Break Gather in Two?

After giving this some thought, and getting input from members, and giving it more thought; I think Gather has a split personality. I think there are one of two basic intents that writers have when they publish, and members have when they look for something to read and/or comment on;

There is the serious side of writing, and the lighter side.

There is a sort of "old school"; Gather as a place to develop writing talent and engage in rigorous discussion of "intricate" matters, which became the unique "personality trait"of the site. Within that theme there were always less cerebral sub plots, but it's what gave the community a sense of identity.

In the thread of a recent article (/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976795701), which asked about how to deal with the growing volume of short, not truly "literary" offerings, generally intended to provoke playful banter or merely offhand opinion style reactions, and the resultant "chat room" like atmosphere that is developing on Gather; a pattern emerged. The consensus seemed to be that there was nothing inherently wrong with the less weighty new aspect, but that it was crowding out the very thing that made Gather special.

George Corneliussen put it this way;

"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."

But is it possible to preserve the "library" part of Gather in the process of growing more popular? Or will the trend toward "circus" inevitably overwhelm the once heady personality, and the "old school" vision, of a true writers site, fade into the strip mall ubiquity along the super-highway of the internet?

What if there were a division, nothing solid mind you, just a click or two, that separated the "library" from the "circus"? Based on the notion that;

There are two fairly distinct intents of writers and readers that are 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.

So here is what I propose: Two basic categories, called something like; "Serious Writing", and "Food for Thought". Every article would be placed in one of these categorizes, by the author, as they saw fit. The theory being; that if one wished a high level of participation, one would want to place their article, on the side of Gather, where the folks looking for the kind of thing the article offered would most likely be. Articles poorly placed would generally draw little interest or response.

A second, and not necessarily important differentiation, could be the way the two sides were "scored", in terms of points. In order to keep the "library" well stocked, and maintain the "old school personality", as well as offer a just reward for the increased efforts of those investing more in their work; it would seem reasonable to grant more points for articles on the "library" side.

While this might cause some to fudge the line, blatant placement of "circus" items in the "library" would be a risky wager, and articles that were close calls might as well be in the library anyway. The powers that be could, by adjusting the differential as needed, maintain a balance between the two halves of Gather.

Wutcha think ??