To readers: this 'comment'/question was asked of Tom Gerace on his "talk with god" comment thread. Hundreds of us sincere Gather members anxiously await his response. Or, non-response. I've posted it here, because controversial comments often disappear; as do contentious people. Anyway, you all can have more fun with it here. Its more an article than a comment anyway.
Patrickm
****************************************************
Tom,
I've asked you and your staff a few questions; and tried, in my own way, to help 'build a new and stronger Gather' through constructive/positive words and corresponding actions. But like hundreds of others, many long-time members of Gather, I keep getting let down in your words (Gather's implied and stated guarantees) NOT=TO your actions (The reality of Gather.com's actions).
From the beginning of the First Chapter's 'Contest,' there have been issues and situations to deal with and to counter. You, your staff, & your 60+ agents had to adapt to ever-changing challenges. Many of us identified with these challenges, saw the needs of the many outweighed our personal 'needs,' and supported Gather.com unconditionally. Believing, as many before us, that it's representations/inferences were true. At first this meant combating what appeared to be a small group of vile competitors/malcontents who zapped undeserving submissions with harsh & derogatory comments and low ball scores to taint their quality - therefore, reducing 'the competition.' Upset with this, and seeing the huge negative impact on the authors, I led the effort to bring a positive atmosphere to the 'contest.'
Some questioned my motives at first, but saw that my efforts were sincere, persistent, and equal across the board. As a result, many followed the example, did their versions of the same, and a positive movement developed; thus turning the tide of the contest, onto a more positive and constructive note. We all felt good about the many hundreds of hours it took to read/review, & rate the 1,800+ posted submissions. Regardless of the 'contest,' people's life works were publicly posted for what they thought would be critical & objective, but fair, review.
Based upon this, they entrusted Gather.com with years of their life's works; believing the media assertions that this was a fair 'contest.' Little did we know that we had entered an insular and fragmented 'community' at civil war over content controls, freedom of speech, and past abuses of backroom politics. As a result, most authors had their work and reputations publicly besmirched - in full view of their friends, families, and business associates. Our efforts to counter this worked, and everyone got a few good votes and reviews to counter the worse of the effects; but still, the stigma remains on 1,800 to 2,600 qualified authors that they are 'losers.' Now, I think most everyone can accept being fairly evaluated and 'graded' accordingly - we knowingly risked all, with that in mind. If people ranked 150, out of 2,600, that wasn't so bad, eh? But that never happened, huh? Even to the ongoing reassurances of the few sincere people on your staff.
Instead, it has become abundantly clear that Gather.com itself 'managed' the 'contest' like they have 'managed' most things in the past - content, above all. "Alowing" what they want to rise, and tagging that they didn't; thus determining the outcome, with apparent pre-determined 'results.' To the established Gather community this was S.O.P. - except, many were upset, because they had been promised the 'prominence' of at least being in the final 20, and that was denied. Why? Because the number of submissions exceeded expectations, were almost impossible to manage; and, it appears that Gather had to appease many unseen 'masters;' thus, the senseless collection of final 20 submissions. Being one, if the only, person to read over 1,500 of the submissions; I can say with assurance that brilliant submissions were purposely shot down. It could even be conjectured that most were flagged before even being posted (read below links for evidence of this). Otherwise, why weren't they selected as part of the 5 'editor's picks?'
From all my notes on the submissions and the movement of scores, it appears that efforts were made to 'force' a standard 'bell distribution.' When in reality, the quality of the submissions would have naturally fallen into a 'bi-modal distribution (hundreds of submissions with scores above 6.5 were hit with 'drive-by 1's' at 1:30 am and 3:00 am in the morning before they were due to go offline; and during the final hour before going offline. Submissions that had only one or two votes and/or comments, one of which was either mine or another persons, were left alone- obviously moved from the insulting 1pt, 2 pt, or 3pt range to the mid 6 pts with our 10 star 'help.' With the last huge hump of 500+ submissions posted over 3 days, there were at least 300 of these! Weighting of the final score, would not compromise the 'contest' but raised people from depths of despair (i.e. a submission with 3 votes and a 6.7 score would naturally fall way below one with 100 votes and a 6.7 score).
Any submission with over 150 or 200 'votes' should have been disqualified. Since there aren't that many active Gather members, and 95% of entrants didn't vote on any submissions; they should have been immediately suspect as being auto-generated or done by a collective of people. An average number of valid votes were around 24 to 40 per submission. Average comments varied as to the 'battles,' real or inflamed, that occurred on that submission.
Many Authors fought 'the system' fairly and valiantly, with valid support of friends and family; only a couple of these made it to the final 20. They were torpedoed the night, or hours, just before going off-line. While many had discountable 'vanity votes;' there was a clear identification of those submissions that had true literary potential, and they were targeted hardest. Many submissions went off-line before their 14 day allotment was over - especially if they were strong contenders. This cannot be attributed solely to malcontents; they would have had to log on with 30 or 40 logons within minutes of each other - a physical impossibility. It had to be done at Gather.com's direction or by Gather.com itself.
While I watched, and documented these events, I fully expected Gather.com to keep their word and make corresponding corrections of those obviously affected. Being assured that it was all done to preserve the integrity of the contest against fraud. When none of them appeared in the final 20, the reason they weren't corrected was terribly clear. So, some 'Collective supported' entries posted in the last weeks went through; while earlier ones didn't. The selection 'criteria' seemed to hinge on two points:
1) Those who would complain the most, if not included; with the knowledge that they were 'not all white'
2) And, those 'pre-chosen entries' to rise.
To provide a smoke screen, other totally unrelated, and sincere, author's submissions were picked as "straw men."
On one hand, the tainted ones would be happy to make it to the finals, and wouldn't complain; and the left-field selections would be shocked and happy to just be selected. Both of these groups of 'straw men' could be easily 'defeated' by the preferred 'winners.' These conclusions are not mine, but are confirmed by my statistics. Tom, others would like to see you take this to the final messy end, then hang you and Gather. Me? I'm stupid that way; and would like to see things resolved so Gather.com can live on and be what you envisioned from the start - what we were led to believe that it was; and with our help, can be. I risk being hated by all for stating this so bluntly, but I can't deny the 'falling together' of the facts that are known by hundreds of people (see articles linked below). Also, you refusal to address any questions of substance has forced me to state this publicly, so it can't be ignored anymore.
