A Force for Quality on Gather

There is a growing problem on Gather. It is a very complex problem, and requires a very serious response if it is to be prevented from turning Gather into a carnival of the mundane. There's nothing wrong with the "chit chat" aspect of Gather. Often it can be an entertaining diversion from the pressures and stress of life in the "real world", and a means of providing folks with a casual form of social interaction. But, this trend toward the "everyday" level of entertainment and conversation, is drowning out the more profound content and interactions that made Gather a special place to go, an island of insightfulness in the vast sea of internet "chat rooms".

The question of whether Gather is to continue as such an island, is the topic of much recent discussion and controversy. Many have been working on ways to make this place more amenable to those that wish to keep this "quality" oriented atmosphere alive and thriving, while accommodating the influx of large numbers of new members that aren't really familiar with the value it offers. Few wish to exclude, or deride folk's indulgence in, the casual and entertaining aspects offered by the less intense forms of literature. But many fear this style of interchange will destroy the continued opportunity to provide a place for those wishing a more weighty experience here.

The limited interface functions of the Gather "system", can make the finding, or even realizing the existence of, the wealth of truly thoughtful, highly skilled writers and thinkers here difficult. Enhancing the 'search' capabilities, and the precision of 'categorization' would help make locating "serious" literature and dialog easier, and the efforts to find means of instituting such enhancements are worthy of praise and support.

But such "technical" improvements will not 'in and of themselves', I don't think, provide a real solution to this "drowning out" of original and profound content, by the "lighter" side of online general hob knobbing. The erosion of a once dominant culture of serious writing and debate, is becoming extreme, and needs a "force", that is organic and naturally effective in counteracting the appeal of the "carnival barker" mentality that is bound to pervade a marketplace of ideas, where getting attention is the dominant goal.

The problem could be summarized by the inability to place a label on works that would say "high quality" in some meaningful and enduring way. Regardless of the type of material being sought out, the presence of too much attention grabbing "headline" sorts of articles, will make finding substantive articles difficult. Complex schemes of rating and featuring are possible, but require varying degrees of oversight and "judgmentalism" that present secondary problems that threaten free and open exchange of ideas, and require input that "management" quite naturally hesitates to engage in.

But there is, I believe, a means that would be easily incorporated in any enhancement scheme, that could set in motion a powerful "force" that would balance over time, the "watering down" of quality that currently, and in the future will continue, to push Gather in the direction of "box store" mediocrity. This "force" would be the amplification of one that already exists, and would require no oversight at all, beyond what individual members chose to provide. It is not a new idea, but one that I feel is not sufficiently appreciated as a viable alternative to complex, potentially objectionable, ensembles of technical "fixes" that would still require this "force" to be amplified in some way, to yield a meaningful "quality" label for any article.

The enhancement that will set such a force in motion is members' recommendation of articles. The comprehension of the long term value of adding to each member "name page" a list in some form, of articles they personally recommend to others, is not immediately graspable or quickly understood in its entirety. For, it would set in motion a "feedback loop", that would strengthen itself in many blatant, and subtle ways.

The addition of a "recommended reading" list to each "name page" would provide a way for the most powerful writing to "echo", and live on past its moment of actual pronunciation, in the din of voices vying for attention. This would put a premium on writing high quality pieces that affected people in a more profound way than evoking an immediate reaction, in the form of a "me too" or a "here's what I think about that". Folks would be enticed to create articles that had 'staying power'. That had real impact on readers, not momentary 'carnival barker' power to catch the eye.

Over time, 'real' literature would reappear on the 'comments pages', and continue to be circulated long beyond its initial publication. Those who wrote something of 'real' value to the mind and heart, would be rewarded with this "echoing" of their work. This would in turn reduce the temptation for those that actually can think and write with skill, to "lower" themselves to becoming another in the huge crowd of 'con artists', simply seeking to elicit an impulsive reaction by the casual audience.

Thus, a 'feedback loop' would be set in motion, with quality becoming an ever stronger force in the general system. People would gradually tend to pay attention to the aspects of writing that provided their work with 'legs'. And this would continue to encroach on the dominance of "trigger" articles, which are growing so ubiquitous and annoying to real writers, and those seeking meaningful interaction.

Articles that truly provoke memorable comment threads would live on as recommended articles as well, and taking time to write serious comments would begin to 'make sense' in a world of blurted out first reactions. One that 'gave a damn' about a topic, would wish to have their comments "immortalized" along with the substantive articles that would recycle through the recommendations of readers. And this would perpetuate the "quality loop", and provoke people to write articles that enticed meaningful response, not strings of petty reactions, because those responses would become a part of the article, and contribute to it's "immortality", and resultant prominence in the 'marketplace'.

Further subtle effects, all tending to provoke the generation of thoughtful content can be seen if one takes some time to gaze into the habits that this "tool" would encourage and provide reward for engaging in. The benefits of this single enhancement are not dependant on any other, and could be instituted without controversy or delay. I fear that past efforts to get the Gather management to proceed with real improvements are impeded by their very attempt at "perfecting" the system, and the numerous technical and social nuances they conjure in the minds of the "powers that be". It is my hope that a concerted effort, formed around this single addition, could be "sold" to management in short order, and more intricate schemes, laudable as they may be, could be enacted in the future, as their merits and drawbacks were more fully realized, and studied.