Since Gather's first days online, we have received suggestions from members about how to maintain the quality of the community and the high caliber dialog we have here. Most often, members suggested guidelines that would help prevent the theft of intellectual property, curb member abuse by other members, prevent spam messages, and promote open dialog that supports diverse opinion.
A month ago, we began a more detailed conversation on community standards. We proposed a set of standards based on what we had heard from you so far. Many of you weighed-in, some suggesting amendments to what we had written and others raising the question of enforcement. To keep the debate focused on identifying standards, I suggested we identify community standards in that discussion and then discuss enforcement in a follow-up conversation. I am writing now to do so.
Before I do, please find a revised set of Community Guidelines below. This revised set clarifies a few points that some of you mentioned were confusing and incorporates the feedback we heard as well. We hope we have reflected the community's guidance here; please feel free to respond (as always!) with suggestions.
Now, on to the question of maintaining these guidelines: Members in the last debate mentioned that the guidelines themselves are meaningless if not enforced. We agree. Others suggested that consistent enforcement was important, ensuring that all members are treated equally. We agree here, too. Therefore, we are working to develop methods of maintaining community standards that are robust and consistent.
To do that, we need your help. Due to the volume of content published here and the comments made daily (almost 100,000 unique pieces of content a week), the Gather team can't possibly keep an eye on everything as it happens. We also don't see your private messages, unless you call them out to us as spam or scam. Instead, we depend on the Gather community to play a critical early warning role, identifying copyright violations, member abuse, spam messages, and the like for us.
Many of you do this already, by using the "Report this" function at the bottom of articles or images or by blocking users that are offensive. Others write to our member support addresses to alert us to harmful behavior. These reports help the Gather team to focus their efforts on the handful of bad apples that can negatively impact any community, allowing us to maintain thoughtful, informed conversations on Gather.
In response to my prior article, some members suggested that this method of "community watch" itself might be abused. We must be mindful of people who would attempt to use community standards/enforcement to attack others either out of individual animosity or to silence a particular perspective. They could "report" content that did not violate community standards in an attempt to make it invisible to the community. As some of you know, we have seen a handful of members use the reporting system on Gather to do just that.
Therefore, part of our process must be to prevent "crying wolf" as well. We must examine each report individually to determine it's validity. If someone is using reporting as a weapon, they themselves (instead of their targets) must be censured. False reports must be considered as severe a violation of community standards as any other attempt to attack or silence a member.
We therefore have added editorial and member services review to all reports of abuse. Rather than assuming every report is accurate, we propose that Gather team members look at each report from members, determine if the behavior reported violates our terms of service or our community standards, and then make a final judgment. We will endeavor to apply these standards equally for all members. And, when reports turn out to be disingenuous, we will address false reporting with the reporter. We hope that, by dividing the role of identifying bad behavior from the role of adjudicating it, we will leverage the reach, knowledge, and activity of the community while benefiting from the perspective of those one step removed from it.
Details of our proposal for maintaining community standards follow this article. I welcome and encourage your thoughts and counsel on the maintenance of community standards as well.
Thanks as always for helping to build a better Gather!
Revised Community Guidelines Incorporating Member Feedback
Gather is a diverse community of informed, engaged members who discuss their ideas and opinions across thousands of topics. Members find their unique voice, meet others who share their passions, and exchange knowledge and perspectives. By engaging in this conversation, they discover new ways to enhance their lives. The following membership pledge provides the foundation for how Gather members sustain and foster this spirit of community.
As a member of Gather I will:
1. Respect other members and treat them fairly. I will not slander, libel or defame other members. I will be open to giving and receiving constructive criticism.
2. Always represent myself honestly. I will not impersonate others or create multiple member identities for myself.
3. Recognize that a difference of opinion drives debate and diversity. I may disagree but I will not personalize our differences.
4. Only send connection requests and group member invitations to people I know or have communicated with on Gather. I will not engage in spamming in any form, such as connection requests, invitations to groups or private messages.
5. Strengthen and contribute to the overall good of the community by my participation on Gather. I will keep my comments within the context of the content and I will not engage in comment spamming. I will be constructive at all times and I will refer negative conduct to support@gather.com.