No one wants to hurt the sincere final 20 contestants, hence they try to remain mum; but the long run, is it worse to hold back knowledge and let them be used as 1,800 others were? Many people have struggled with these questions for weeks - trying to ascertain the least hurtful possible outcome. During the 'contest' I was continually assured that the 'fraudulent votes/submissions' would be corrected before round two. That never happened. Well, it happened for some. It happened for the designated submissions Gather wanted to see rise, and for credible 'straw men' entries that could clearly be discounted against the desired final 10 and 5. Yes, we all knew that Gather and the "judges" reserved the right to pick 5 of the 20, and then make the final determination from the final 5 as to which was to be published. Yet, that implies that they just wanted to assure that an un-publishable 'popular entry,' like the current leader on American Idol, didn't obligate a publisher and bookstore to suffer the embarrassment & significant cost of a poor book.
As I told you and your staff in emails before the final 20 were announced, no one would question Gather having the 'latitude' to choose the final 20 - given the apparent voting problems. I even encouraged people to not question or complain before the 20 were announced; assuring them they could 'trust the process' in every post I made to their books. This was valid, so long as the final 20 made sense (i.e. no hint of improprieties). Now I feel I need to apologize to those people for being duped into following along. No one likes to admit to being duped; but facts is facts, and ego isn't an issue with me.
We can all understand that it was a mess to sort out; but we didn't know that part of the mess was attributable to past Gather practices being perpetuated - for the world to see. Frankly, that was beyond understanding for any objective person. Any logical and honorable person would say: "So, I made a mess? Say I'm sorry, fix it, and learn/grow from the experience." Even stretching that further, people could accept the 'evolution' of Gather to a higher standard of practices. But that not only didn't happen, the same practices have now been visited on the final 20! Confirming all suspicions.
There are always folks who want to tear anything down. Those people would rather see Gather go to the limit, and fall flat on its face. But sincerely, Tom, many of us still want to believe in your representations. That Gather is above all, a safe place for writers to refine their work and pull them out of their mandatory 'quiet work head-spaces for writing' from time to time. Unfortunately, it appears that this very vulnerability of very sincere and talented people is being exploited. Our desire for this haven, can also lead us to ignore very destructive side effects. Like living in a dysfunctional family, the emotional abuse only continues if a person remains engaged; hence the ongoing exodus of old and new members alike.
The question I am posing to you: Is Gather.com truly committed to the objective of providing a fair, objective, and totally honest forum for writers?
Answering this with meaningless words at this point is not an option; it won't be believed. Strong actions, which I have been requesting for weeks, need to be made. Otherwise, I predict, the vultures will feast on Gather's desiccated corpse. Through no action on mine or other's part; as an unstoppable consequence of the very behaviors that brought Gather to this point.
Yes, the universe is all interrelated. Cause and effect are real. Call it 'what goes around comes around,' 'poetic justice,' or 'karma.' It's a law of nature that none of us can avoid. My very efforts of trying to assist in this matter has had huge effects on me; all bad, btw. And I expect there will be more. But what am I to do? Knowingly go along with what now is clearly a charade? Deeper awareness results in greater responsibilities. My Tibetan Buddhist friends tried to dissuade me from even entering; fearing such eventualities, and knowing something of past Gather practices. But I believed yours, Borders, S&S, and the NYT's representations; and once committed, what choice have I had? I didn't expect that 1,800 to 2,600 people would be so affected. First by the negativity of the 'event;' purposely inflamed to create more conflict, and therefore more WEB hits & activity. Then, by being used as pawns. Yes, most have received 'this message' through our posts to their books; that they weren't alone. But, the doubt seriously affecting self-esteem still lingers. How do they answer questions from friends, family, and business associates? (all of which you so effectively encouraged them to notify) Think of it. We all sound like that Vicky character off of BBC's series "Little Britain."
"So, Vicky, what happened? Did you win, or place well?"
"Yes! But, No. But, may-be!"
"Vicky, did you win or not?"
"Yes! But, No. But, yes. But no! Oh, I was walking down the street, and Marsha says: 'you know that skank Tom?' Well, he did this, and did that; and there were drive-by 1's, and mean people, and I didn't mean to, but I did the right thing, and….And, anyways, Shelly is a slut!"
(watch this show on Netflix, it will be a whole lot funnier ;-)
Bottom line? The taint remains. The French call this: being stained by other's behavior close to you. Then, they also have a clever observation: "Well, you can’t say anything; because you aren't all 'white' yourself," That's the burden of many a Gather member/staff person, being part of the scheme, if only by not talking. Or, being immersed in things like the kickback system of Gather points for money (i.e. I have over 92 pages of comment posts, @ 20 comments per page - that's how I know there were only 1,800+ submissions posted. With zero pts in January, I now have hundreds of people in groups I established, about 60 connections, 4,000 emails, applied for a Discover card, and have only 1,700 Gather points!! At the payoff rate of 3,000 Gather points per month for $50, who can really earn anything, eh? Only those who know and work the system, or are 'awarded' extra Gather points, can really make money. Its just another misrepresentation; for the purpose of encouraging people to be 'active').
News Flash, Tom. If you were simply consistent in your 'message' and your actions, you really would have many thousands of active members. The fiction of 250,000 active members is ludicrous. Lincoln said: "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all the time." That truism holds strong. The final 20 have very few votes given that 250,000 number; and the refusal of many to not waste the energy when the 'results' are already set.
These seem like basic things that one shouldn't have to explain to any educated adult. Therefore, many people have concluded that ignorance or incompetence is no defense.
