This is essentially a follow-up to George Corneliussen's article, "Gather: Read All About It," especially George's comments on the focus of Gather's identity.
I joined Gather in mid-January after reading a front-page article in the Boston Globe that emphasized Gather's objective of "bringing order to tens of millions of blogs." The report said Gather would organize content by topic and provide a community ranking system to offer its readers the best material available and not the flood that overwhelms Internet surfers.
Concurrent with the Globe article, Jim Manzi of Gather offered his insights on the "Literary Industrial Complex." (See Gather posting.) A key to understanding elements of Gather, writes Jim, is that in the Gather model "good content will force out bad and reward the most valued." While envisioning a new kind of user-generated media site, he cautions that this "Republic of Information" combines sharing collectively and being responsible individually. -- "There cannot be mob rule over content."
When I joined Gather two months ago, there were 8,500 members. I've seen a recent figure of 13,000 and would guess this is a low estimate. Three months from now? Will it be 50,000? A year? 500,000? Will we be back at square one with an overwhelming flood of articles impossible to find time or inclination to navigate?
The voting system is designed to allow the community to bring the best material to the surface. In principle, this should work but what's going to happen when thousands of articles are posted daily? I kept tabs on one piece I posted: it was pushed off-screen by twenty new postings in as many minutes before anyone had time to see or comment on it.
Gather Groups like this one provide an alternative checkpoint. They draw members with special interests and make it easier to keep one's head above the outpourings. However, to some extent, they've the potential to defeat the grand objective of Gather by hiving off sections of its readership base.
The third element is 'Editor's Picks.' Currently these run to 120 pages of picks or some 1200 items. It's here where I believe the key to Gather's future success lies in finding the best material available.
George Corneliussen's article draws valid and important comparisons with Gather and the heyday of newspapers: "Gather can become to the Internet what newspapers were to print media in their golden era." George put three day's research into his findings, which I recommend to all.
I would add that Gather can also become to the Internet what the most successful magazine in the United States was to its readers in its golden era.
Consider these statements of purpose, from the first issue of this magazine in 1922:
1) Each article of enduring value and interest today, next month, or a year hence
2) Such articles as one talks about and wishes to remember
3) A most convenient means of keeping one's information account open -- of reading stimulating articles on a wide variety of subjects.
I am talking about Reader's Digest, the most successful magazine in world history. With one hundred million readers, the Digest faced many of the challenges I see on the horizon for Gather.
I hear groans from highbrows but here's not the place to discuss policies or editing processes of Reader's Digest. I'm also not thinking of the current version of the magazine founded in 1922 by DeWitt Wallace and Lila Acheson Wallace, but of the Digest in its heyday and the innovations of DeWitt Wallace.
Every month, the Digest's editors would read a staggering 550 publications -- magazines, newspapers, periodicals, weeklies, including more than 30 from foreign countries -- 200 of these covered in depth with recorded comments on each article. The editors sought selections from scores of books on every subject imaginable. They sorted through tens of thousands of contributions from readers.
As the number of magazines began to drop off, the Digest went directly to hundreds of writers, both in-house and from every walk of life. Ultimately, the Digest's editors picked thirty-one articles each month from thousands of items scrutinized by the team. The articles fell into twenty-nine categories, ranging from Human Interest to Sex and Marriage, from Aviation to Self-Help. And yes, they also had "tags," though then they were called "symbols." Voting was perhaps more brutal: "Usable," "Possible," and "NU."
I believe Gather's editors face similar challenges and potential. As Gather grows and contributors post an endless stream of articles, it will be up to the editors to provide readers with items of enduring and lasting interest.
It's not a question of "digesting" people's original material. Gather's tools already provide limitations on length and peer review through voting and group participation. It is a matter of focusing Gather and preventing the tsunami that can destroy it.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 29
Errol, I agree with Kathryn.
You written a well thought out article and I appreciate that.
I am going to post an article no more than one a week, probably not even that. I am going to read articles of interest within my network and groups and comment. I plan to browse general articles and comment as time allows.
Gather is a great place to gather.
I appreciate what you have written and am glad comments so far have hit the mark and given support, Errol. Your inside information working as a RD executive during your career is very helpful to affect Gather guidance.
My mother, Madeliene, who was born in 1900, once told me RD was her literary education!
I believe Gather is off to a good start, and as Joyce said, we early birds can serve as beacons who a have profound effect on Gather's future. G
The fact you point out in your article that hits closest to home for me is the sheer volume of material developing. It actually bothers me that I can't check out every article published. Even though I know it's physically impossible, I still wish there was a way I could do it.
I also know that every idea submitted has to be judged by not only its emotional merit, but its financial merit as well. Having said that, an idea popped into my head while reading your article.
What if there was a way to post new articles in a synopsis-type format that included a link to the entire article? This is the only way I can think of to allow a reader to browse a higher volume of articles on any give visit.