6. Abide by Fair Use guidelines when publishing and posting on Gather. I will not publish articles, comments or images belonging to others without permission and attribution. When in doubt, I will refer to http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html .
7. Work to keep the community engaged in interesting content and informed debate. I will not contribute content that is overtly commercial. I will contact Gather's advertising team through advertise@gather.com to advertise. Please see Gather's definition of commercial content in the TOS.
8. Recognize that tags provide content organization for the community. I will only assign those tags that accurately portray my content.
9. Only report articles and images that violate the Terms of Service, or are intended for mature audiences, but lack a mature audiences setting. I will not report content to complain about another member, or based on someone or something I do not agree with.
10. Review and follow Gather's complete policies and Terms of Service. When in doubt, I will review the Terms of Service, and always know I can contact support@gather.com for clarification.
Maintaining Community Standards
Gather's community is our most valuable asset. The Gather community creates compelling content, identifies the best content published, and engages in thoughtful discussion that helps build understanding across a myriad of topics.
Similarly, the Gather community helped create our Community Guidelines. Going forward, we will ask the community to help us adapt those guidelines when necessary and to maintain those guidelines site wide.
Due to the volume of content published here, Gather cannot and does not approve content before publishing, nor actively monitor content for violations to the Terms of Service. Community participation is necessary to keep content and comments within the TOS. If you see content or comments that you think are in violation to the TOS, report that content to Gather by clicking on the "Report" link following the comment box. When in doubt, a message can be sent to support@gather.com with a valid reason for your concern.
When you report content an email identifying you and the article is automatically sent to support@gather.com. Simultaneously, the reported content is removed from public view and is only visible to the author. A review team comprised of Editorial and Member Services staff reviews reported content and determines if there is a violation to the Terms of Service. If the content is determined to be within our Terms of Service, the content is released and once again visible to the community.
When content is determined to be a violation of the Terms of Service the author is emailed and instructed to modify or remove the content within a specific time period, usually 24 hours. If the content is not modified or removed by the author within the timeframe indicated, Gather will remove it from the site.
The review team follows the "3 strikes you're out" rule. Unless the offense is severe, members are informed how they are violating the terms and it is anticipated they will conform to the terms. Three violations result in termination of a member's account. A severe 1st or 2nd offense can result in immediate termination of a member's account as well.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 102
I just took a quick look at the HELP section and I don't see this. Wouldn't it be good to post this on the HELP page?
I just happened to read this article. I am sure many new members (or old members... or any member, really) may miss this article.
What's not clear here is the LINE that is crossed between a "it would be nice if you were supportive of people" versus an actual Gather "crime."
It's one thing, e.g., for Jane and Jodie to be at each other's throats, but if both are engaging in this voluntarily, then who's to stop them?
The LINE, however, would be if Jodie, for example, posted up a libelous article that claimed that Jane, indeed, was a known heroine addict and then forwarded said article to Jane's employer.
People will still fight and be snarky with each other. If you crush that too much, your community loses its spark.
More in separate comment.
Thank you for all the work on this. As for the 3 strikes and your out, that should also apply for the reporters that miss report problems. The reason I would give 3 strikes is because some could react to fast emotionally to something they disagree with and report it without actually meaning harm.
Otherwise I think the list the community has come up with so far will work wonderfully.
Thank you,
Emmett
Almost every active member here has at some point engaged in "personalize our differences." So if someone gets a warning about making a snarky comment or minor online skirmish, is that treated as "strike" on the same level as someone who is actively stealing people's identities and causing some serious harm?
What if the person violated a TOS without malice or meaning to?
What if the person is falsely accused of violating TOS?
Maryanne just emailed me this morning telling me I was violating TOS because I supposedly had doctored Amber's photo. *I DID NOT DOCTOR THE PHOTO.* Amber did, and that is clear on her article. I did reprint the photo that she doctored herself in an article of mine.
So is that now a strike I have against me? I'm confused about this.
I applaud your stance to smack around abusers of the report function.