Why have I spent sooo much time out of my life on all of this? Even another day on this letter? Because despite of past motivations or behaviors, Gather.com can be what you envisioned. But to be that requires total honesty and all cards on the table. Gather, to evolve, must shift its paradigm. No more hidden anything. No more man behind the curtains managing anything. Admit it, and help in the transition. Otherwise? Shift happens, eh?
What has happened here is just like the present 'culture' in the United States. We need to re-discover the values that made this country what it was intended to be. If I'd written a cookbook, or a thriller, I could have walked away early on. But the last 5 years of my life have been spent researching and writing a novel that is meant to help America recover its integrity by stopping the destruction of the Tibetan Buddhist Culture/peoples. The Chinese government is doing to the Tibetans what Hitler tried to do to the Jews; and America is allowing it, because people are benefiting from the economic profits from cheap Chinese goods. In the process of selling out the Tibetans, we have nearly sold out our country too (morally and financially). $400billion a year trade deficits, and Trillion dollar budget deficits funded through Chinese-owned debt have hastened this process. So, in a way, I see all of this mess on Gather as a microcosm of a greater spiritual dis-ease in America.
What is driving all of this? Profits. A measly bit of extra advertising profits - over the emotional welfare & reputations of 1,800 to 2,600 talented authors? Not worth it, eh? Not to the objective mind. But it is in places like Gather that we have to draw the line, and like in "Network News," say: "I'm mad as hell, and not going to take it anymore!" The real challenge is to express this in a way that doesn't generate further conflict, hurt, and pain; which will only perpetuate more, hence my many-week dilemma, and my repeated email requests to do something to ease the impact. So, Gather's "Dilemma" becomes ours, eh?
While I am the unwilling messenger in this mess- I am not the source of it. See the links below for the observations of hundreds of intelligent and thoughtful individuals. All just wondering how to express it constructively- in order to invoke positive change. In your efforts you have attracted lots of good folks. These people are very bright, and ready to help- if you lead them effectively (hint: Actions =Words).
What am I asking, Tom? Just the question above; and, providing a suggested 'solution.' Many have asked all along for transparency in voting/rating - to no avail. The refusal of this fair request now makes sense, given what it would reveal. There's no technical or rational reason not to post a list of all submissions, with their associated votes and comments listed along with user screen name/ID of voter/rater; and cumulative scores, raw and un-weighted, before and after 'correction.' Failure to do this, even for the final 20 is damning in itself. And the recent reaction to the post of the satire articles is woefully inadequate (i.e. the mysterious removal of hundreds of votes on the final 20 submissions the other day. Whose votes were they? And, this lame 'ask Tom questions' thread? Please.) And, why not encourage/facilitate the re-posting all first chapters, and comments, to people's personal pages? Fear of their quality shining through? Fear of accountability? Hey, when I go the the grocery store I get a receipt for $30 of groceries, to validate I was charged correctly. Why not a simple score card on years of work? Any programmer that says this can't be done easily is incompetent or lying. If the server is a unix box, I can write that code in 2 or 3 lines. If its a database, it might take me half of hour writing SQL statements. Either way, all data could easily be spooled off into simple individual files for every submission within minutes. Its a file, and user id access information that is recorded automatically in any system. Think of a phone bill. duh.
Lacking this public posting of voting results, and ranking of all submissions; I'd like to request that the 'contest' be stopped where it is, before any more damage is done; and, that Gather no longer engage in any more 'contests.' It is amply clear that Gather is either incapable or unwilling to perform an objective event. In either instance, it is a gross misrepresentation and very wrong to even do them. If sadistic people still cry for them, resist the urge to crank up the WEB hits. If they want self-abuse, they can just go elsewhere for their kicks. Otherwise, Gather loses the healthy/talented folks, and degenerates further.
If Gather survives its issues, it can be a great place for writers. Time will tell.
I hope this helps you find your way out of a thorny dilemma; and I expect that it will at least help some of the 1,800 to 2,660 authors, and their associates, understand things better. Below are links to articles all over Gather that provided the basis for my conclusions, and led me to verify them with my notes.
Sincerely,
Patrickm
*************************
Here is a short lighthearted view of the drama we're engaged in. This guy is too funny! http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976961072
An Accurate Satire of the Gather First Chapters Contest, with 49 votes of 10 stars and no visibility
********************
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976960823
Another Perspective on the Gather Contests. i.e. The Powers behind Tom
********************
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976947440
Article on the Gather Photo Contest
********************
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976949784
Reflections on FirstChapters Competition by Carol L. with 99 commenters
********************
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976939881
A Peachy Explanation of the Gather Boycott of March 22nd 2007, 146 commenters
*********************
http://www.gather.com/viewArticles.jsp?memberId=57586&num=20¤tPage=4&nav=Namespace&start=60 Ghost Town Known as Gather by Rob Appell, 67 Commenters
*********************
http://www.gather.com/viewArticles.jsp?memberId=57586&num=-20¤tPage=2&nav=Namespace&start=40">The State of Gather Address, 88 commenters
*******************************************************************
In the South there is a cool saying: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
With that in mind, it's clear that a 'direct democracy' can be a helpful thing.
So, to help others avoid the "Fool me Twice" scenario, this is a simple request:
TO NOT TO HAVE ANYMORE GATHER 'CONTESTS!'
Call it 'tough love' if you will.
:-)
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 57
Lori
This contest was a joke and a fraud. Like most of what has happened on this site. Those who have been here for a long time may ask, "Who went on the cruise?" and "Who won the bedroom decorating contest?" No one seems to know the answer to these questions. It ia all a frigging fraud.
Shame on me. I've been begging for the same answers for over a year, patrick, and settling for no answer.
lol...
Oh, and Gather, I enjoy your site immensely (the gripers are getting somewhat old....but overall...a great place to hang out with friends, look over some great writing, and pass my time at work!!!
Patrick, I thought of something you didn't include in this article. During the pre-contest discussion, a board member hinted that he was pleased to see so that so many people had come to complain, because that increased his chances of winning. Here. That cast a negative light on the contest in my eyes.
