There is a way I thought of to place a "recommended reading list" published by any member, at the fingertips of every other member. The key to this idea lies in TAGS.
What we do is; agree on a common short word for such a list (I propose 'pick') which we each would add to our "names", as in 'john knight pick', which I would place as one of the tags, in an article I publish with a listing of my favorite work by other authors, . Then I can simply 'edit' this article whenever I wish, and others can quickly access my current version by entering my name followed by the word 'pick' in the tag search box which is omni-present.
Having 'links' to the articles we recommend would not be nessecary, but would be very helpful for others.
A second such article could be posted by members with their own best work highlighted. I would recommend the universal tag of 'best', for this. Hence, 'Jane Blane best' would bring up Jane Blane's own article, which she created to present her best work to others, at a glance. Again, she can simply edit the article whenever she wishes, without clogging up the 'Recent Article' list.
Again, having the 'links', in this self-rating 'best' article would not be necessary, but would be a bit helpful.
By using both one's display name and member name as tags in this way, there would be a more permanent way to get to the lists, and of course one could always add changes to their display name as another tag in the list articles.
So...whatcha think?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 125
I think you may have solved one of our biggest dilemmas!
The only question? How to get the word out!
(Kevin!! We'll need one of your helpful articles for this!)
Discussed this with Kevin before I wrote the article. He's watching and thinking. I cannot help but think we can get the word out in a matter of days. And with Kevin's excellent orientation articles, we can count on an ever increasing number of people that would make use of this "pseudo-tool".
No and no. I wrote Kevin, and we discussed this and other options. This is a way for everyone to provide each other with an ongoing list of articles they recommend, and a way for members to present the best of their own articles. In both cases, the member would be free to add any commentary they like, and present the material any way they like (as an article).
The idea being, that quality work could live on indefinitely in the recommended lists of whatever members found it worthy of mention, as well as providing an alternative to the now virtually pointless 'most read', 'most viewed' , and 'highest rated' lists. They having little to do with quality writing these days. Such a feature has been promised by management, but will not likely be initiated for several months.
Okay, John. Will you explain how this will differ from the groups Kevin set up with Cami, to do the same? Or how this will differ from the groups others have set up to do the same? Or how Kevin became the expert, and why you think discussing it with him first should impress me, when Audrey cares enough to actually READ the good articles, review them, and explain why they deserve to be on the list?
Thanks, I put my moniker on it specifically to head off any infighting, or notion that I was acting at the behest of anyone else. It would not surprise me at all if others thought of this, but as I know of no such effort to initiate a common term, so we can begin to implement the "tool", I just went right ahead and DID something (gasp)
Most certainly I'll explain. First please note I re-wrote some of the article, as I realized it's harder to grasp than I first thought. I'll be thinking about how to get more specific and try to more exactly answer your question here or with another re-write. This is a matter posted for discussion.
"Or how Kevin became the expert, and why you think discussing it with him first should impress me,"
The comment thread should answer this part.
As to how it differs from the 'group' postings; this would be a simple way that each member could have their own list of favorites, including their own work, which any other member could quickly access simply by knowing their name. It would therefore become a way for people to "spread the word" about quality stuff, without generating endless e-mails and individual postings.
Audry did something like this in a way, but this idea is an offshoot of the several articles I wrote over the last few weeks. Most specifically; A Force for Quality on Gather. This, however would create a network effect, and allow each person to do their own evaluating or critiquing if they wished. The idea is the common 'tagging' so we could jump right to these articles by any member that had them.
My opinion, and excuse the bluntness, but if people really care about helping gather move forward and be a haven for writers, they'll get over their petty grievances, territorial behavior and all around crankiness and help look for solutions, as John has done.
Or, you can just bitch. But by doing so you're not helping to attract other writers who care about quality writing and who might want to be a part of gather and enhance the content. This is a startup site in its infancy. It will evolve and change and hopefully shake off those you feel are not worthy to post. The cream will rise. John is just trying to find a way to label the cream. Why is that not a good thing?
This could very well become a place that is commercially appealing to advertisors and the best writers, or so I have been told, can benefit. It may not happen for a while but why not stick it out, continue to write your best and make it a better site?
Sandy, there are groups that do this already? Where? Please post a link!
John, that was my next thought as I drifted off to sleep...where would these articles be published? Is there a group appropriate for it, or do we just leave it in our own stock without hitting groups with it?
Not sure if this helps the cause or not....?
