happening more frequently, too. not sure how to proceed with that. when people who have been shown to be inconsistent in their words go around offering their advice on things like internet communication, or parenting, then am i wrong to ask questions?
or should i just not read such things - conundrum.
a mystery, wrapped in an enigma.
True martin...but it doesn't have to get heated. But I think some of you just enjoy the debate. You don't listen with the intent of trying to understand, you listen to pull out the very sentences you can use to make your own argument.
As for the poems about Weddings, which aren't about weddings -- when you see that it isn't what you thought, then go find something else to read instead of putting the writer through hell!
Why do you even care?
a blatantly emotionally-charged article was published, challenging the reader on several levels. i took up the challenge.
problem?
you yourself messaged me and expressed your confusion over the author's intention, and you're questioning me about it now?
In my opinion, much of this would be resolved by reformatting. Instead of listing anything by rating or popularity, simply list articles as they are published - equal billing for everything. If they were categorized (poetry, essay, short story, policital article, etc), the reader could then choose the category and read in order. Even if 'character' continued to rule the ratings, the system would work better for readers and writers. Martin's suggestion for our homepages would also improve the system, especially if there was a 'search for author' option added.
It's difficult to skip the poems about cats articles, when the author submits a poem about cats to the Governor's Election and Fantastic Novels groups, and tags it how to plug swimming pool leaks. Character. In my opinion, that reflects character more than writing.
Look, I'm all for healthy discussion, even debate when it's pertinent to the topic and doesn't get personal or insulting.
---------------------------------
Sandy --
The way Gather has set up their system, those 'character' or 'popularity' ratings mean the same people hit the top of the list, or receive exposure, because they have recruited friends, not because what they publish is of any real value to anyone
First of all, I happen to disagree with you there. I think most of the people who consistently get a lot of comments are excellent writers - and I don't believe I'm one of them, so this isn't a self-aggrandizing statement.
Second, so what if they happen to be good marketers too? The Pet Rock was a stupid idea but look how many were sold!
Regarding: some of you enjoy debate. Yes, some of us do enjoy debate. Discussion and debate of political topics was another assumption I made when I heard the original purpose of Gather. Pulling things apart line by line and challenging them is generally an accepted form of debate.
As for the wedding and putting the author through hell - I believe you must have missed a big part of that conversation. The author, once again, accused yet another man of being her stalker. My part of that debate was to bring in sources (links) to other times she had done the same thing to other men. If there's any 'hell' to be considered in this case, I believe making false accusations like this are extremely 'damning'.
and i thought you said you refused to be provoked...
see, folks - this is debate. this is talking about life. this is disagreement. bonnie knows better than to reply to me if she doesn't want me to give it right back to her, and yet - she does. i think that's why we're all here.
if she had stopped, i would have stopped - right? amazing, this give-and-take concept.
But like I said, when it comes to debating or discussion issues brought up in controversial article about religion or politics for example, great. Just keep it civil and we all learn something from it. Look at Pam Freeth's recent article about Christian opinion. Pam was amazing in her ability to moderate the discussion, acknowledge multiple viewpoints, even those that vehemently disagreed with her own, and thus it never digressed or devolved into an ugly battle, as so many other discussions do.
And I could sit here and make a stink about the fact he's at the top a lot because he publishes tons of articles and some are just short one paragraph blogs with links to other sites (see I do check out your work occassionally mc!) But I don't care!
I write what I like, I read what I like and I don't worry about who's on top or whether this one has 600 connections or not. If I like their work, or if I see they are really trying to establish themselves as a writer, I will support them in their efforts.
The amount of bitching and whining around here and worrying about everyone else does, and how many connections they have or whether they are worthy of 10's has simply got to stop! If you don't like something, either go read what you do like, submit constructive suggestions to Gather on how they should change the system, or go find another site.
nonetheless...
the comments in the wedding article never really left the subject, which was that the author sometimes publishes very vaguely-worded stories about extreme violence. if that's not a topic for discussion, then what is?
as for your point about pam freeth's thread - thanks for identifying the fact that there's really nothing wrong with gather.
then you'd be making a stink about the gather system for ordering articles, not the content of my posts.