In my opinion, the industry has contributed greatly to the dumbing down of America.
Oh wait, you got buried in the crap, didn't you?
I'm sending you a connection request based on this alone. For what it's worth, I hope you get the answer you deserve.
It's becoming rather obvious which of our "valuable members" is enjoying the abuse of the "Other" flag. Wonder if the TOS on reasonless flagging will be applied.
"Only the Shadow Knows."
So what does that mean? All of the "best" entries were posted after 3/1? I find that difficult to believe.
Another thing - none of the huge batch of entries posted 1/31 had their "drive-bys" remove during the duration of their run. Entries that were posted before and after had at least some of these spurious low votes deleted while they were still live. The Gather administrators claim that entries could be adjusted when they were no longer posted - but how do we know this actually happened? We only have their word on this.
I never really thought that an internet popularity contest, particularly one as open to abuse and sock puppetry as this one, had a chance at discovering fresh talent and good books. But I read some good stuff, and for a while, I thought, wow - there really are some decent books here. Unfortunately, I don't think the semi-finalists taken as a whole reflect the quality buried amongst the avalance of submissions. What they reflect is that aggressive marketing and self-promotion are what this contest is really about - getting more page clicks and members so Gather can increase its ad rates.
That's what really gets me. It's not like I expect for, say, most Hollywood movies to be made for me. They're made for 14 year old boys. But I am a reader. I buy books. I'd be willing to bet that a majority of commentors on some of the popular winners haven't read a book in years, or at least not many.
The contest isn't even a particularly good test of how a work will do in the marketplace. Getting get your friends and relatives to sign up and say "great job" isn't going to translate into big sales should your work be published.
Some of the semi-finalists are decent; a couple are good, and maybe the eventual winner will be a good book. There are a several submissions that I like.
But on the whole, what I don't see much are books that I, as a reader would like to buy (there are one or two, that's it). That's what disappoints me the most. Whose tastes do these books reflect?
The controversy was interesting at times and a great cross section of American reading tastes. I mean think about it, what do you think the last three books Donna bought, read and actually liked?—that list alone would be worth the price of admission. And that's not an insult because candor is admirable; it's more like 'what's the meaning of life.' Then there was Chota (or whatever) spouting profundity and wearing either a costume or a condom, giving high praise to a lawyer story about a woman carrying Grisham's briefcase and to other insightful nameless prose, sometimes echoed by Steven B, another astute critic prone to regurgitating literary theory of the "show not tell" and "overwritten" school spawned in some Florida based writing group that must have extensive publishing credentials, and Lori F with whom I disagreed on every critique but respected her honest opinion and forthright (okay, penis size might have been over the top) frankness immensely. Add to that a wide array of typical book buying citizens and you have enough material for any number of novels covering all genres.
As a first time experiment, it was thoroughly entertaining, sometimes enlightening, and yes, often frustrating. But conspiracy—I don't think so. Mismanaged, overwhelmed, a little misguided—maybe. Transparency would add to creditability, but we haven't seen much of that (you trace back the pronoun—structure or context) since 9/11 and may not again real soon. But hey, there is always hope. Oprah chose "The Road" so anything can happen.
Best to All
Webbie's FAQ
And, yet another "other" flagging. Interesting.
http://www.phlaunt.com/DarkLordsHeir/ContestResults.htm
As to the time period the winners were posted, this was a conclusion she made based on her careful tracking - you'll see that THEOORE'S CHOICE is the ONLY pre-March 1 entry that moved on. I'm guessing it was an Editor's Choice.
I'm thinking another Webbie's FAQ is in order. Management HAS responded to them...sort of.
I appreciate your taking this on as well. I'd said that I was going to follow the contest through to the end, but I'm at a point where I'm just too disgusted. Some of the "winners" are so awful, and their fluffer fan-clubs so obnoxious, that I'm feeling like, life's too short. I've met some cool people and read some cool books at least. But the contest has left a very bad taste in my mouth.
I have GOT to get some sleep (for a change) but Lisa, and Patrick too. You can BET I'll be following up.
GET THE FAQ's!
Standard Disclaimer
Even though I did not have an entry in First Chapters, I've been involved in similar (though not as heavily marketed!) situations so I can relate. I also convinced a close friend to submit his chapter, so I did feel a contestant's frustration, albeit vicariously.
And now I must be blunt: I think Gather's biggest mistake was misjudging A.) the sheer number of people who want to be professional writers, and B.) the incredible insecurities, fragile egos, and neediness of said group.
I did not submit my novel because it is not ready. When it is ready, I will write my query letters, network as best I can, and wait. If, after a good deal of hard work, nothing happens, only then would I consider joining a contest like this, and with a very jaundiced eye (not toward the contest, but towards my own work!). My hope in joining would be to get some decent feedback, with full knowledge that I'd have to wade through some muck to get it. The directions clearly stated that friends and family were encouraged to vote. How could someone read that and not predict some of the problems that eventually played out? And, knowing full well that this was a popularity contest, how could someone not look at this contest as anything but a lark?
Gather does have its problems. I fully agree with that. I, too, have been very, very frustrated with this site. But it seems to me that the writers here should be writing (and editing) and working on letting this contest go. Gather has potential to be a wonderful place for writers to help other writers. And that has little to with contests, or the Gather team, for that matter. Calling for an end to the contest is unnecessary...it seems to be running out of steam as interested Gather members either throw their energies into venting...or writing. I didn't see one chapter in the first round that couldn't use a good edit (actually, second round entries could use some editing as well). If, because of the relationships forged by this contest, writers were able to find people to help them with this, then this contest was a success.
I know this sounds snotty and mean-spirited, but that is not my intent (I have a problem with tone, always have! Maybe some Gatherite could help me!). I really think the people who are upset about this contest should be a little self-reflective. And, no, I'm not blaming the victim! I'm just suggesting that the impressive critical skills and analysis displayed in this and similar posts by other contestants be applied to the writer's work instead. It would be so much more productive.
Best wishes patrick, you care about the right things !