"where would these articles be published?"
They would simply be one of the articles of the person who made the list. This idea in no way alters or takes away from any groups listings or any persons already existing efforts along these lines. It merely creates a common basis for finding lists of recommended reading.
Of course such a concept would work, but it would eventually lead to another layer of listing that would include such articles by anyone who wrote them. With this "add to the name" concept, each such "favorites list" would be available on demand for any that valued that persons judgment or taste.
If you would now add the tags; Empress Audrey pick and Empress Audrey best to that article with the links, you will be the first to try this "common tag" form of referencing such lists.
John, I'm going to try it. I've got nothing to lose, right? :)
Not a darn thing
Sandy, is that what's already out there?
I'd be happy to start and manage one if it hasn't been done. (ONLY acticles with keywords XXXXNAMEXXXX Picks or XXXXNAMEXXXX Best) to be accepted.)
Off to create my Webwriter Best list. (It'll take some hunting to get back to all my Picks! LOL!)
Brought me right here!!
What a simple solution, John! Thank you!
Absolutely nothing incompatible between this idea and any form of grouping such articles. This is merely a way of creating a way for folks to find the recommendations of others...that's ALL it is. IF folks simply add this 'NAME+pick' or 'NAME+best' to the tags of such an article...PRESTO, others can jump right to it!
You "get it"...almost.
"The 'pick' idea would create a duplication of Audrey's efforts in that EACH person would amassing their own 'pick list'"
There is only duplication if Audries 'list' is considered the only one that counts. Each member has different "taste", and some might like to express their own discoveries value. If many people used this idea, a whole new way to find quality writing on Gather would emerge, where one could simply check out the suggestions of the members they respect. Hence, good work would be highlighted and perpetuated above BS.
But, I also want to know what YOU would pick. I want to know what Sandy would pick. I want to know what Walker would pick... each being unique and interesting people with different points of view.
Even if they all duplicated a few, it would be interesting just to see what they ALL thought enough about to give it a "pick." It's a wonderful idea.
As I said, I'd love to (and probably will) see them "gathered up" together in a group that would make finding a whole lot of different "picks" and "bests" just a single click away. It would be a great way to find new connections and read input from people you don't know. (Thereby never searching for "their" pick or best.)
Again, if no one else is interested, I'll be happy to do it. I'm thinking Audrey and John got to the idea first, so if they want the group, they should have first dibs....
Of course I agree to the value of Audries list, I'm even on it. But there is a 'networking' quality to the idea I'm proposing here, that is subtle now, but would become extremely obvious if it became common. Audries list, or any other, is bound to become extensive, yet rather limitted in that it contains only the evaluations of Audrie, and only the articles she is currently aware of. With this here aproach, one could participate in an ongoing exchange of opinions and "discoveries".
This idea will render each members opinion of others work available. This will inevitably reduce any one member or groups opinions impact. But only in a relativistic way, since the momentum toward referring to such lists would soon swamp any lost impact by one, and result in a boost to the entire universe of "recommendation" as a means of finding and perpetuating good work.
John, I just searched articles with my own tag selection "john knight pick." It returned 4,033 articles. What am I doing wrong? I was trying to get back here and couldn't. :(
Is it just me?
Don't know, it works fine for me. I wish Kevin or some other tech sharpy would weigh in on such matters, as I am but a mere thinker.
Nothing wrong with consolidation. Nothing wrong with individualization. Both are well served by this idea.
It's the little box on the left I'm referring to. Is that where you're putting the tag in for search?
Nothing at all. But the results of such a "prank" would be insignificant, as it would only add a limited number of alternative results to the search result,
I would think such behaviour would be easily pointed out as creepy, and the member doing it would be opening themselves up to rather strong critisism and "boycotting" in short order.
That box? Yup. That's what I'm using, DANG IT!
I also created the group. It's titled Collection: Best of and Pick Lists, and can be found at http://bestpick.gather.com/, tho I can't get it to load at the moment either.
Maybe I need to go away for awhile and try this again, LOL!
If one were to add the tag "John Knight pick" to their own articles, it would soon be apparent what the author was up to, therefore, discrediting themselves.
It could be done, so it's worth considering the extent of the damage doing it may create to your system.
For the record, since you don't know me: I like that you are striving for a solution that accentuates the positive. That's why I read the article and all the comments, and contributed a question I hadn't seen asked yet.