( ;
~~
i'll quantify - if i invaded every single post by an author and spammed them and hurled personal attacks on the person relentlessly - you'd have a point.
but i don't.
Every Gather debate I've seen has boiled down to the same conflict between high principles (the Gather as artistic community for serious writers side) vs. basic economics (the Gather as blogger, chatter, or networkers side).
I think Gather itself needs to do some soul searching. It is relentless in its promotion of Networkers (see most recent contest to attract members, pyramid-scheme wise, and also past "writing" contests which rewarded those who could best advertise their wares through networking and manipulation of votes / ratings). Yet it wants it both ways by paying lip service to a true Writing community.
Pick the name of any of the most popular Networkers on Gather -- people who week in, week out are at the top of all the Lists (as bad as Ratings, mind you, as they foster the Network Culture here). Now attach that popular name to a really well-written poem or short story or essay submitted by a talented Newbie. The solid writing would, within days, garner 85 comments, not 2.
Now do the opposite. Take any article put out by one of these Popular Networkers perennially atop the Lists and put an unknown author's name atop it. Suddenly all the hosannahs, all the dozens upon dozens of comments, all the 10 ratings and the Top-of-the-List star billings as an outstanding piece of writing, will evaporate.
It gives one pause, doesn't it, the way many posters react more to an author's name than they do to the actual writing beneath it? And it makes one wonder: does Gather's present system truly reward and feature and direct participants to good writing, or does it actually reward and provide props to efficient Networking?
To me the answer is both simple and self-perpetuating -- good Networkers, like good wolf packs, ensure each other's survival and continued prosperity. Together they can target and dispatch of weaker enemies, too, both through the private e-mail system and through manipulation of the administrators whose bottom line is protecting a status quo that best protects the flow of money.
Yes, we're back to that. Money. And "money" and "character" are often at odds -- the Internet equivalent of oil and water, if you will.
Good luck with your efforts, Tom. I commend them. But the ball is in your court and "change" is the operative word if you hope to salvage this institution as an entity truly for writers and writings. And if that's not what it's all about, then at least come out and say as much. Everyone here, no matter where he or she falls on this issue, will appreciate the honesty.
The sad fact of the matter is, the problems which drove you to write this will not go away until you flat-out state Gather's mission and then institute changes to ensure that mission will succeed. Until that happens, people will continue to try to decide matters for you -- by the very bickering, flaming, and scheming you decry.
i anxiously await the input of joepoe.
To go back to my earlier point, I don't care how much the ratings system needs to be improved, or how much people want Gather better defined, or whether this should be a site for bloggers, or cat poets -- there is simply no reason for the antics that some people have pulled on here recently, and certainly no excuse for the bitching, antagonizing, whining and name calling.
It's ironic too, that some of the very people who call for an end to the war overseas are the very folks who create the "wars" here on Gather!
The rating system as a driver for excellence may not be perfect and be misused. The system can be improved with experience, but so long as there is no outright better alternative, we can continue with the existing one. The manipulative tactics to make and unmake popularity may be prevalent. They are inescapable in this culture.
I appreciate your comments. As for bad behavior on the site, I would ask all Gatherers to consider the old saying, " Good news travels fast, bad news travels even faster".
There is a feature on Google called "Google Alerts". With this function you can enter the name of just about anything, and Google with email you an alert when that name shows up on a web post.
A while back I submitted a request for Google Alerts on "Gather.com" . To be honest, not many have been showing up in my mailbox. Today, however, one did. It was from a "Liz Ryan" and was posted on the website "newwest.net".
Liz says she is a member of Gather, but after publishing "around 15 articles " she lost interest. The following is a quote from what she published about Gather on the newwest site.
