After reading Wilma M's grumblings about this latest upgrade, I decided I had to check my own articles to see what "related" to mine.
It turns out that if you regularly feature toy hedgehogs, there isn't much that relates to them: I see a listing of my other articles at the end of the one I am reading, but I do not see a listing of other articles by other authors.
Interestingly, the story I recently published about performing "Fiddling with Books" at the Walton, NY, library does not bring up a link to the other articles I have published about that library. I wonder if I've switched them to "just me" and thus they are not linked?
Still, we often link to each other's articles here -- why did Gather decide they would do that for us? There are some people whose writings I have never read, and I would consider it *implied* that the link between our articles was something done with each author's blessing,
Since that is not, in fact, the case, the listing of "related articles" is a rude intrusion.
|
|
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 160
I agree. Not that Gather cares what any of us actually think. This is actually going to backfire on them with people making sure that their articles don't "relate" to anything. I know I will.
I hate this change and already complained to gather about it. I hope everybody emails them saying they hate it. They'll listen if enough people do.
Now I know why Charles was linked up to me when I used hedgehogs as a tag!
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! Surely you jest? Is that like how they listened to us about how we hated the comment removal option?
Thank you so much for the belly laugh this morning, Your Eminence!
This sucks.
One of my "favorite" articles is now linked to two serial muck mavens that I cannot abide.
I will add "Wimsey Cult" as a tag to all my articles, and see if I can get loose of these stupid "related links".
Precisely, Lisa.
The folks who care about the context (and readership) of the articles they publish are at work to take their works out of random linkages.
From what I read (somewhere -- Wilma's article?) the Gather bot that dredges up the links looks at key words in the article's *title* as well as the tags. As such, try changing the title of your articles as well as the tags and see if that helps.
I learned that it's to Gather's benefit to have many new articles published, regardless of what they say, so "Gather Screws Itself with Links" might make us laugh, but it's just traffic for them and quite good. So, a bunch of protest articles is more like positive reinforcement.
So, what we need is a single article where we can converse and figure out how to "fix" the problem, or perhaps take the entire conversation elsewhere. Where is Sandy?
Back then, they listed "other articles of interest" on the left hand column of our articles. For days, they listed the KEO article that started the whole mess to the left of his article.
(She did not receive the same smack on the hands for spamming everyone's mail boxes with her URGENT notice.)
J5K was, of course, brilliant in his response, but I also believe her own shameless republishing efforts worked against her that time because she has never (to my awareness) succeeded so grossly since then.
Unfortunately, with the new bot-applied references in our articles, there is no way to prevent the appearance that we admire some other author -- her or anyone else. I've seen the complaints already, and I'm thinking of switching everything but my hedgehog articles to "just me" until they disable this new feature.
I'm checking in often, though. I'm so pissed. I keep thinking about all the times I changed my tags this morning and how I got linked to 3 different villains each time. I refuse to publicize idiots on my articles.
There are also certain tags to stay away from. I's sure anything political will stir up muck, but on one of my recent articles, I had "child custody", and that brought all the related articles. (Nothing from "language" or "language rights".)
On the plus side, the first related article on my "losing comments" post is "Gather is annoying the crap out of me". I don't object to that one.
At my first stop, I was flattered to have Fleyshie Friday recommended on my page. The other two were mine, and then there were three more of mine. So, I wasn't too upset with the new feature.
But then I reached the second stop, where a Pit Bull recipe was listed on my page. Knowing that those recipes are often "not original", and even worse, copied almost directly from what one of my friends published a day or two before, this made me sad. (Sad will do, since I am trying to stay as positive as I possibly can.)
Next, I added douce bag, social retardation, and something about an anus to my tags. Now, I am advertising The Chive on my page instead of someone whose work I do not recommend.
I have a project in mind that will take a little planning. Will be back soon.
One of the many rules that apply ONLY to me.
BTW, I don't think this is like our other 'requests' of gather. The sudden upwell of dislike seems to be much more ubiquitous. I think it will be easier to show a majority of unhappy members. Gather may listen to that.
Charles, the bot-linking you describe is the worst of the worst. No program/bot could possible comprehend the matter of the articles and the inappropriateness of the link it created. It is disrespectful to the woman, certainly, and also highlights the worthlessness of the new feature rather well.
Sandy, you're right, too -- my tags are nearly always useless, and I have seen many that are flat-out hilariously left-field, but only you were ever reprimanded.
gotta run -- dead battery emergency
--It would be nice if article authors could choose for themselves whether or not to have these "features" attached to their articles (ie., some way to turn them on or off).
--On my article exposing a Writing Essential Editor's plagiarism, I was careful not to include the offender's name. The "Related Articles" feature said what I chose not to by providing a link to the plagiarist's article right under my article. How convenient! Unfortunately it didn't work the other way (her plagiarized article did not link to my article exposing her and her attempted cover-up).
--I was pleased to see one of Nippy's articles in my "Related Articles" because I had used Clifton Webb as a tag.
--"Related Articles" will be an excellent way for me to find all those alphabet games I've been looking for.
--"Related Articles" also shows how many times the author has previously published the exact same piece.
--Despite all these wonderful benefits, I still don't care for it, for some of the reasons raised here. I do like the "More By..." feature.
--I can only imagine what "Related Articles" will do to the already sometimes volitile political content here. Same with religion. Will Charles' articles start showing up on Jesus/Prayer circle articles?
--I like the idea of subverting it all via specific tags, although what's to keep anyone from catching on and using the same tags?