I was impressed with the wording and how completely concerns are covered. One question I've been wondering about. Is it permissable to have a pen name? #2 addresses multiple identities, yet I do like the idea of having a pen name. This is something that authors have used throughout history to avoid offending friends and relatives or women used it to be treated on an equal basis with their male colleagues.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976826568
I know you can't check every article, but since this girl's stuff was a problem all weekend, and since her photoshopped pouting pic is still up and not flagged as adult, which it remains even though she painted in legs on those pants, I would have thought you would have checked her stuff before telling the rest of us to behave.
Now, give me the boot if you wish, Tom, but when I'm told that someone is going to do something, old timer that I am, I actually expect them to do it. I also expect rules to be applied equally, and when they aren't, you may as well expect me to say something because I will.
I recall in your last lunch discussion, you mentioned that you welcomed members who are under 18; is the code of conduct the same for kids as adults? Kids usually don't have the judgement or coping mechanisms of adults, so I would expect to see a different pattern of behavior (or misbehavior).
It's GREAT to see the reporting mechanism addressed! It's been too easily abused, so this is a very good step forward and really quite welcome.
Thanks to all of you for the hard work that went into drafting this. I can imagine that the meetings were long and frequent! Good work!
ALWAYS include a link to the article in question.
ALWAYS reference the possible infraction.
ALWAYS suggest possible ways to resolve it, if it should be resolved.
i think 24 hours is too short of time to resolve it. perhaps 48 hours would be better. never send these letters out just before the staff goes on a 3 day weekend or even a weekend. i got one of these letters at the end of a workday and they said i had to resolve it in 24 hours but the person didn't answer me for over 72 hours because they sent it out just before they left for the weekend. i was in a panic because i didn't know what it was in reference to. and i was relatively new to gather. i felt like going away quietly but i also have a few groups and i felt responsible to them and that's why i hung in there. the letter was pretty sterile and general. and if i felt that way, i imagine that other new gather members might feel the same if they got such a demanding, unexplained communication. my suggestion is that you should write a letter as if gatherposters were valuable clients, not gathercriminals. you don't want them to leave, you just want them to stay within some bounds. most gather people are intelligent and creative and probably somewhat mischevious.
"i think that if the line is not clear and you don't feel that it's right to penalize either the article writer or the person reporting (because it's questionable), that you have a letter suggesting a "warning", not a strike one."
Also, I totally agree with this:
"I'm also concerned about the three strike rule in that strikes need a way to be mitigated over time for good behavior. Otherwise a person who has two strikes might just shy away from the community forever for fear of getting that third strike perhaps several years later."
"Abide by Fair Use guidelines when publishing and posting on Gather."
to
"Abide by COPYRIGHT LAWS when publishing and posting on Gather."
You guys are still too lax about this. Quoting six long paragraphs of a 20 paragraph article even with a link is not really fair use. As a freelance writer, I would be very upset if someone reprinted a large segment of one of my articles without permission AND for money or personal profit.
(People getting points on Gather constitutes "profit.")
Fair use is supposed to apply to a BRIEF quotation for review or analysis. It does NOT mean, reprint half the article without permission for profit.
It is also not fair to those of us who write original content on Gather, that others are profiting off of copying articles.
I am one hundred percent with all of this. I only have questions about the last part of Item 2 - multiple identities; and Item 4 - connection requests.
I've already broken the multiple identity rule. I have another member name that I hardly use. I made that account after being on Gather for a number of months so I could have that specific name established on the Internet (for personal, not professional reasons). I then used the opportunity to take on the eyes of a newbie approaching the "Andre" build. That was an interesting experience and led me to publishing an article on Gather's TOS. In all, I made less than ten comments from that account (non of them flaming) and posted zero content.
When it comes to "identities" I'm one of those people who loves to use pseudo-names. I find the anonymity both liberating and empowering. It's a Lone Ranger mask, chance to leave my own mark of Zorro, or a secret identity to find rest behind. It's a way to gain the therapy of public interaction in an environment where social insecurities are reduced.
I'm good-hearted, and I know not everyone is. There have been records of nickname smokescreens used to cover or instigate crimes and abuses ever since the Internet started blooming in the public venues. It won't bother me if Gather wants to delete that other account I have for the sake of community cohesiveness.
Item 4 - Connection requests - Well, I tend to accept every connection request I get. If I waited to know everyone before "connecting" my network would be less than half its size. And it's not that big.