I much appreciate your attitude and input. I realize nothing is sacred to some, but what else is new? Perhaps the silliness you suggest would occur, and perhaps it would become a real problem. But when it gets to the point that we cannot deal with such malicious entities here, the cause is probably lost, and we will fade away as a genuine quality site.
You catch on quick! If I was anything like the sharpy some might suppose by this idea, I would have already created that group. But again, I am but a mere thinker.
If we make a group effort to make this happen, and a group effort to keep it's integrity, it will work!!
Real complex, huh?
Audrey's efforts are admirable, in fact she even made some kind comments about my work. But, I think John's idea might work for a different reason.
For one thing, Audrey does, in a sense choose what articles are worth mentioning. I think we can pretty much agree that if someone suggested a "game" or recipe article that person would be "flagged". (Does that make sense?)
On the other hand, she doesn't discriminate, outside of rejecting work that isn't "quality." The problem with that is that what is quality to you might just make my eyes glaze over. But again we don't want to give any one person free reign to choose which articles are worthy and which are not.
I like Delvin B.'s articles, to give an example. So if someone sees an article that is a "Wendy R. pick" they know to expect something along Delvin B's genre and not something like (gak!) poetry.
That's just what I think.
You get it.
Yes...Kevin? He has a certain power to make this fly. I will be writing him if he doesn't "pop up" here soon.
Well put, Wendy....just what I wanted to say, but was afraid I'd put it in a way that would be misconstrued.
Having the power to "flag" an article may lead to the discount of "one man's trash is another's treasure".
BTW....I love poetry. :)
I have just become aware of this article a few minutes ago. Unfortunately, I may not have an opportunity to comment in detail until tomorrow. I have only quickly scanned the comments, but it appears as though John's suggestion is getting related in some way to Audreys reading project (which I think is a very worthwhile endeavor on it's own).
However, I do not believe these two initiatives to be directly related.
As I understood the proposal above (again, from only a quick scan and some prior conversation with John), John is looking at a method for members to 'label' their best work (in a similar way to Ron Hall's Map to Your Posts group). This labeling would come from the use of a unique tag. While Audrey is accepting submissions from members, for one or two articles to be read, and perhaps critiqued. These are distinct processes.
John's proposal might be helpful to Audrey as she looks at expanding her project, but this benefit would not extend both ways.
Of course, in my haste, I may have misinterpreted the entire conversation above as well.
I will come back as soon as I can, and provide better feedback, if necessary.
Have a good night!
I appreciate you comments, and any help you may see fit to lend this idea's instigation. I believe I understand your mention of the "special tag" idea helping in efforts like Audry's, though I can envision some reciprocally if such a group chose to include references to alternative sources of recommendations. Simply by including a mention of this proposed tagging method they would advance the participation of others in this new "network" of sources for quality content. It is my hope that all will eventually come to see that by offering a list of our favorites, we will be promoting better writing in a systemic way.
I would hope that those whom have been decrying a drop in general seriousness in the articles posted on Gather would realize that this concept is wholly about stemming that tide.
OOOPS, not a good time to be hasty. SORRY.
If it weren't for spell check, all my words would be varied.
I'll just slip in my thought for this while the jury is deliberating.
IF one had either or both of these types of Recommended reading lists in an article, they could let that be know to all in a very simply way! By adding to their displayed name a little note, like this;
John Knight [P], or... Joe Bozo [B], or...jane doe [PB]
That way we could all see right away that a search with the 'pick' or 'best' following this person's name, would bring a positive result.
teasing....(and ducking for cover)... :)
Spelt OUGHT to be in the dictionary, says I.
Spelt (Triticum aestivum var. spelta) is a sub-species of common wheat
So, beat me! LOL
Funny, about the designation you mention, to let folks know if we have a "pick list" -- I learned how to put in a character for my signature, and can insert a link into a comment, but I still can't put a working link into an article. It's probably too easy.
I confess, I have been procrastinating about learning that very trick.
John, don't forget that will also change your tag. You'll have to make it John Knight [P] now in order for it to be found. (not that I am having any luck either way.)
Yes, I realized the potential for people to include the bracketed part, but would think that since the person KNOWS what that is, they will be inclined to see it as NOT part of the person's name. I would recommend simply ignoring the option, and sticking with the name itself to begin with. But hey, it wouldn't take but a moment to add the extra tag.
You better quit thinking so much, a waste of calories it appears.
Talk of promoting quality on Gather seems a bit insincere, eh?
