Gather: What's it worth to you?

Sometimes those little pieces can be fun, but I agree with you. When those same pieces garner 10's and end up on the 'highest rated' list, something is wrong. I do not rate those articles at all, unless one is rated a 10 by a lot of people. Then I give it a 5 to neutralize some of the adoration. And the author (?) should not be offended.

One technique that would be helpful is if people utilized groups properly. Instead, the seem to publish to every group they belong to. Foolish.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Getting into something like that could throw the people here solely seeking points up in arms with the management, which, if anything is counterporductive.

Who would be the ones to determine what is and is not invested? In example. I might not think that a long artlcle about how the US is a terrorist country with 25 photos of blood and gore is invested, but someone else might. However, I might find a one page 1,000 word story much more invested and entertaining and of better quality than the aforementioned long article. Where does it start and where does it stop? Who is the allmighty one to decree what is and is not invested?

I think chaging the point system to decrease on articles someone (who that is, I certainly would not know) determines of merit would cause troubles. First off a more complex system is not always a good thing. Second of all it's all a matter of taste and opinion. Do we know for a fact that something written with forthought gets the same points as something halphazardly written? (I'm seriously curious on this by the way). Or are we assuming this is the case?

If you are talking length that will encourage people to ramble on senselessly for 4,000 words instead of rambling senselessly for 500 words? Is one better than the other? I don't think so.

Nicola - I think that idea of forcing someone to comment if they want to vote for or against an article is an excellent idea. You are right there are people out there that are out for revenge. Revenge for what? Perhaps an unfavorable remark you left them that they cared not for, perhaps jealousy or any reasons under the stars. I agree something should and could be done about that particular aspect.

John, the rating system is universally loathed on Gather and there have been umpteen articles on this topic since I first joined the site at the end of March. Indeed, Kevin V. created discussion groups specific to this very issue.

The first preference of almost everyone - and there must by now have been many hundreds of comments published - is to ditch the entire damn system.

Gather management is aware of members' opinions on this whole question of ratings and has said on numerous occasions that fixing the problems (but not chucking the system) is a high priority. But still nothing has actually happened.

It is not simply a matter of one-line articles being able to be rated at 10 points. Other issues include nearly everything being awarded 10 points/ stars - with one notable exception. Many of us on Gather have been subject to sabotage attacks via the rating system - being allocated poisoned ones when virtually all comments indicate that the particular article is of high quality. This has been able to occur because points/ stars can be awarded anonymously (as always occurs with poison ones). One solution offered on numerous occasions is that in order to award points/ stars one must comment - thus identifying the person. Not commenting means being unable to rate.

However, the thinking underlying ratings is fundamentally flawed and 'unfixable.' Quality is subjective and cannot be made objective via some mysterious algorithm, as utilized by Gather when people award the gold stars/ elephant stamps.

The rating system has essentially nothing to do with quality. It is a means for Gather to allocate points to motivate competition amongst members; and with points equating to cash/ gift vouchers, it encourages sausage factory writing to be published to as many people as possible - with the latter encouraging people to connect to virtually everyone on Gather. Conversely, there is absolutely nothing to encourage quality writing.

All the above has been said over and over by umpteen members.

Jennifer,

"Do we know for a fact that something written with forthought gets the same points as something halphazardly written? (I'm seriously curious on this by the way). Or are we assuming this is the case?"

Nobody seems to know, consensus is that it makes no difference what you post. But management won't tell what the "algorithm" they use to calculate points is, which in general is good I think, since folks would exploit any details if they were know. But a general concept such as we're discussing would not seen to be so vulnerable.

Magi,

I'm aware of most of the "rating" debate I think, and that's one reason I didn't touch on that.

I personally think a voluntary "categories" system, very broadly done, might keep the "one liners" and such somewhat separate from "serious" stuff, and that is what I'm more interested in really. I don't much care about 'points'.

John, sometimes, or, often, the pieces that are the most well-thought out are those that may receive the fewest comments.

Gatherers often prefer something they can easily relate to; a well-thought out, perhaps even a researched piece, may or may not be as 'easily relatable' as something dashed off more quickly.

The reason that articles ABOUT Gather receive a lot of responses, is, of course, that every Gatherer usually has something to say about Gather. Gather articles touch us all.