When I first came to Gather it felt like a real grassroots community; Gather staff being village leaders perpetually monitoring the pulses while promoting interactions among the membership.
As Gather continues its evolution toward a 21st century Internet "thing" I'll continue to bank on their established moral compass: being FOR free speech and expression; and AGAINST oppression, abuse and mean spiritedness. That is a mind set I want to be involved with. It's a mind set I have.
Thanks Tom.
I'll start with one, in case you want to answer them here. Regarding number 7, would that include an article like this one where a member routes readers to another site to purchase an item?
Here's something refreshing for you: a copyedit correction rather than a query regarding the article. This should be its validity .
On another topic, while I agree that personal attacks aren't a good way to go, I also agree that much humorous writing involves satire, sarcasm, and edgy wit. I fear that strict interpretation of this rule will draw the teeth from the best humorists on Gather, many of whom make very funny comments that could be interpreted as personal by article posters or other commenters who have no sense of humor. It seems to me that this particular rule is wide-open for vindication abuse.
I am not so simple minded and feeble that I find this shocking and don't feel that it is going to harm me.
I do find it offensive. If I turn on the adult content filter, I will miss articles I might want to read.
Reading text and viewing images are not the same thing.
I don't think I have ever scanned the recent images list. But I guess that if I do, I must expect nudity that slips right into porn.
I do wish Gather.com would make a clear statement about this. Is it allowed or not.
Or perhaps their could be two opportunities to filter content,
a filter option for images and a filter option for text content.
I don't want to report something that is considered ok by gather.com.
Actually, never mind, I think we all just have to accept that gather.com is just another standards free site.
I'm with Bill on this point (and others), "Item 4 - Connection requests - Well, I tend to accept every connection request I get. If I waited to know everyone before "connecting" my network would be less than half its size. And it's not that big."
Navigation here hasn't really gotten ANY better in the almost year now that I've been here, and connecting with many people is my way of being able to find my way BACK to articles I like and admire.
I have TONS of connections, and I enjoy 'fishing about' in them for interesting stuff when time permits.
So.. stipulating that it looks OK.. but truthfully just OK.. a little too punitive for my taste in many ways.
you have teeth in the TOS/guidelines now.. which don't seem to be being used, is this another 'gun law' to placate the whining?
Glad we can talk about though.
No matter how close you try and define every potential violation there will always be exceptions and new unthought of transgressions. The best you can hope to do is thoughtful guidelines that are as clear as possible and occasionally reviewed and updated if necessary. I do hope in the future that a means of saying "why" (comment) to Gather is available if the "report" button is used. It would probably help in the communications area.
Keep up the good work. Thanks.
Wouldn't making it necessary to comment in order to rate an article cut down on at least some of the "negative" behavior here on Gather ? All the rules of conduct stated here sound good and I have no arguement with any of them.
But, the trouble I've seen lately here on Gather seems to center around certain members trying to "out fox" the system and blast those they don't like while remaining annonymous.
No rating system at all would be better than one that allows members with "bad thoughts" in their heads a way to exercise " literary vandalism" under the guise of rating something. Why implement a set of rules and leave a gaping hole at the same time ?
Too many things in life get derailed because of incomplete planning. If the goal is to raise the standards of behavior then raise the standards of anything on Gather that can be mechanically manipulated in a way that encourages bad behavior.
I have a question. One of my connections was booted off of Gather for what seemed (to me, anyway) to be fairly innocent, at least compared to some of the things I've seen on the site. This person wrote some brilliantly funny satirical articles, but could at times be serious and was also very kind to me and to others. I'm sure I don't know the whole story (and you probably know who I'm talking about), but could you explain the reasons for Gather's actions? I'm just asking because he seemed like a harmless person to me and his presence is sorely missed.
One major concern appears to have slipped through the net. Many of us have been plagued by the drive-by hitting of sabotaging poison-ones where some people award one-stars, without comment. There have been many an article on this cowardly form of attack and on the related problem of stalking - with stalking facilitated by these people subscribing unseen. Help to prevent the stalking by ditching subscriptions, forcing people to connect and thus ensuring at least some visibility. And help to prevent the anonymous drive-bys via linking rating with commenting - that is, one must comment in order to rate. No comment = no rating allowed. Easy!