--The "More By...." list includes links to articles that are flagged by the community (pending review). These articles do not show up on the author's namespace. Awesome!
--I have discovered that the "More By..." articles listed depends on whether you have guarded viewing on or off. A good thing.
More as I think of it....
Anikó, I never checked that. Thanks for doing so. It is a little better that that's the case, but it seems only accidental. Similar inappropriate links are almost guaranteed.
The "more by" feature would be a lot better if they let you pick which three articles you want displayed. Of course, the ability to organize our content in some way other than chronological order is something people have been asking for for a long time, so it's not even considered.
(And then pesky people like me put all kinds of external links in their articles, and take people away from the site....)
I'm really sad for them. Someone compared the place to a toilet the other day and I said I thought I saw signs that they had the plunger in hand. Unfortunately, I think Aniko is correct. There's no way to plunge or snake this problem and putting a fuzzy pink tank cover on the toilet isn't going to fool anyone.
I suggest we take up a collect and buy Gather a conference table. Wouldn't it be great if they could all 'gather', discuss all possible pros and cons of a new move, predict what the community will do with a change, and plan ahead?
should be: "based on very little research".
The toilet would smell like perfumed poo, and it would trigger allergies in those susceptible (like me).
When they had a list of suggested tags I would click on the list till I got tired of clicking. Tag search worked so poorly that I saw no point in trying to help things.
Anyway, the break was enough time for me to ponder the "related articles" linkage -- it's another instance of "You can't choose your relatives" isn't it?
We choose our friends as we create links to their content and give a tip of the hat now and again, but we have no control (or awareness) with regard to who else might write a similar article, pro or con, funny or sad, intelligible or gibberish.
So, are articles get related one way or another. Here's my biggest issue: putting the links within the boundaries of the article that we write makes it appear that they are part of our article.
There is no reason they could not have used a sidebar and left our "personal space" unviolated.
I objected when I changed things four times on the article I wrote today and got links for three different people that I avoid like the plague at the end of my article.
Now, I'm thinking they can, and will, do as they want. They always do. So can I. I'll do my best to see that everything I write either links to hedgehogs or Gus. Or both. I'll screw with them.
I'll try it tonight.
Exactly. But one wonders what they're paying their staff and no doubt consultants for.
Yes. (Sandy submitted her recent article on group spamming yesterday and it was accepted.)
Danielle, I have tried for an hour to get to this page and comment but kept getting a 404 error message. It's probably another Gather improvement.
Gee, was I "grumbling?" I would REALLY like to see Gather take this improvement back. It does appear that we are recommending those other articles. I think it's really stupid to presume to link "related articles" to poetry. I have to say I was relieved that they have not yet done linking with the images.
I was wondering if you published an article with the title of "Hi" and no tags, what articles would be related.
I agree about bombarding Gather with our complaints.
"This feature is based on the tags you use on your article. Therefore, if you use no tags, then your article should not feature any suggested."
Here's some background on the new "related articles" links. We've been doing this on the images and video pages forever and people told us that they liked it. We asked around and the general consensus was that if you found something that you enjoy then more similar articles would be a good thing. And, if you like this person's article then you might like other articles by this person. Simple right?
Well, here's the trick. The related articles are found based on the tags you use. If your tags are on topic then the related articles will also be on topic. No tags, then no related articles. So select tags thoughtfully, don't use a thousand of them, and don't use tags that have nothing to do with your content.
One thing about inappropriate tags: Tag searching never worked well. I gave up on appropriate tags and inserted words and phrases that amused me for a long time. Then I gave up and used a couple of more or less appropriate ones. I dunno. I still think of tags as a way of decorating an article rather than a way to make it easy for others to find.
although then I'd never get to recommend Dannielle S. cuz she's leaving me in limbo for ever an ever :(
Come on, be a sport
<-- claims, "Sackful of Farina" as tag o' choice.
What's the matter with you people?!
I don't necessarily mind the "Related Articles" deal so much--yet (I haven't looked to see what "Recommendations" are attached to my content)--except for the fact that it looks like it's a part of someone's article. Perhaps it could be delineated so that it doesn't look like part of the article, as the related images are. Perhaps under the Permalink box or the groups and tags or even at the end of the comment thread would be better?
In any case, I'm considering putting a couple of lines at the bottom of my articles like this
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
and possibly a disclaimer that "Related Articles" may or may not have anything to do with the above (my) content and are neither endorsed nor selected by me. I am lazy, so this may or may not happen to my past articles. Also, many of them are in Moderated Groups. I hate to edit and resubmit.
Did you see the part where satirical articles on religion get linked to people's prayers for their lost loved ones? Not good.
I have noticed that these links were used with images and said so in a previous comment. I also know that these "suggestions" were *near* the images but clearly added by Gather, not by the person who published hte image.
You need to do writers the same courtesy -- take those links and set them apart from the article. Surely you could set up a sidebar similar to the one you had back when I first joined gather in 2006.
Wouldn't it would make sense to replace the 'popular tags' list with this, since they obviously think the 'popular tags' weren't good enough?
(And, I suppose I should apologize here on the thread for leaving Flit in limbo; I'm glad she nudged me, since I hadn't looked at the invitations list in ages. We're connected now.)
We're totally unimportant to them. I vote to screw with them through our tags. It's a ridiculous site, so I'm ready to treat it as such.
They made the call.
HA! Between you and Charles you are keeping me laughing today!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------