I don't see any reason why his fighting this battle will or should affect his being serious about getting his book published. As a writer, I don't think every minute of my time has to be spent on one project, so I wouldn't expect that he has abandoned his writing career in order to deal with this situation.
As for the winners not trashing the results if they hadn't moved on - all I can say is one of them spent a lot of time emailing and commenting about the unfairness of the drive-bys and wrote a plea to "the Contest Adminstrators and the Gather Community" asking them to right this injustice - and tagging articles that complained about the author's own actions.
If this person hadn't moved on, I have no doubt I could have heard the wails without the benefit of an internet connection.
Personally, I don't think the contest will be "fixed" and that it's probably not worth putting much more time into it on any level - suggesting, complaining, reading, rating, etc. But I'm still surprised at how my ill-feelings about it have lingered. I've had plenty of experience in creative fields and am more than used to the sorts of things that go on. Rejection is a fact of life.
But this contest...what can I say? It still managed to surprise me, and not in a good way.
While I agree that the quality of the final 20 is far less than one would hope, given the quality and quantity of material, I got $000's of value in the review comments I received, and a much better chance of being published from a traditional approach to an agent. I think it's time to take our gains, accept our losses, and move on.
The supporting, missing links:
A Peachy Explanation of the Gather Boycott of March 22nd 2007, 146 commenters
The Ghost Town Known as Gather by Rob Appell, 67 Commenters
The State of Gather Address, 88 commenters
Here is a short lighthearted view of the drama we're engaged in....this guy is too funny! Accurate Satire of the Gather First Chapters Contest, with 49 votes of 10 stars and no visibility
Another Perspective on the Gather Contests. i.e. The Powers behind Tom
Reflections on FirstChapters Competition by Carol L. with 99 commenters
Article on the Gather Photo Contest
Article by Kerry Rogers, The man that actually was the first to Announce a coherent list of FirstChapter Finalists, On Content Management on Gather 56 commenter
Article by Jerry K. on Propaganda Mgt on Gather 56 commenter
As for Gabriella, Nick, Gareth; I do hear what you are saying, and agree...you are all good folks, with sincere advice. Thanks.
Friday I posted this to the "Ask the CEO" thread and here; and went home. It's a huge part of letting go....moving on; or 'tough love' improvement. It certainly isn't easy or pleasant. I'm just the messenger; summarizing things here so that everyone can make a determination for themselves. Its not a role I wanted, nor like. The burden of knowledge has been heavy; and if I was really a trouble maker I would've done much worse, long before now. This is meant to be constructive. This isn't coming from me; there are hundreds of people....most of the Gather community.....asking these questions (roughly 300-500 in the above links) (i.e. Sandy says above that she's been trying for a year to no avail.)
Secrecy, encouraging/promoting divisiveness, managing content, and evasiveness are all symptoms of manipulation. This has created a heavy atmosphere of dis-ease.....sorta like we feel about Bush and Iraq, eh? Germans have required classes in school on detecting propaganda/population manipulation....so as to not repeat the Hitler thing. In America, we have elevated marketing and spin mgt. to the point that realty is difficult to ascertain. We still avidly wear the banner of freedom and justice, yet our actions have strayed......hence our reputation has suffered abroad. Its no different here.
If we are to trust the posting of our life's work on this site, we must be 100% assured that it is going to be respected, protected, and free from judgmental censorship. In a word, Objectivity. If that can't be.....then moving on forever is the only logically smart thing to do, eh? For Gather to be what it represents, it must adhere to standards of conduct which are above reproach.....not of dubious-ness (is that even a word? ;-)
The only way to do this is to end the back room management policies, and focus on transparency of actions. People are smart here, they can figure things out for themselves (i.e. the votes/scores and comments by userid.....clearly displayed. People should have to be responsible for their vote...high or low; not hide behind rationalizations for purposes of content judgments and favoritism. If the contest voted up a Sanjaya, oh well. That was prohibited; but then, what happened to those brilliant works of Jewish and Muslim writers? What happened to those incredibly well written & insightful books about child abuse, spouse abuse, and substance addiction? What happened to Satire, humor and Manly-Chick-Lit? Through hard work by many, a Science Fiction book barely squeaked through.(with many hundreds of excellent SF/Fantasy submissions.) Yet in the final 20 he is under the same kind of drama......with little help from the admin. folks; and the same lame assurances we got.
Like any human endeavor, Gather has the potential to be really great.....or another debacle of 'what could have been.' But only if this dis-ease, felt by hundreds of folks, is resolved. Otherwise, its not a safe environment, eh? Then, we are all just tools.....to be used, then discarded.
I for one, am not up for that. But what if you don't know? We didn't coming in, eh? And if some of us, due to heavy involvement, are privy to a moral cancer then we have to do what we can to 'cure the patient;' or give up. So far, the 'patient' has been reticent.....to say the least.
So this isn't all about the contest. The 'contest' is just a current, and big, example. (like many 'contests' before it....hence, my suggestion to not hold anymore; because the history is so bad on them, that it would be counter-productive for the site...indefensible) If this contest is handled right, it can elevate Gather to a new plane. But so far, it doesn't bode well. S.O.P. is ruling the day. Hence my cautionary tone. Most of us really are trying to help, in our way. We want what Tom promised. We just need irrefutable proof that he's committed to that. Our trust has been terribly violated, it needs to be restored.....or, not. No more icky in between 'maybe they are being honorable, and responsible, with us.'
Pollyanna was a character in a book, remember? She was so silly, she trusted everything.....even when common sense should have alerted her otherwise.
I think that most of the Gather contests are done without much thought as to what to do if ____ happens. For instance, taking the information you provided, once Gather found out that they were being overwhelmed with entries, one thing they could have done is ended the entry application early. Sure, many writers would be disappointed, but it does give them hope that the contest is above board and if it is successful they can submit next year.
I find myself pondering why so it is that with so many Gather contests we seldom hear who has won. There is a lot of promotion for these contests but little follow through. Shouldn't the contests winners be announced in a feature article? Speaking of which, which commenters to the First Chapter Contests won the extra gift cards? BTW, that was one thing I thought the contest did right, encourage people to respond by offering incentives.