Good work! It is hard to please the masses and this does a good job.
I am going to work my way through the comments now and will respond to as many as I can from the train (gotta love Amtrak's Acela and a good cellular card).
Particularly clever technologists will be able to fool us some of the time, but they will be in the minority. That makes the problem much more managable for our member services team.
I don't have anything to really add to this . I just wanted you to know we appreciate your feedback and concern for our gather community. I hope allof this is resolved easily.
Have a great night.
<------ Patting you on the back. Ya Did Good.
What would you think of us posting sample (anonomyzed) content that we removed and other stuff that we left for comment periodically? A broader citizen-panel could help keep draw this line from time to time.
That said, we have other space where we can promote CEO chats and this kind of conversation. I will look at ways to make it more visible going forward.
I agree with Gretel, undeserved tens are as abusive to the rating system as undeserved ones.
I do like the idea of some type of statute of limitations on strikes. Perhaps it's 3 strikes within a window of time (e.g. one year). What do you think a reasonable window might be?
Frankly, we don't police this aggressively except when there is obvious abuse. It's hard to know if you are whom you claim to be onine. We do, however, require valid names when sending payments to members, either in giftcards or cash, as tax laws require that. Providing a fake name there may be breaking some federal tax statute (though trust me, I am the wrong guy out there to give legal advice).
1. Gather ate my poets group - somehow it got flagged. There was nothing offensive in that group. I don't get it. It was called below average poets unite. Still somedays it works and somedays it doesn't. There was never anything in that group that I know of that was something that would be flagged. Please don't tell me to contact the help and info people. I've contacted them repeatedly. I get auto messages, but they never tell me what the deal is or give me my site back for 24 hours at a time. I want to invite people to join my groups - but why bother if I'm not sure if they will be there?
2. The advertising thing. What really is advertising? Are freebies advertising? I wrote a post on coffee creamer - I bought the new carnation egg nog creamer and was trying to equate that with my inability to make decisions in my life, or something to that degree. I also had an article on why I love Walmart. I guess what I'm asking is where the line on Advertising is? I did an article on why Steak and Shake disgusts me. I enjoy reading and writing these types of articles. Are they still acceptable on gather?
This solution means that the commentor's words are not visible on your space, but we have not removed their expression from their own. What do you think of that solution?
People can send me as many connection requests as they please, and I won't think of them as SPAM. It's the constant MESSAGES that I get that are SPAM. I would like to connect with a wide variety of new people. That's one of the reasons why I came to Gather.
i am concerned about the multiple IDs, too. it is weird and sort of scary. i also wonder about the ratings trolls. is there any way to track them?
thank you!
I have as of yet to be flagged on something, but that does not mean I wont mess up.. im only human...
Why not have a mandatory council setup, each member (randomly chosen by a computer program) must serve 1 week on the TOS council? Each week, those who are randomly picked, (two weeks prior and reminded every day the week before their jury duty starts) are then given 500 points for serving. If violations are then reported, these three get to see each report, investigate it, and then have a yea or nay button they push. Yes the person was in violation, and nay is well nay…
Now this is just an idea off the top of my head, and I am not taking into consideration the huge technical difficulties that would fall on top of your already over worked staff.
However, that would go a long way to help Gather police its members, and the respect that would follow such a program and the decisions made therein.
Now I don't expect this to be implemented, I just didn't want to be left out of all the why this new TOS rules, etc etc, won't work or how to improve it.
--Charles Marcello
1. You should distinguish between "community standards" and "censorship" by indicating that Reporters should only report violations of the specific rules above. Perhaps include in the reporting form a section to be completed that specifies which section of the rules is being violated. Otherwise i suspect you will encourage individuals to report what bothers them as part of a community (e.g. the moral majority). (If number 9 is intended to accomplish this I think it needs to be clearer - what is a mature audience setting?)
2. This article in an uncommented final form ought to be published on a "getting started on Gather" along with the TOS, a FAQ and member contributed articles appropriate for beginners.
3. Aliases should be allowed and if you prefer require a master account (kept private by Gather) identifying one individual. Aliases, in addition to a couple of good points that have been already made, help to distinguish author content by allowing them to provide a focused content (humor, political content, erotica, etc.).