All of what I've said is obvious, and really doesn't need to be said.

The deeper, more reflective artilcles or poetry get good responses, but topical articles usually get more.

Also, don't forget the question of network size. An author with one or no connectees will not have notifications published in many Gatherer's inboxes.

An author with many, or even many, many connectees will have all of that person's articles and comments mentioned in the email notificaiton inboxes of many, many members, thus leading to more comments, more page views, and the greater likihood of being mentioned in one of the most read or most discussed list.

A lot of mechanical factors such as what I've mentioned go into the numbers game here on Gather.

Quality as such is subjective.

As far as ratings go, ratings continues to be important to Gather management, it seems.

One popular suggestion over the past few months has been removing anonymous ratings and substituting a mandatory 'name' along with the rating.

That would fix some of the 1-rating problem.

Good article. a 10 from me.

And, hopefully, a lot of comments for you.

Thank you for publishing to Unofficial Gatherholics.

I've made this a Feature.

I've made this the Lead Feature in Unofficial Gatherholics.

I see John. I think there's probably a reason and a good one why we are not fully aware how points are awarded. I can see people positing one liner nonsense replies that have nothing to do with the article. (Clearly trying to boost points) in that respect, I do agree with you John.

While my strengths lie in fictional writing, and I'm not the greatest article writer, I'm here first and foremost for the community, writing and photo aspect of this site. The points are a nice incentive to think of nice things to share, but they are not my sole reason for being here as often as I am. (Which I think is the way management intended it and it should be.)

Kathryn,

Thanks, I'm wondering now about the effect of having something as simple as a two category voluntary division. One called something like "serious writing" and the other, something like "lighter topics".

As Gather grows, it would seem that at some point the 'recent comment' page will become very difficult to keep up with during peek hours and the 'recent articles' page will be too. And there seems to be a sort of natural division between things presented as serious matters for consideration, and things presented for amusement or quick response chatter.

Some folks come specifically for one or the other, and some choose what suits their mood. Dividing them would really only mean the inconvenience of one more click and load for those that liked to jump around from one to the other frequently at will. If that is in reality a small percentage of members, what would the problem be in breaking articles down in a basic fashion such as this?

I agree, people need to utilize groups properly. I try to publish articles only to those groups which the article is applicable.

Gather management is as unresponsive as the congress of the united states. I wish I had a dollar for ever word critizinfg the point system in the past 3 month.

Melissa,

I do to, this time I kinda broke that pattern to get input from poets and such. They (and I am one) are in an odd position when it comes to length of articles, since it can take hours to write a 10 line poem.

John,

I noticed that, and I only wrote this because of the recent influx of quick post artists. I have a hunch growth will force management's hand soon on the matter of these, if they wish to maintain the reputation for quality writing.

john...this is a good article, well thought out and not demeaning to others in any way...just your opinion on how you see things. it is a good article too as you have gotten people to think, including me.

here are my thoughts:

i had written an article awhile back about expectations. i think this is what you are presenting...your expectations of how gather should be run. everyone has them. and some folks have different expectations and this is where most disagreements begin on this site.

i think that there are two primary reasons people come to write on this particular site and please correct me if you feel otherwise: To write and to connect.

there may be a few who only come to rack up points but that is not what i am seeing for the most part.

writing comes in a variety and range just as people do. some writing is serious and cerebral and some writing is entertaining. some writing is to make known strong convictions and some writing is to release stress. some writing is for the purpose of becoming a better writer and some writing is merely to make friends and connect with others.

can this full range of writing and communicating co-exist on the same site? i think it can.

the trouble comes with the reward systems that a site employs. i have seen this on every single site where i have been a participant, that people will fight to the death over points, stars, top 50 lists, and highly subjective and quite often meaningless rating scales. are the ratings and measures fair? they never will be. someone will always find an objection to such things. and hear me out...i do agree with you...the system could be/should be revamped here. but alas...we have no such control over such things.

what we do have control over is ourselves. i have developed a mantra for my participation in on-line groups and sites and that is..."DON'T REACT-DO!" it works splendidly for me. it doesn't truly matter in the scheme of things what others are doing or not doing, what matters is what you are doing. if you want to see good quality writing as you see it, do it! set an example. feel pride in what you write. what others do is in no way diminishing the quality of your creation. is the New Yorker worried that People magazine probably has more of a readership? i am guessing not. they just do their thing.

good post...you got me to thinking about what matters and what doesn't. thank you john.