These synopses could be free from ratings or comments, those could be attached to the actual article. In this sytem, all articles would have an even chance of finding an audience ( except for the order in which the synposes were posted).
Gather could post a tutorial that instructed writers in a universal format for these synopsis', so that perspective readers would be scanning all new articles on an even basis.
I literally did just think of this while I was reading your article. Later today, I am going to flush the idea out more and post an article about it.
You article brought up a very good point .
This is by far the most reasoned and well organized piece of editorial writing I've seen so far on the Gather site. Thank you for publishing it.
Gather has great potential but will never become the internet equivalent of RD. The internet is very diverse and there are millions of blogs which people are reading and no one site will ever reach the power and influence of a RD in its heyday. For example, the huge internet sites like Slate and Salon have huge readershipo bases, but they've probably seen as much growth as they'll ever get.
Having said that, the growth potential of blogs is tremendous. My own blog went from moderate hits to an astonishing number both in the US and abroad after I subscribed to RSS feeds and I seem to have kept many of them judging by the numbers. It was truly astonishing and one of the greatest things the internet provides a writer.
Most articles here have a very short shelf life indeed. You get initial comments for a day or so and then the piece gets buried, worthy of more time on stage or not. Beyond the initial two days, you're lucky to pick up one or maybe two comments over time. People are too busy reading new stuff coming over the transom and you're yesterday's news.
The Editor's Pick solution also seems like shoveling against the tide. I mean, how many picks can you make in a day? With hundreds of articles flowing in daily and maybe two dozen of them worthy in the editors' minds, it's really difficult to spotlight them and give attention where it's due.
The common lament here is that, as Connections grow, the ability to keep up with friends' and colleagues' articles becomes first difficult and then impossible. Naturally posters repeatedly read the work of other members who they've bonded with socially, and in doing so, miss out chances to read good work by new blood.
Hmn. Have to think about it, but can't really see an easy out. Perhaps if each group did what sadi's poetry group (daily best) is doing and chose a "Best of the Week"? Then Gather could have a linked page with groups and the best of the week for each of them. Problem would be, who picks? Then enter the dragon, politics. And the dragon's teeth: hard feelings.
(...waves white flag)
The sheer volume of material is obviously a concern we all share. I would also add, an individual responsibility, as quoted above.
We can do our part in making a success of a brave new media idea by following one or two of the old rules: Put our personal editor up front before hitting the "print" button. Offer our best work of lasting interest to other Gather readers, not indulge in a new form of vanity publishing…
Gather already has the dynamics to drive the best work to the fore: Community Picks (with four criteria and three time selections) + Editor's Picks (Five daily) + Group Picks (already beginning, as GR says above). These plus Tags to browse content from 100 different angles.
Of course, readers can go and seek for themselves, the gems that lie buried. From my experience, only the fervent few will make the effort and how deep will they dig?
"Best of the Week" – "Best of the Month" –"Best of the Year" – An awesome task for the editors, yes, but not impossible given the array of tools. These selections can be Portals to the Groups and the work of individuals who make up Gather.
On the problem, KR, of the dragon politics, remember the admiral's advice: "Damn the torpedoes...go ahead...Full speed!"
I realize an article needs three 10's to get on the "Highest Rated" lists, but what would the four criteria be? I only see 10 stars everywhere and the worst case of grade inflation this side of the Ivy League. Taking a glance at all of the "perfect 10's" generated here in a week, you will be overwhelmed by the Hit Parade. Is it possible? Could all of those articles give a real-life glossy magazine editor pause and cause her to say,"Hmn... maybe I'll publish this piece"?
Without ratings categories and clear definitions of what a 10 is, what a 9 is, what an 8 is, etc., the ratings as they stand remain an imperfect tool to "find" excellent stuff here. Why? Because 50% of what's written here is "excellent stuff," according to the stars, and that's frankly more about social dynamics than literary merit.
Maybe, with a more clear definition, there'd be fewer knee-jerk (finger-jerk?) 10's handed out (like Confederate nickels)? Maybe if readers saw a ratings guide similar to this:
10 -- Artistically superior stylistically, grammatically, organizationally. Worthy of consideration for publication in a magazine or newspaper. Around 1 of every 100 ratings you choose will qualify for this rating.
9 -- Artistically strong stylistically, grammatically, organizationally. With minor changes only, this could become worthy of consideration for publication in a magazine or newspaper. Around 5 of every 100 ratings you choose will qualify for this rating.
8 -- As a first draft, this idea behind this shows great promise due to artistic merit stylistically, grammatically, and organizationally. With another draft, this piece could some day become worthy of consideration for publication in a magazine or newspaper. Around 20 of every 100 ratings you choose will qualify for this rating.
7 -- etc., etc., and you get the idea
Maybe clear definitions like THAT would give people pause. I mean, if I know I only rate ONE out of 100 pieces a ten, I might be more chary with the 10s.
Or maybe with separate categories of style, grammar, cohesion of message, artistic effect, etc., people would be less likely to click 10s across the board (because their guilt is assuaged by giving at least ONE 10 on ONE category).