Anyhow, thank you for the insightful read and I am honored that you recommended my 'Peaches' article.
Boy. You've so articulated how I feel about this. That's it, exactly.
Her book: "Those Times" was like a "Blade Runner" in modern day Beijing.
While I disagreed with Lisa's fascination with the cleverness of Chinese culture as a positive thing; I totally respected her very well written novel, and her tenacity to promote it in an honorable way. She worked very hard, and her 'product' was very good.
Her submission was attacked; and if the low ball hits had been 'corrected' on both our submissions, as promised, hers would have played direct counterpoint to my submission: "Tibet: Lamplight Unto a Darkened World." I fully expected, once my 30-40 drive-by low hits were corrected, that we would be in heated contention for the 'hearts' of the readers. Mine, examining a Tibetan Buddhist perspective, would have been an easier 'sell,' since hers expressed a very real feeling for the cold logic of the Chinese culture.
But Lisa, you still don't get it. Don't feel bad, it took me a while too. Neither of ours was allowed to 'progress' due to their content. They were purposely held back due to the controversy they might generate. (Hint: where are most books printed these days? China). The ironic thing? If they had, the web hits would have really helped Gather!!
At the risk of sounding a little 'out there,' let me briefly explain. China is now the pre-eminent superpower in the world; wielding incredible economic power (i.e. forcing way into WTO, largest exporter, etc) Their 'rising star' is due to be presented to the world in the upcoming 2008 Olympics as a fait accompli. Nothing will be allowed that could endanger that event, 20 years in the planning/construction. Their economic power is so strong that the U.S., and other Govts, turn a blind eye to the holocaust of the Tibetan Buddhists. They think they have no choice. It started with Nixon "opening up" China for business. America's fixation on quarterly profits, and fast money, left it open to a very patient and long-term strategy. Your admiration for the Chinese culture is understandable; but the outcome isn't what you'd probably desire. What is 100 years to a culture over 5,000 years old?
While neither of our books are political, per se; they present points of view. Your's is very acceptable to the Chinese Govt., mine less so. Why? Because the very things you understandably admire, are what they would like to present to the world as 'the whole story.' It's about selective presentation. We don't think we have propaganda in the U.S.. We call it marketing, spin control, perception management, and freedom of speech. The clever Chinese Govt. has worked hard to learn and adapt to this wonderful vehicle for presenting the story they would like told. You know that throughout time, Chinese rulers would literally re-write history. That's why that one emperor buried all those terra cotta statues…..hidden, so they wouldn't be swept away under subsequent 'management.' So something we say we don't like, revisionist history, is common place in China, eh?
Why bother with our little books? Well, you also know the social network of China too. Daily, almost hourly, newspapers and email bulletins provide a forum for rumors and information dispersal. Status is conveyed upon those who know and trade in information. They know that rumors are the beginnings of public opinions. People are rewarded, status wise, for knowing and communicating information up the line. The close knit communities in most U.S. cities are amazing in their solidarity…..generations after emigration. It still pays to 'phone home;' ensuring safety/benefits for themselves and family back in China. So something as seemingly small as a book possibly being published that could tarnish the perceptions so meticulously nurtured is 'important.' (i.e. the movie "Kundun" by Martin Scorsese was almost suppressed from distribution in 1997. Disney almost bagged it; but opted for limited distribution. Like all of Scorsese films, it's brutally accurate about Tibet/Mao, etc. That was 10 years ago, before they were strongest)
So, Lisa, we 'stepped in it' inadvertently. One phone call can kill almost anything in this country.
For a bit of economics, think of this:
*For many years we've imported over $400 billion more than we export to China.(that means they 'own' more of our currency/money than we do theirs)
*Over the past two Bush terms we went from a budget surplus to many TRILLIONS of dollars in yearly deficits (mostly due to tax cuts, and spending on revenge wars). To pay for those deficits, the govt. sells debt bonds. Q: Who has lots of extra U.S. dollars to buy those bonds? Hint: China.
*How many middlemen/distributors/salesmen/companies make money from things we buy from Target, WalMart, Bookstores, etc? If you buy really cheap in China, everybody gets some profit, eh? Who wants to risk profitability in our present 'economy?'
America's most humiliating moment in foreign policy was when we recently sent over a delegation of Senators and Congressmen to China to 'convince them' to let the Yuan float on currency markets….for their 'benefit.' After they stopped laughing (you could see that on TV), they probably said the equivalent of: "Teach your grandmother to Suck Eggs."
After reading so many articles by Gather veterans it is clear that the content on Gather is closely 'managed;' hence my conclusions, and no responses to refute it. This article has remained flagged since the hour after it went up a week ago. It has been assailed by low hits…..just like our submissions were. The other 'votes' have been told to me by the people making them….all tens. It's clear that these actions are meant to keep it out of view…..for whatever reasons.
What terrible thing have I asked for? Nothing. Nothing more than hundreds before me have asked (albeit a little more loudly and angrily ;-)
Just that all votes, for all articles ..including the FirstChapters submissions…..be visible for all to see. That isn't technically hard; it's just not desired. Now, you tell me why.
A little collaborating evidence:
When, and after, your book was up there were various articles on wonderful things in China. I commented, fairly and thoroughly, on all I saw. After my posts, 'conversations' died and the authors retreated. I emailed them. "What's the matter," I asked. "Nothing. Your facts are more than I knew." They let go.
I am so not anti-China. Though I must sound so. I am anti-"perception of freedom of speech." I am anti-"say one thing, do another." I am anti-"propaganda," in any form. I am anti-"content management," because it presents a false image of what is real. Otherwise, how is America any better off than Chinese communist propaganda? And, Lisa, you know as well as I do; that the Chinese will always win at that game. Western Society is imbued with Judeo Christian values; that, at some point, brings a sense of conscience into play. China has no 'overly emotional attachments' to anything. Its just not part of a culture that numbers almost 2 billion people, and generally does not value people's lives.