Gather did have a bunch of categories back in January, but dispensed with them when they got out of Beta in February.

People have a hard time understanding which group to publish to, let alone which category their story belongs in.

Also, people try to publish to as many groups as possible, so to increase the chances of their being read and commented upon.

I fear that having categories would produce the same result. Either people wouldnt' know or wouldn't care which category they published in.

And many categories wouldn't really fit either, or would fit both.

On one hand, I see that Gather is trying to portray itself as a serious site in its ads. On the other hand, the conversation starters seem to get higher ratings and more discussion than some of the more weighty topics or creative pieces.

If conversation starters lead to more page views and visits for Gather, I don't foresee them discouraging those people from posting or earning equal points to longer articles. I think the main thing members can do is to post more comments and ratings to the types of articles that they enjoy and try to show that there is more of a demand for them.

There's no way to know for certain, since Gather refuses to answer our questions regarding the way points are earned. What I believe I have 'read' them say is they left this in the hands of the community. They gave us a rating system and a comment thread. What we do with those determines what 'matters'. I think as long as the "community" rates a one line non-article ten and gives it a hundred comments, the powers that be believe that is what we want to see here. As long three paragraph articles with errors in each line and no real content are rated high, those will earn as many point as a thousand word work of art. I am disappointed in the community that refuses to understand this.

I agree that nonsense like word-association games or "how many things did you see on a TV show last night?" should not be considered, or rated, on the same scale as real writing. Nor do I think Gather is the place for them. This is what chat rooms are for. On the other hand, separating pieces by labeling them as either "frivolous" or "serious" can also lead to problems. What if, as is usually the case, I put a frivolous spin on a serious topic?
Basically, Gather needs a strenuous housecleaning. Too many overlapping groups, too many useless tags, too much clutter overall. Do we really need two places to check for "articles" or "comments", etc. when we sign in? Do we really need long lists of tags to attach to everything we write? Do we really need a dozen different groups for recipes or religious discussion or jokes? Why can't all groups covering the same ground be consolidated into one easy to find topic? What is the point of tags, in the first place? And why is the rating system such a mystery? I don't expect everyone who reads my input to rate it, but I'd like to know how many people actually read it...that might be a guideline for ratings.
Basically, what Gather needs is one word: simplify! Every stray thought of every member does not have to become the basis for a group. Encouraging this practice by awarding points is self-destructive to the site... it leads to more clutter, makes it more difficult to navigate and will eventually cause it to topple entirely.

Ruth, I understand some of the need for tags. I for one have looked up an article using tags to find it. I guess it is kind of like a Gather search engine.
The point system is pretty much useless, I think. I don't really keep up with my points. But I do think the rating on the points should be different. If we have a one-liner or some "article" in the games area (I think it should be in a separate forum) then the 1-10 star rating should score less points than the more serious topics. That way each author can get the points they are striving for based on what they are writing.
Just my 2 cents.

The circus always draws more people to it than the library does. It's been that way since circuses and libraries have coexisted on this planet.
That doesn't mean the library is any less valuable, it just means that more people want to go to the circus than the library.
Funny thing is, you can find lots of books about circuses at the library, but you won't find one book about libraries at the circus.

And from another point of view, I can tell you that seeing 12 million articles on the Iraq war and politics is tiresome, no matter how well written they are. There is too wide a variety of people who have varying degrees of ability, willingess, and perhaps even time to post in the same manner and fashion. If you want Gather to be exclusively for critiquing serious writers and a place for their work then Gather needs to put the hammer down and start moderating articles. That in itself will lead to an even larger meltdown IMO as I have observed it on many boards before.

I mentioned before that there might be a need for being able to flag an article so that it can be critiqued and for serious feedback, but I got little if any response. One suposes that such a flag could bring attention to articles that people have spent a lot of time developing and working on, and would get the kind of feedback people are looking for.