" Gather.com is a site where people create a profile, connect to other users, and then publish articles and poems and whatnot, inviting comments on them. I'm so ADHD that I posted maybe fifteen articles and then largely lost interest. But that doesn't stop my 15 or 20 Gather connections from writing to me often - to say things like "You want humor? I've got it! Check out this new article I posted!" Geez Louise. Is this the new definition of networking success: a built-in, captive audience who must listen to your every random utterance?
People make two mistakes when they translate the notion "my connections" into "my audience." One, of course, is the presumption that your blasts add value to the people you know. If they don't, then you've committed two sins: you've bothered people with your spam, and you've disrespected them by using their time to trumpet your own accomplishments, musings, or trivia without inquiring how YOU could help THEM. Time is money. Attention is the scarcest resource I know. How can you use up my attention like that (even the time it takes to delete your spammy email message) and still call yourself my friend? "
This is valuable information. Liz Ryan is annoyed by spam from her Gather connections enough to distance herself from the site. THAT AIN"T GOOD.
They say that people should not raise questions or criticisms of one kind or another, because the author should be free to post whatever they want without being hassled in the comment thread. I say, yes, it's true that the author should have the freedom to post or publish whatever they wish. But, that freedom has to extend to the readers and commenters too, or it becomes meaningless. As long as the commenter isn't trying to tell the author that they CAN'T post what they have posted (for example, pressuring Gather management to reprimand the commenter or to give the author the tools to do so), the commenter should be able to raise questions and make criticisms with the same freedom the author has enjoyed in publishing. In other words, the commenter should be free to tell the author that they feel that there's something wrong with what the author posted, or that the author SHOULDN'T have posted it, without the author screaming about unfairness.
I often hear people say that a person who makes a critical comment or publishes a critical article should just stay away from the material which they're criticizing. That argument really excludes a large part of the freedom which makes Gather work. The complaint that the comments are too personal doesn't hold up when the published content being commented on is of a highly personal nature. The complaint that the comments are personal attacks on the author doesn't hold up when the author's activity within Gather demonstrates a pattern. One cannot criticize the author's pattern of activity within Gather without criticizing the author him/herself.
When an author publishes material and represents it as fact, yet the facts are inconsistent and demonstrably untrue, commenters should have the freedom to point this out without fear of reprimand or censure. When a reader encounters a published opinion that they strongly disagree with, or content they feel is incredibly bad, the reader should have the freedom to say so in the comment thread. To tell that reader to just go away and only read things they like and agree with is a superficial and one-sided response.
It's easy, Tom, to bring up a topic like "Character," but my recommendation is that you go look in the mirror on that subject. Because your (which is to say, the owners of the Gather site) behavior, your business decisions, have, to a great extent, created the situation you decry.
I STILL have not managed to exactly figured out how the point system works around here, but it is clearly death to quality. Even the "most comments" column is meaningless, given the fact that in many cases, at least 50% of those comments are from the author. The star system is juvenile. It reminds me of a high school friend who believed in the "I Like It/It Stinks" school of literary criticism -- a 10 if I like you or what you said (no matter how poorly, and a 1 if you don't.
I signed up at Gather because it was advertised as a site for writers. That's what I wanted -- a place where I could get useful advice and feedback from other writers, a community of people committed to the written word. I have found something very different here, with some very notable exceptions. Whether or not I continue at this site will depend on how frequently those "notable exceptions" write. They do make wading through the drek worthwhile. Unfortunately, it does seem that the drek garners more points = advertising on the site = attention. I don't know how you're going to deal with that. You might actually have to take a stand on what constitutes quality writing, rather than depending on a doofy point system to tell you who's good. Because the point system ain't working.
As for all the attitude and crabbing back and forth at each other: Look, I simply don't think there's any way of getting around it, short of becoming little attitude Nazis. That's just life on the internet. I have never been on a site that avoided it. I've only been on sites where it was suppressed by an overly dictatorial moderator. Those are the sites I leave. I'm just not interested in being told what to do or what to say by someone else, sorry.