Bottom line: its time for Americans to get real. To get back to the principles that this country was founded upon. True freedom of speech, and the safe pursuit of religious/spiritual/personal beliefs; in order to live good lives not controlled by any aristocracy. Its time for our economic-driven existence to return to actually living life. In my novel, I try to help people find a way to do that. Is that subversive? I never thought so.
The question therefore is: "Is Gather a true place of freedom of writing/expression? Or, just a place for special interests to present their version of reality?"
Either way is fine. Just presenting one, and then controlling to the other is a grave misrepresentation of editorial content. Only the ignorant and weak would knowingly agree to this kind of 'arrangement.' Now, many would say: "wake up Patrick, that's the way it is….grow up."
My response: "No. It's perpetuated in our present society because we allow it; thus diminishing our lives."
You did good, Lisa. Have no regrets.
:-)
BTW, nobody comes off very well in my book, including the Chinese government.
Funny thing? China's govt/plans don't get much coverage in my book....people just think so cuz I think that the Tibetan situation is a gr8 opportunity for Americans to make a point, and out of their hole of "dis-ease." i.e. get away from rampant materialism/economic driven 'life'.
This is well said.
The contest experience was a very traumatic experience for me. I submitted my novel not expecting to win but hoping for feedback and suggestions. I thought my manuscript good but NOT very good, although I had some very good impressions from several readers and one professional writer and a negative impression from one reader prior to the contest. Thus, I am well aware of and understanding of people's different impressions. That is fine.
So I submit my chapter one and get mixed reviews but on the whole favorable. I also got some very good comments and suggestions as I was hoping for, but then as my novel nears the end of its run with a decent rating in the sixes, I get about fifteen ones in a row (I did the math) with no comments. Either it was legitimate--some people truly hated my work, or it was deliberate--some people wanted to put me out of competition.
Now here is the part that disturbed me. I believed the latter, and at first I thought to respond in kind. Then I thought about my response and realized how terribly wrong that was and I did not pursue it, BUT having considered such an action, having come so close to such behavior appalled me. I was appalled at myself. At this point, For awhile I no longer wished to write or to critique. Well, I got over it, although to those who do not like what I wrote perhaps that is not such good news, lol. And yet that is the downside of such contest that pits writer against writer in a process whereby writers rate each other and can recruit friends and family to rate.
Such a contest fills the ranks of the group running the contest, and perhaps some of those who join stay. Certainly it provides large numbers which provides a site more marketability.
I knew from the start this was part of what was intended, recruiting. I also knew after reading the rules that the contest result could be guided by those best fit to judge a manuscripts marketability and that is wise.
This was interesting experience--partly bad but certainly I learned some things. I have decided a rewrite is in order, not just first chapter, but the whole thing. I wrote it a while back and I think I can do better now, so perhaps this experience gave me some impetus to go back to this novel and rework it.
Yes I think Pat, your many thoughts are well taken. Ethics ought to have a place in the world. Business and profit are important--if you don't make a buck you can't pay the bills, BUT if you only pay the bills to the exclusion of all other considerations we as individuals and as a society are less.
One more thing. There were little flame wars between reviewers under some of the chapters and I found that most distasteful. These back and forths were occurring beneath someone's creative effort and I thought that such arguments were ill advised--if they are to take place they ought to take place elsewhere.
I did not read many of the first chapters and critiqued none because of conflict of interest, but I thought there were some better than mine. One in particular was very good but did not make it to the final twenty and I am sorry it did not. I hope no one becomes discouraged but keeps working at it. The individual's success should depend on quality of their work, not diminuition of anothers work.
Best of luck to all. Best wishes to all.
steve jb
Combine that with the organized downrating that took place (and the near-complete disregard of all entries posted before March), and I have to ask, just who did this contest provide an opportunity for? Yes, some of the semi-finalists got some well-deserved exposure. Taken as a whole, however, I'm not joining in the praise.
I did not know that about the final voting--WOW! I stand corrected.
I have a somewhat jaded and yet accepting or perhaps understanding viewppoint. My assumption has always been that the opportunity was for the five chosen by the editors (who are likely most qualified to judge marketability, and the rest of it was veneer). I have never thought any of the ratings by family and friends one way or the other could have much impact since I did not think the fifteen voted on would win unless the readers chose manuscripts that the editors agreed were noteworthy--see my point? I read the rules before submitting and this was apparent to me.
In other words, I figured from the start the reason friends voting a ten for you and a one for you competition did not matter was that if unmarketable stories won, according to the rules, since the editors pick some of the stories and can override no unmarketable choice will become winner. If the readers choose a marketable manuscript then it can win. So the morons who vote themselves in by spiking others with one votes or strategizing with last hour rallies (a possibility I conceived but I don't do that kind of stuff and did not know someone did but am not surprised), if they have an unmarketable book it is not likely to win.
Perhaps the editors did not expect so many books and had intended to get rid of inappropriate ones and tens but even if they had so intended with so many entries I suspect they simply could not do it and in the end can rely on their oversight powers to choose which is written into the rules.
I am dismayed by my own anger at one point, and for that I am sorry--happily I did not act upon it but reflected. Still, I was pretty upset.
I think the golden opportunity is for the good choices among the fifteen and particularly the five the editors chose. It is an opportunity for someone and I am grateful for t he good part of all this, have learned something from the bad part, and I am TRULY happy for those chosen that they have a good opportunity because of the sponsors. Not sure, however, how much if at all, that I would wish to continue involvement in this contest and as for t he site I will keep an eye on it and see what it has to offer.
Let me start with the basics. Good people work at Gather. We have worked hard to bring aboard people that are not just smart, though they are, but also people that care very deeply about doing something meaningful here. They work hard to foster a healthy environment at Gather.com, bring thoughtful, diverse voices to our community, and to create unique opportunities for the people that join us here.
We are a young company (four dozen people, not the five you suggest). We will try many new things in the next two years. Many will fall flat. A few will succeed beyond our wildest dreams. And it's hard to tell which is which when we start them.