4. Number 8 regarding tags should include Groups.
5. 3 Strike Rule. Use a more general approach. "Repeated and persistent abuse will result in expulsion of that person from Gather." There are too many variables in the type and seriousness of the violation to have 3 strikes per se. You ought to have a final warning system. "One more violation of this type, etc." And perhaps a committee (of 3 -5) that reviews expulsions. As mentioned earlier the first violation unless very serious should be treated as a misunderstanding of the rules. I get the general idea of 3 strikes and support it but I wouldn't establish it so rigidly. We trust ya Tom to use some consistent judgment here. But I suspect it scares us all to think some new hire will have the responsibility to expel someone.
a filter option for images and a filter option for text content."
I'll second this. I am not interested in viewing porn, cheesecake shots, or images of aborted fetuses. I am interested in reading text that might include a few swears, however.
Where is the edit button for responses posted inside threads? I mean, get tougher, sure, okay, fine and good, but can you please add an edit button?
Just askin!
No seriously!
--Charles Marcello
People usually send connection requests to those whose writings they value, not necessarily to the people they know or interact with. The acceptance of such requests is a matter of courtesy and has less to do with discernment.
Empowering the author of an article with the "comment moderation" facility will help in eliminating a lot of bickering and resentment seen on this site.
A timeframe limitation to the "three strikes rule" assuages some of the vital concerns mentioned in the discussion. A distinction between felony strikes and misdemeanor strikes is a good suggestion offered by Rev. Gretel.
Charles Marcello's suggestion of a rotating "jury system" or "citizen panel" is both novel and interesting. I wonder how far it would be practicable. If implemented properly it can act as a quick reflex node to handle misuses of built-in community checks.
It is a sober attitude on the part of Gather management not to police the members aggressively except in cases of obvious misuse. Allowing some leeway for satires, humor and healthy pranks add spice to Gather experience.
the group that i have, politics and international news, does get kinda snarky at times but i think that causes more discussion. i'd rather the community fire back at the snarky post than any other intervention. if things get too wild and i see it, i sometimes post something. we have discussers and we have foodfighters and they need to know the difference. we aren't the nicey-nicey group on gather. but we're discussing politics, religion, diversity, and all that.
if this is a group that gather would prefer not to host, we need to know it. and we need clear rules.
i'd say that any infraction should die after a certain period, such as 3 or 6 months.
Do you know when somebody flags an article so you can do real monitoring of harassment flagging?
I came to Gather having been told it was a place for real writers to publish and share critiqueing. That pretty much leaves out the under-18 crowd, I'd think. But I have been disappointed. I have received very little critiqueing even after specifically asking for it. Early in my time here, believeing what I'd ben told, I read an article with good ideas but very badly written. I took a lot of effort to treat it the way I do my freshman comp students' work, with a series of comments on organization, grammar and spelling. Other commenters attacked me and told me to get a life, ease up, etc. I was stunned! I thought that was what the place was about! I've had good comments from Gather members about writing more compelling opening paragraphs--a llittle less academic than had been my style--and have appreciated and practiced their suggestions. Perhaps people who are not interested in sincere critiquing shuld not be here.
The points are another matter. I looked at them like the 0-100 scale we use to grade students. That makes a rating of 10 very rare! But it doesn't happen that way here. Rating an article a legitimate 8 based on a clearly envisioned set of standards only upsets people who think they shosuld always get the rare 10! From my point of view, I'd expect 7-8 to be the norm. It would certainly be more helpful to the writer. I've mostly given up on rating because people hat you for an accurately assessed 8 but I don't want to cheapen the 10. Using cheap 10s doesn't help sincerely learning writers, including me.
I agree with those who suggest care with the 3 strikes, including warnings to people who make a first mistake and the chance to mitigate strikes with good behavior.
I'd like to see certain individuals who are out to get others reined in. I am aware of a grop whose entire purpose is to look for ways to slam another Gatherite and talk about him hostilely. The fact that the group is private does not mitigate its negative intent. Such groups should not exist on Gather!
I like the idea of being able to edit out comments, especially those that represent rants that have nothing to do with the content the article on which a comment was made.