I was serious when I suggested that you should look in the mirror re the character issue; I hope I didn't come across as mean. We ALL have to do that, after all -- look in the mirror -- but the fact of the matter is that a lot of the problems of Gather are structural, and before you can set up a structure that works, you really have to ask yourself what you're committed to.
It still is, in many ways, but it is hard to get read. I have 108 connections, but usually only garner about 10-20 comments per post, sometimes less. Granted, I am no great writer, but I do get discouraged when I pour my soul into something and get ten comments, and then look at anothers post of, A: "what I did this weekend" B:"I Hate_______ and they should be banned" or C: I have____ disease, and thusly, must be pitied". These former pieces garner upward of 80 or 90 replies. That is not, in my humble opinion, what Gather is here for. I guess I could post an article about this, but that would be beating a dead horse, now, wouldn't it?
Tom, You have some very valid points, as well as Sandy et al. Perhaps Gather should consider having a chat section or even a personal blog space for those whose main contribution to the site is one of those listed above.
On a separate topic, I also believe that allowing members to customize their homepages would solve a lot of issues people have with networking practices and the types of content that is most visible on this site. However, this does not solve the issue of the "default" homepage, which is important because that is the first thing that new members or potential members see. There does need to be more variety on this page. Perhaps some community topic-specific editors for the top suggested tags would be of benefit. These editors could be rotated on a monthly basis.
Lastly, what bothers me most about this site in terms of types of content is the republishing of copyrighted content without proper credit or disclosure. This is true for images as well as articles. If a member wants to reprint another writer's work they should republish only a portion with a link to the original, include credit to the original author and provide context for why they are reprint this particular piece. As far as photographs or art goes, at the very least, you should give proper credit to the artist and provide a link to the original. I am not sure what the laws are regarding publishing copyrighted work as part of an article or commentary on that work, but perhaps Gather could provide some guidelines in that area.
I've seen little cliques forming and groups of members swarming to attack other members. I may not like or agree with some of what is written, but I think it's cowardly to gang up on someone in this way.
I've noticed members telling the community the most intimate, personal details of their lives. Very disturbing things that I wouldn't dream of sharing with a community this size. I can only assume that they are looking for attention or a reaction, either positive or negative.
Some people that I know have told me that they have received messages that some of their network would disconnect from them if they remained connected to certain other members.
I've also seen where members have been invited to join groups, if only they would remove themselves from other groups.
I personally had enough of that sort of manipulation and peer pressure in high school.
I don't know how you will solve these problems or if it's possible at all. I know that I would love to be able to post an article and receive honest, constructive feedback. Not all 10's - I am not a good enough writer for that. Friends mean well and try to be supportive, but I hear nothing about what's good or bad about my writing and I do want to improve.
I don't believe a rating system will identify good or bad writing, only popularity. I'm looking for feedback on my writing and I can't seem to find that.
"Each individual action in a society, whether in a traditional community or one that exists virtually like Gather, do not define the whole. Over time, however, they become accepted norms and those norms form the character of the place."
It's important to realize that Gather will only grow, with more diverse individuals joining, having different ways (and skills) of interacting with the community. The society (or organization) has to articulate and define a set of values which are usually dictated (or enforced) by a set of rules. I don't like a bunch of rules, but on the other hand, I don't like to fill out 30 pages of income tax either, but I do it, because I believe in the concept and I want to continue to be a citizen here. We should'nt all react so vehemently when we consider that a set of rules that will somehow modulate how we interact, to the betterment of all of us, is all that bad. And the good news is, I don't think it will have to be anything that drastic. Personally, I think the problems of interaction here are pretty small, considering what one might expect with such a clash of ideas and personalities. When I first started dealing with this (remember my infamous article on flaming... ychh!), it hit me quite hard personally. Now, I've come to realize its part and parcel with the universe of gather. What I believe Tom is saying, is that we need to open up the dialog (as we're doing here) to define exactly what is objectionable and nonpermissable behavior here at Gather. I hope it will not be anything at all intrusive or confining. I'm sure it won't be, if we all have our say. But it will serve to preserve the quality and integrity of what I consider to be the top "blog" community alive today. We ought all to consider what Gather has given to us, then dig down deep, with tolerance AND forbearance, then see what exactly needs to be done. Again, I really don't think we're talking about that great an intervention into how foks interact here.