With First Chapters, we truly seem to have caught a tiger by the tail. We received more than 2,600 entries for this first contest. That was about ten times our best guess at initial participation. Nearly five hundred entries were received in the last two days of the contest. Many more came in just after the deadline and were ineligible as a result.
Our marketing and editorial teams comprise just a half dozen members of our staff. We were, as you and others have written, thrilled but a bit overwhelmed by the response. In fact, yours truly was pressed into duty posting stories to make sure we met our deadline to have things live for the contest. That said, the team worked exceptionally hard and delivered everything on schedule.
We did, as you note, have members that tried to manipulate the contest results by creating fake accounts and voting multiple times. We had others that simply used their own account to vote down any opposition with widespread, negative voting.
We have developed significant fraud control measures to locate these people, disqualify them from the contest, and remove the impact of their votes. Many of these measures are run offline after the voting is complete. We remove fraudulent votes from the tally, even though they remain visible on the site.
We recognize that having the votes remain on the site frustrates and confuses members and contestants alike. We see this credibility question as a real issue with the contest. We have received requests for total voting tallies, like yours above, and an explanation of our fraud control systems. Some have asked us to publicly identify those perpetrating fraud. We will do neither.
Providing visibility into how we identify fraud and which votes we canceled would make it much easier for a future entrant to better understand our systems, test them over time, and avoid being caught in the future. Naming people that acted fraudulently would violate our privacy policies (and some of them, I think, were good people deep down who wanted to win a bit too badly).
We have great respect for your perspective and that of other well-meaning Gatherers. And we plan improvements, based on our learning here. In the next contest, we will make a number of changes:
1) We have developed additional fraud control processes that allow us to more rapidly identify questionable voting patterns.
2) We have developed a tool to allow questionable votes to be removed more quickly, in many cases while the contest proceeds.
3) We will allow members to post entries themselves so that they appear on their own spaces, making them easier to find.
4) We will list all entries in a single location, to make the exposure of each entry more balanced, to make finding individual entries easier, and to make voting for them easier.
5) We will post all entries at the same time and leave all of them available for the entire voting period.
6) We will also engage an outside auditing firm to calculate our winners. The outside firm will ensure the success of our fraud control systems and will tally the results. They will monitor both technological and business practices as well during the contest.
We will also make changes to our platform over time to allow even placement and exposure for all entries and to improve voting methods for this and all contests as well. These changes require more time than those above since we need to do technology analysis, development, quality assurance, and user testing at several points in the process.
In short, we were thrilled by the response to the first First Chapters, but we are realistic in our perspective too. There are many things we can improve. We will take several steps forward with the next competition. We will take several more in the months to come.
To everyone that is excited by the opportunity this competition presents, let me that we echo your excitement and express how excited we are that Gather can bring it to you. To those disappointed by the flaws in our first process, let me apologize for our growing pains and assure you that we will do better next time (and the time after that, and the time after that).
To close, I am afraid we cannot satisfy your requests with regard to this round of First Chapters, Patrick. With the help of improved processes and an outside, recognized, auditing firm, I hope you will find we make significant progress the next time around.
-----------
Tom Gerace is Gather's founder and CEO (and really does try to answer the hard questions directly, too)
Tom, thank you for your complete, and thoughtful response. As a person in the IT business for 24+ years, I understand how hard it is to stretch to accommodate such unexpected growth. As a person who analyzes data every single day, I also know all the things you are trying to do to prevent fraud, and the daunting task it can be. Thank you for your transparency.
Tom, what you most need to understand is that people like Patrick, and me, really and truly want Gather to be the best it can be. And you need to understand that we are on your side. You are not standing alone in wanting Gather to be a haven for artists of all ilks, who want this to be the best community it can be. That said, some of us have taken to monitoring what we can, with the limited tools we have at hand. Listen to the folks in this community. As an Information Technolody analyst, I know that, sometimes, the best ideas come from those who ask the simple questions.
To the rest of you reading here, at 1800-2600 entries, it was darned near impossible to spot drive-bys, sock-puppet voters, and 'astroturf' comments. With only 10 chapters left, it's not so hard. There are those of us who love data. We love spreadsheets. We are providing unbiased, outside opinion and observation. We are deliberately going to make it harder for the drive-by voters to go unobserved. In my state we have 'sunshine' laws. It's harder to commit fraud in the daylight. I've posted an article that exposes ratings patterns. With the help of more than one unbiased observer, I'm going to attempt to keep posting those ratings changes. We do this not to harm anyone, but because we love the Gather community, we want the best possible outcome to the First Chapters contest, and we want a winner that 1800-2600 other entrants can respect. We want a winner who can represent us with pride and integrity.
In short, we truly want Gather to succeed, without taint. We've found a home, made friends, and want to build our community. We want it to have an impeccable reputation. In due course, just as the body will eject a foreign object, the 'bad players' in Gather will be ejected like a virus. It's up to us to make Gather the community we want it to be. And it's up to us, as a community, to make this first First Chapters contest a success. Rate fairly. Comment with grace, intelligence, and courtesy. Offer honest feedback. Be aware that you are directing your comments to a real person.
And to the remaining 10 contestants, we are watching.
For a quick insight into current ratings, check First Chapters - Ongoing Race Results
For a current review of "astroturf" comments, check
Third Round Horserace - First 24 Hours
First Chapters - Roller Coaster Ride
With the announcement of the final 5 contestants in the FirstChapters 'contest,' controversy has diminished. Two of the 5 are high enough quality to be published, and not burdened with darks clouds of contention.....i.e. voter fraud, "a ringer", or disturbing content. Another one is good, "Speechless"; but one re-write away from publishing.
The top voted book, in the last round.....from 10 to 5 manuscripts...is: "Dream War"
The next manuscript that is clean of issues, and publishable, is: "Fire Bell in the Night"
Either of these submissions would be seen as a logical 'winner' give the wierd pool of the 20 selected from all 1,800 posted manuscripts.