Connecting means making new friends. If somebody likes my articles or comments, I am honored that they request a connection. I do the same thing. I am free to ignore the request if the person does not interst me.
I really hate getting mails addressed to so many people I have to scroll down the recipient list to see the message! That's spam!
I'd like certain things to be made easier at Gather. As a group owner, I still find it very complicated to find a way to remove imappropriate articles from the group--and too manay people just want an audience so spam unrelated articles everywhere. Group moderators should have easy-to-find links to remove offending articles and even members. Moderators should also be able to remove inappropriate comments from any article pubished to the group. Moderators should bre able to effectively prohibit publication of articles limited to such a small group of 'friends' that the whole group cannot read it and make the prohibition stick.
If I remember seeing something at a particular group and want to findit again, it is very hard. the find-a-group link demands the correct group name. It needs to offer a list of groups if an approximation or key word has been entered. It should be easier to use a kind of boolean search rather than a specific name if looking for a compatible group. If you enter 'veteran' several groups that include the word in their names or key words shsould come up. Now, all you get is a 'not found' message.
1) There will be close calls, and in those cases a warning is more justified (as described above) than an actual TOS violation.
2) The same holds true for reporting. We need to be able to dismiss reports of behavior that were borderline without penalizing the reporter. We want people to call out standards violations and they won't if they are afraid to do so.
3) Gather members should be treated as valuable clients and not criminals. Except in the most egregious cases, people generally mean well, they just overstep bounds. We need to remember that and coach them back into line, rather than chasing them away.
Thanks for the great thoughts. This will help us coach our member services team to ensure good implementation of these rules.
You'd trust the crowd?
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976830604
This is a major copyright violation.
Gather has GOT to educate first ITSELF better on this issue and then its members.
Your lax approach to copyright by inflating the "fair use" clause is an insult to writers everywhere.
It is not fair that people are getting points (or money) on this website by stealing the copyrighted works of others.
Most people are doing this out of ignorance.
You really need to take a stronger stance on this and educate people - COPYING AND PASTING ARTICLES OR LARGE PORTIONS OF THEM AS AN ARTICLE IS NOT OK.
As to pen names, well, if you insist that I use my real name, I will not stay. I have been Webwriter for nearly 20 years now, and that's as far as I'm willing to go. Some things I write about and say could have detrimental affects on my family. I won't do it. I don't need multiple accounts or multiple personalities, but there's no way I'm going to tag everything I write with a traceable, trackable, stalkable, easily identifiable name.
I also agree with Steph to a large extent that entire articles published with no content other than a c/p of someone else's work, credited or not, is taking advantage of the system for personal gain, ignorance or just plain laziness. Regardless of the reason, it has very little place on a site like this.
Sounds to me like you have the rest fairly well in hand. Thank you for listening, responding and working to make it better.
As to pen names, well, if you insist that I use my real name, I will not stay. I have been Webwriter for nearly 20 years now, and that's as far as I'm willing to go. Some things I write about and say could have detrimental affects on my family. I won't do it. I don't need multiple accounts or multiple personalities, but there's no way I'm going to tag everything I write with a traceable, trackable, stalkable, easily identifiable name
And please, Tom, address my earlier comment - it deals with an issue of concern to many members namely: Many of us have been plagued by the drive-by hitting of sabotaging poison-ones where some people award one-stars, without comment. This simply cannot be allowed to continue - it's already gone on far too long without something actually being done to prevent it.
There is also quality material that is deliberately hit with drive-by ones awarded by trolls to sabotage the authors' ratings so that these writers sink into the quagmire unnoticed. You can tell that this is so when the comments - even if nothing else - indicate that these articles were of quality. I've seen many excellent articles attacked in this fashion - excellent in the quality of the writing, both in form and content. Sandy, you must have seen the same - you are astute.
The solution, surely, is to ensure that a star rating can only be awarded if a comment is made - no comment, no rating. And then no more cowards' castle! Instead, there would be transparency.
Of course, I'm also aware that there are far too many 10 awarded - in this case, the reader appears happy enough to comment that she/ he has done so and there is transparency.
I'm advocating transparency in rating - regardless of whether the actual rating is 1, 10 or anywhere in between. I'm arguing for a necessary nexus - linking ratings and comments so that one cannot rate without also commenting, thus identifying the reader/adjudicator of the article.