I have only read through half of the comments, and I already feel like I have come out on the losing end of several 'cage matches'. I guess I need to work out more.....
I will comment on all of this a little later, but I would strongly encourage everyone to try and stay focused on the issues Tom is addressing, and to provide objective answers to his questions, if possible.
I did find this, which I think is a great comment:
Our opinions have merit, but at the end of the day it's your ball game your money and your reputation on the line. We support your vision, in fact embrace it. Ultimately as a visionary leader, it is your decision. . . . please don't ask me to find it again.
it is kind of how I thought. If you ask members, you will get 300 different answers, which will all contradict each other. I like to believe you should do things your way, and if things are executed well, people will be just as happy as if it were their idea. You can;t make everyone happy - you will go insane trying.
first, i am amazed that in a survey to us about character, people still feel the need to slam others, by name or example.
character?? acting in ways that we aren't ashamed of, that are honest and true, ethical, kind and considerate. i see it degenerating here.
gather is a place for all sorts of writers - bloggers, novelists, photographers, poets, etc. if we don't want to read something, we don't have to. there is plenty of content for everyone - that is the beauty of gather.
echo KR - and thanks for listening.
While I would love to believe that a community such as this can govern itself, I feel that there are too many differing opinions as to what is good and bad content, good and bad behavior, etc.
I believe that yes, Gather is for the people, but the people did not launch Gather. So if Gather management would prefer to see it go in a specific direction, then you should make more decisions as to what IS good and bad, in your eyes as the service provider.
Finally, I strongly feel that Gather needs to revise the methods by which the so-called "top content" becomes the top content. Comments on one's own material should not contribute to the total comment count, thereby diversifying the "top commented" articles and members of the day. I feel that too many members litter Gather with ridiculous numbers of comment replies that simply thank people for responding and not engage or continue a conversation.
I think that giving members the opportunity to delete other's comments will be a detriment to the community. Situations that require comments being deleted should be reported to Gather management and handled accordingly. Otherwise, members may just delete comments that other members may actually see as constructive.
Lastly, adding a "check box" feature to each article to flag it as "requesting constructive criticism" or "open for debate" or "critique uninvited" might be a good option for those authors not wanting a range of comments.
In closing, I am a bit sad that Gather has become a drama-filled soap opera of sorts, with this camp against this camp and people trying to get each other thrown out. I wish that authors would think a little more before publishing. Think to yourself: do I want the whole world to see this? How personal is this information? Am I open to whatever comments may arise on this? Answer these questions before posting, and post appropriately.
Online communities become more aggressive about removing postings that may be offensive
By Sara Kehaulani Goo
Washington Post
Fri, Jun. 09, 2006
"Although many sites started out as grass-roots places where friends could meet and connect for free online, nearly all have been purchased over the past several years by big media companies looking for ways to profit from the millions of members by selling advertisements. Many advertisers are squeamish about the nudity, vulgarity and sex that gather on sites where users can post anything that interests them."
;p
(Zenith: See Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom quote posted previously.)
It's sort of like when you see people in cars picking their noses, and you think "funny, that person thinks I can't see them." The computer throws up the same sort of barrier as the car. There's going to be a lot of nose picking around here, because it's just so easy to do and feels safe. If someone is offended, I say let 'em be. We all pick our noses at one point or another.
To me, the most important ingredient to making this community healthy is the freedom to say what we want, and the freedom of the readers to interpret it how they want to. Taking away the freedom of expression in any way seems to go against everything Gather stands for. There are enough good people on this site to far outweigh the bad. Set the parameters yourself so the good ones will have a compass.