I don't think there's anything wrong with Gather in the current form, with the exception of some technical issues that I doubt will be addressed.

As well, I had the thought the other day that some of the games like word association are actually good for people who are just starting to write. It certainly helps develop a larger vocabulary and gets people thinking "outside" their own particular box.

"Why can't all groups covering the same ground be consolidated into one easy to find topic?" (Ruth)

This question to me crystallizes the problem I see with the current trend toward "one liner" articles and such. The answer to that question is, of course; Who decides which category an article belongs in, and why should an article be limited to any list of categories, or just one on that list?

I believe it is best for the author to decide what an article is, or is not. And "tags" and "groups" provide that power now. The difficulties with this system seem to be born of the sheer volume of articles, to a great extent. And the influx of point generating throw down articles is exacerbating what surely would occur eventually, given increased membership.

If something like a two sided Gather were initiated, I think it should remain entirely up to the author which side they saw their article as belonging too. If a "circus" piece were cast as a "library" piece", it would be subject to lack of participation in it's inappropriate location, and vise versa. It would therefor behove the author to class their work in the most fitting setting, and those that failed to do so would reap the reward they deserved (by and large).

I now see a pattern being confirmed in nearly all these comments; There are two fairly distinct intents of writers and readers that worthy of a place on Gather, but tend to create a sort of mutual animosity. Not because these intents are incompatible with Gather's purpose, or the varied interests of it's members, but because folks want to go to the "circus", or they want to go to the "library", but rarely do they want to go to the library's circus, or the circus's library.

I don't think the idea of being forced to rate something would work. I don't like the feeling that I have "committed myself" to something so that if I should lose interest halfway through, it is just my own business. I only like to rate when something touches or inspires me and the rest of the time I don't owe anybody a rating if I'm not in the mood. I think the point system is silly, too. Comments, that's one thing. They are voluntary and they come from the heart. But rating points are so arbitrary, it reminds me of school kids bickering over brownie points.

to each his/her own..I think these articles should only be viewed by the people who are like minded and agree they shouldn't be rated. You make an excellent point without being judgemental.

John-

You've pretty much hit the nail, rather eloquently, on the head for me. I think there ARE two "sides" to Gather. I like them both. But when I want the library, that's what I want. When I'm in the mood for circus, library just won't do.

I like the fact that your concept also leaves the management up to us, as authors, and as commentators. A governing body here is simply a bad idea for many reasons. (Please don't make me go into them all, I'm danged tired tonite!) I think enforcement by consensus IS a good answer.

If we rebel against articles inappropriately placed and stop rating on/commenting them, it would be a darned good start toward that. It may even save us from having to have a formal sectioning.

If we do it ourselves, we won't need cyber cops to do it for us. To me, that's one of the best parts of the place.

P.S. Olga-- I don't think you should HAVE to rate to comment. I do, however, agree that you should have to comment to rate. It could be as simple as moving our rating log to our comment boxes. Without looking at the code, I can't tell. The idea is tho, if you don't rate, it's empty stars next to your comment. If you do, then your rating of the article appears next to each comment you make on that article.

I don't rate anything I haven't commented on. I thought that was/is the way it is supposed to work. It makes perfect sense, and I had no idea that anyone would rate without reading.
I too love both sides of gather, that's one of the things that drew me here and keeps me here, dependant on my mood, I can read silly, funny things which at times I truly need, or other times when I'm in the mood for the serious things, that's what I will read.
The tags? I find articles that I'd never have found without them - and I imagine others do too. As to the amount of sameness in the groups, what if the people that started those groups, didn't think they were "that" much the same and had a slightly different perspective on what they wanted in their group, and I imagine, but don't know for sure if this is true --- it is for me. And that's the only person I can speak for, great article, thanks for the perspective.

Webwriter,

I think your approach to "rating" being displayed in the comment box is an excellent one. I would think a simple number in the corner somewhere would be fairly easy to code and load, and nothing there at all might be a good way to quietly inform that one had not rated the article.

Marilyn,

You would seem an excellent person to ask; Would "splitting" the "circus" and the "library" into two main categories significantly lessen your Gather "experience"?

And do you feel the two should be "scored" the same, or would something like say; a 1 to 1.5 ratio favoring serious work make sense to you?