Malicious, poisoned ratings drive down the exposure to readers of the writer who has been attacked because the community-pick, highest rankings are determined by the average rating. That is the intent of the attacker.
I agree with you that we all have a part to play in eliminating the attacks, but how can we do so effectively unless Tom and his team first intervene by preventing the anonymous poison-one bombers who, obviously, also subscribe unseen to the target victim in order to stalk them?
To prevent copyright violations, we are now developing a system that allows members to cite content that is off-site and begin a discussion here about that content. In this case, we will help members link to that content, prepare an article summary that meets fair use standards, ask for member help in categorizing the content, and allow the community to discuss it here on Gather. We hope this system will decrease citations/quotes that might overstep fair use standards today.
There are legitimate uses for alternate accounts/names on a service. I know I maintain to names for AOL instant messenger, one for personal and one for work use for example. This allows me to chat with work people during the day and stay focused, then chat with friends in the evening. This issue definitely deserves study; I am not sure we have it right. For now, we are trying to avoid some of the downside issues people can cause when using multiple identities. We can consider solutions that allow for the benefits as well, going forward.
Thanks too for calling out the "established moral compass: being FOR free speech and expression; and AGAINST oppression, abuse and mean spiritedness." It's a great thing for us to educate new Gatherers about as they come on board. With well over 1,000 people now joining our community each day, it is important we help newcomers understand what kind of community we have created here.
Please keep the thoughts coming!
Overtly commerical content basically means someone has posted an advertisement as an article or image. We think it is ok for an author, who contributes a long article here, to link to a book they have written at the end of that article. Just posting an ad, however, degrades the quality of the content here and deprives Gather and the Gather community of the advertising revenue we need to continue to do great things here.
Thanks for calling it out.
We do want to allow satire, sarcasm, and edgy wit. We want to prevent impersonation (the taking of someone's identity for malicious or fraudulent purposes) and direct personal attacks. It's a hard line to draw, but we will do our best (and look for the community's guidance going forward). I appreciate your calling out the importance of allowing comic expression on the site. Comedy can be an important form of cultural reflection and critique.
Thanks, too, for calling out the "us vs them" mentality. Gather is for everyone who wants to join in an engaged, informed conversation on a wide variety of topics. We love our writers (and want them to continue to create great fiction here!) and we love our academics (they offer tremendous thought pieces). At the same time, we want those that have not focused on developing professional writing skills to be able to learn, share, discuss, and debate right here too. If we are patient as our community grows (globally, in fact) and diversifies, just imagine the conversations we will have together.
I have another question, regarding your comment: It's a great thing for us to educate new Gatherers about as they come on board. With well over 1,000 people now joining our community each day, it is important we help newcomers understand what kind of community we have created here.
This might be the proverbial can of worms. By "us" do you mean Gather employees, or Gather members. In case you aren't aware, there is quite a battle going on in this respect.
There are a few members who send private messages to new people (sometimes totally unsolicited) introducing the 'good guys' (per their opinion) and those of us they should "beware of". I can send you a couple of those if you are interested.
There is a member who 'speaks' for Gather. He publishes articles about the ins and outs and how tos, which he publishes in his 'All About Gather' groups, and appears to have insider information, leading many to believe he is a Gather employee.
And then, there's me. I run around trying to convince people this is a site for written articles, not a game room, or an extension of our email boxes where we publish the spam letters we receive in our email boxes, or the jokes Uncle Harold forwarded.
If you will define 'us', it might help.
Candida, I am unclear what you mean by "ripping to shreds" over grammar? Sandy and some others have repeatedly tried to help people by offering constructive criticism, and THEY were the ones who were ripped to shreds. If I wrote an article with grammar errors, I would want to know.
Sandy, I mostly agree with you. The games on here are not games by my standards. "Game: words that start with P" is not the kind of material I want to see on here, while I could live with "13 letter words that start with P" since that does take thought.
As for points, Gather set up a system that rewards people for quantity over quality, so I can't fault those who are maximizing them.
Tom, in the second paragraph of your response to Debra W, your words speak of what some of us want to see. Unfortunately I don't see any of your guidelines really addressing the quality of the content on here.