Oh, and pleeeeeeeeeeeese ditch the ratings system!
Thanks for the article.
Here are some observations:
1. The piece I wrote was about a minor annoyance but one that was on the rise within the Gatherite community. Truly some people may not be aware that such a practice is not invited by most. In summary, something in the news, I don't know how I feel about it, log on at Gather, several mass e-mails (from different political persuasions) inviting me to view articles written by others trying to persuade me how to think about it, growl. Thus my inspiration for my first Gather article for the mass populace.
2. Here's what I knew while writing it. It was a topic that had broad appeal and more likely than not, many would agree with me. Writing such an article only stems such behavior for at most between two weeks and then someone else will write another piece bout how annoying such practices are. If I kept the article short, kind of funny, and to the point comments would come. I now confess a hidden motive, I wanted to see for myself how many points such an article would pull. Over two-hundred and counting.
3. What I discovered was I had fun! The kind of fun where you think you can't surf but find you can hang ten with the best of them. Within the first half hour the thread wasn't about mass e-mails it was about picking on poor 'Yes Man' (who, may I add did take his abuse like a man) and becoming the ultimate Gather Point Whore. Like so many of the smaller articles, it was the thread that becomes the good read. I love how often these things twist and turn and take on a vibrancy all their own. Sometimes I wish I could rate them. Not once did I debate with myself if I should comment on something I posted – Baby, I commented with abandon! When I became the top member of the day I did feel some satisfaction. I labeled myself Queen of Gather for June 8, 2006. For heaven sake, this small article garnered more comments than all my other 'literary' Gather submissions put together.
4. Oddly, having so many comment on something I wrote (regardless of intent and length) has left me feeling satisfied. In all sincerity, I now feel free and obligated to read and comment on the articles of others without the annoying feeling in the back of my head, 'why am I doing this, they never read my stuff.' You see, that's what good Queens do…they give back to the community.
5. Lastly, in defense of posts no one seems to read, they are now the common property of cyberspace. Complaining about mass e-mail may stir up comments but it won't change lives. I've read excellent stories where I was the only one who commented. Here a well-crafted story appeared abandoned by not only the Gatherites of five months ago but even by the author who must have labored in its writing. That's the wonderful thing about committing word to paper or even better electronic gadget; it isn't going any where – like some common vase or golden coin of cultures long gone it may be lost in the dirt but sometimes it is discovered and it is treasured.
Oh look, I've gone off topic. Don't you just heart good threads? Tom, I love Gather. I love many of the wonderful writers who contribute. You are the captain of the ship. Your dilemma of commerce versus art has existed ever since humans decided to form communities. In regards to the character of Gather, I imagine it will grow organically. Asking your minion about what they want to see in terms of 'character' really isn't for them to decide is it? Much will depend on the people who contribute, who comment, and members who will join in the future.
Time, time , time. That is all we are talking about. I'm late, I'm late for a very important date!
Is it because Tom thought of it first?
Everyone is trying out their new material and most won't even make it past the first round.
Off with their heads!
Is there a better way?
Can't we all just get a long?
While in the waiting room please refrain from detroying what is here.
You will be answered in the order of your request.
Give up the need to know!
Words, words, words and more words, what has it gotten you?
Go out and grow a garden, play music, create something, anything, but words are the non sense of the masses.
Why do you have to feel so important?
If you build a better mouse trap you will find people beating a path to your door.
Regurgitate others thoughts and dull your mind.
Where is all the originality?
Create, because you are a creator.
If you try to defend anything then you are coming from an indefenseable position.
Why do people gather in the first place.
To fill up the empty spaces in their lives?
To be or not to be that is the only question.
Might makes right.
The mighty dollar is your impetious.
Points and points and rantings and ravings.
Howl at the moon.
When you have nothing more to prove to anyone then you can create.
Non sense and people from everywhere.
Everybody has an opinion and everyone can find their audience.
Creators create and the rest talk about it.
The word is not the thing.