I don't know. Back to the crystal ball...
I was considering Community Picks etc. as starting point for Editors looking for The Best of Gather. (The fourth criteria, maybe the wrong word, was "Movers and Shakers" category on the pull-down list.) Nothing more than an aide to real editorial judgment, not the plague of 10s.
It's not the numbers, stupid, I want to say, but the quality. Alas, the numbers game appears to be driving the votes. That plus the horror of ruffling feathers and so on...Alas, years of sitting on the other side of the desk taught one how to say "No." In the nicest possible way, of course. (I had folks write to thank me for my fine rejection letters.)
Right up there with uncritical votes is the skewered stats on 'commments.' The 101-writer generated "thanks" for "saying thanks." I could've racked up an additional sixteen comments here by replying individually.
As mentioned before, some self-discipline is needed to make this work. Wishful thinking, I suppose, given the hoary old beast called Vanity and his publishing sister.
I'm in the middle of a book and don't have the amazing chunks of time others devote. I believe there's enormous potential here and like you, look deeply into the crystal ball.
Having said that, and stating up-front that I'm here to make trouble, not friends, I'd make these suggestions to build a better Gather or destroy it outright (you choose):
1) Get rid of Gather Points. They are a purposeless, Ego-Plumping abomination, and they are the enemy of good content.
2) Get rid of the ability to post an article to more than one group at a time. This leads to group spamming, probably in aid of Point Hoarding and Ego Plumping.
3) Get rid of 'Rate this article." People here either are too nice or have no taste at all. If every article gets a 10, it loses all meaning. Scrap it.
4) ONE NEW ARTICLE PER DAY. It is virtually impossible for a normal human being to create more than one piece of quality writing per day. Otherwise, there is no other motivation for people to care about what they post here. If H. L. Mencken rises from the dead and joins Gather, he can be exempt.
5) Destroy all humans.
I agree with your comment about the challenge of creating one quality piece a day. I've been a writer for years and at day's end count myself lucky if I have 500 words in the bag. Words to be honed many times before I would think of "publishing." I fear many members would balk at your idea of self-discipline. I have read some fine, well-crafted pieces but also witness a torrent of lesser material that drowns out the gems.
I've read the arguments about good material rising to the surface or being "tagged" by visitors to the site. I continue to believe that the ball remains with the Gather Editors, seeking the best work of lasting interest to the community rather than allowing this exciting new media venture to degenerate an exercise in vanity publishing.
When the Editors created a Best of Gather Group, frequent postings came from members indulging in self-promotion.
And, yes, exempt H.L. Mencken!
What about limiting our publishing to 2 - 3 articles a day and 3-4 images.
I would like to have the ability to have more Alpha Sorted listings. I'd also like to have alpha tabs to find members, groups, tags and articles or images.
I am probably one of the few here who at this time has no interest in publishing what I write.
I am very involved in the online brain injury community. However, I quickly learned that many with acquired brain injury (ABI) could not handle more than 3 paragraphs of information at a time. This meant if I wrote something longer and wanted to be helpful it would need to have definitive breaks and reminders to break readings into smaller pieces.
With that said, I have been learning a great deal about how to comment, organize and write on Gather. It is serving my purpose.
Anita Dehghani
TBI Survivor
Chico, California
***
ABI News 2-U
a Yahoo Group Newsletter
URL http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/ABINews2U/
the answer, no
What joy it was to see you at my reading in Boston, Errol. I felt honored and I know the Gather team was really pleased to meet you and get to know you better. I would love to buy a signed copy of your book Brazil if you would send me a message and let me know how much it will cost to buy and mail. I loved the section you published back in January I believe. I have your address so I'll pop a check in the mail right away. Thanks so much.
It is likely that the editorial staff will need to grow in order to truly bring the best quality to the front lines
On the one side, we can safely state that management has certainly not lived up to our expectations of ensuring that quality is highlighted and made easier to find in the deluge. On the flip side though, so many people have given up that there are fewer and fewer quality pieces among the flotsam, making the worries about not being able to read all of them moot. It's just a question of how to find them now....
Bart's newsletter sent me over here.
This is where I see Gather's power and service does exist.
As far as ratings go in any sense, I do not find that as important as what is said. Even with the ability to rate as you read, as too many here rate friends high, even if they do not agree, and some here rate high on everyone's works; inwhich both taint the rating process horridly. The truth is, that ratings will always be based on agreed views and interests. This is close to Lord Byron's view of Critics, with the exception that in this, it is not always the failed person, but the limited view of the rater, with the more honest views being the minority. This does not mean by any stretch that some very good writers will be ignored, but that it will limit the number of good writers to be recognized in this fashion.
Editor's picks are also going to be limited by what they can read, and see in a day, with the number of posts that are posted.
Errol, you are so correct in what you wrote here. I just thought to expound on a few points, the things that I saw.