Life is way to short.
Just another brick in the wall.
Happy Unbirthday and best regards,
http://joelsamuel.neptune.com
http://spaces.msn.com/joelsamuel/
and on and on and on
I recieve nothing for this flagrant act of self promotion.
In fact, I appreciated you laying the issue out there for discussion. You didn't mass mail everyone to read it, you didn't name names, or threaten to name names, you didn't threaten to leave Gather or this life, you were simply expressing your frustration with the situation in the hopes that perhaps folks who were doing that would recognize how annoying it is.
It did get silly at times, perhaps a little off-topic, and best of all you got your 15 minutes of fame and royalty. I have no problem with articles like that, which you yourself admit are not literary works of art. Everyone likes to vent, and give opinions, that's fine. It's when they digress into name calling and constant tit-for-tat (to coin John S.'s phrase) that I believe they deteriorate character of this site, and fine, talented people loose their good character.
Add real discussion forums, and allow people to create their own forums and moderate them if they so choose.
Allow people to *choose* whether they want to have their articles rated or commented upon. Give people the choice.
Also, it would be nice, if you have an article that's going to stir up a lot of conversation, direct that conversation to a *forum* which can be moderated if necessary.
Finally, add some bozo filters. There are a few people who I don't want to read any of their articles or comments anymore, and I'm sure I've already made the list for a few others myself. A bozo filter (or IGNORE option) would be a terrific blessing.
Gather is a community more than anything, but lacks some basic community tools that could help make it a more pleasant experience. You simply cannot blame people's character here when the fault is in the foundation of the house you built.
----------------------------
Ella - as in all walks of life you will meet those kinds of people you speak of. But you don't have to look very hard to find there are many more, intelligent, well spoken, caring, open-minded, creative, talented people here on Gather! I hope you decided to stay.
Sandy Knauer wrote -evidenced by private messages of 'people to beware of' to newer members- Today I received a private message with a list of Good People I should seek out. Heading the list was a person I had already decided to avoid.
Mark Robinson- I understand you were being facetious, but I also think there was some truth in your words. No harm done anyway.
Tom Gerace is correct- member activity decreases, contributions are discouraged, and new member invitations decline.
Thank you.
I've been asking for this since the day I came here. I keep hearing "the community will decide". As part of the community, I have worn myself out trying to promote some sort of dedication to quality. As a result, I've been scorned. I feel as though Gather put me in this position - and is doing so again with this article.
Hmmm... I find that rather interesting Ella. Especially from someone who earlier stated:
"Diverse, intelligent, and tolerant sort of fly out the window when one member takes it upon herself to send out 'good guy/bad guy' lists to new members"
So true. I always told my children everyone they meet will serve a purpose in their lives, even if only to show they what they don't want to be.
exsqueeze me?
who has 'loosed' their good character here? i challenge you to name someone who has lost their good character here.
your last comment about messages recommending 'good people' - that type of thing is the ONLY thing i see wrong with this place.
well, that and i warned at the last beta change that all these photos were a bad thing.
writing went right out the window.
I was simply pointing out that the very person who criticized the lists and called the character of others into question, actually did the very same thing. I am neither condemning nor praising those actions .... Simply making an observation.
Sand -- I do apologize, as I apparently misread Ella's earlier comment.
Among the many online forums I've participated in some have been near-absolute autocracies and others have been near-perfect anarchies. Either form works fairly well as do those that fall in the center because no one is forced to participate. But in some ways, the question is irrelevant.
As Candida noted, this joint belongs to Gather Inc.. They can do anything they damned well please. As KR noted, the fundamental issue for Gather Inc is how best to make money.
To succeed as a business Gather, like a writer, has to clearly define it's audience and then pursue that audience aggressively. However, Gather doesn't have to tell its audience what it's pursuing. For all any of us know, the place is currently working exactly as the founders wish.
Me? I'll stick around as long as it's interesting. And I'd rate this post with the comments a 10.{wry grin}