And I published an article with my best stuff listed.
If you enter John Knight best in the 'try you own tag' box,
you will see this article as the result. Just that simple.
Members that contribute- join?
Members looking for good content to read- subscribe?
Am I making sense, or confused with these ideas discussed? I'm just a little confused on how we find out who is doing this, besides just stumbling into members with that symbol by their name. Thanks.
No, this idea is more like "democracy". It would render anyone that wished, a quick source for 'suggested reading', through their own lists, in their own articles. No joining needed. No permission or oversight.
Web is doing something a bit different, which is ALSO made easy with these "special" tags.
As far as identical names, that would merely yield more than one result for the 'tag search', IF both such persons had lists available.
An excellent idea. (In fact, when I was running the first test of the concept, it didn't work. It turned out I had inadvertently added the s to john knight)
Perhaps you're right, but right now I need the Gather demi-gods to smile on it. They can make or brake this "idea" I think.
Democracy can be threatening to those that have other control.
ONLY articles with these suggested tags will be accepted in the group. Join or subscribe, your choice. Anyone can be a member. The only limitation is that to submit an article it must be either a "Jane Doe Best" or a "Jane Doe Pick" list.
If it doesn't fly, I'll simply dissolve it. But I think John's idea can work. I just wanted to make it even simpler to find the articles based on his idea.
Clear as mud?
I thank you for your blessings.
Ok...I am back, and here are my thoughts (if anyone cares)...
First and foremost, I love the zeal you continually demonstrate for improving Gather. It is quite refreshing to see positive energy expended in something constructive. Thus, MUCHOS KUDOS for you.
I think this is a laudable idea, and could work well for many, if not all, members.
However (you knew this was coming), it's success is predicated on your ability to get members to understand it, use it to find content, and to participate in it. The biggest challenge will be reaching the flood of new members that join each day. Consequently, you will need an extensive marketing campaign to make this work with any effectiveness. Adding characters to your display name may help, in that it will attract the curious, and the 'Sneetches without stars' may have a strong desire to have one too. Hence, you may potentially build up interest in the 'market' through their use. I fear however, that it is going to be an uphill battle, and a continuous one. Although, even if you are able to get a sizable group using it actively, you could still call it a success.
A few notes:
1) The 'need' for half of your project (I refer to these ideas in their initial stages as 'projects', including my own) may be reduced substantially with the advent of the new content recommendation system.
2) Members with long display names could pose a problem, in that an extra step may be required to obtain the membername. Some may try iterations of the display name, fail, get frustrated, and then lose interest in using the concept.
3) Maintaining these lists could be problematic, especially when it comes to recommending the work of others. I can foresee very few members actually taking the time to keep this up to date.
Other than working out a few details, it sounds like a worthwhile concept! ....and I will do what I can to support it
Thank you so much for your encouragement. Each of your points is valid and well taken. In response to them;
1.- Of course! And I would think this "idea" would become useless and passe at that point. If I thought Gather could endure three or more months of it's current decline, I would simply have said nothing. But also, the new system will take some time to exert a strong impact in any event, and this idea is meant to begin it's beneficial effects immediately. This may be only partially effective, but will surely get the benefits of the new tool going more quickly when it arrives.
2.- This can be remedied by users if they choose, and is totally up to their discretion.
3.- Yes, this will take some effort. But think, is that not actually a good thing? Will it not create a sort of "filter" that will exclude the least serious members that put no real thought into their use of the site to some degree?
As for #1, I do not think that your idea will become useless at all. In reality, only half of the equation will be zeroed out. There will still be value in easily finding the best work of other members, which the new content recommendation system will not affect.
I still feel the same about #3 though. Even a very dedicated member on Gather would be hard pressed to make the updating of this list a priority. UNLESS it could be done more effectively, through commenting, or other means. The current article editing process is too burdensome, and will work against you in this regard.
I could be wrong though.
You could be right too.
I'm just going with what we've got to work with, as you know so well.
I hadn't planned to filter the associated group content that way...as long as the tags are there and it's a list...I'll take it.
Got something new to add to your list? An update of your best or your favorite picks? Just write another article, tag it with Jane Doe Best or Jane Doe Pick and submit it to
And I shouldn't have said "they." I should have said WE. I may be new, but dang, I didn't mean to be divisive already. (Even if I did follow a Fox news ad to get here, tee hee!)
My humble thought on this "updating issue" was that the article (I think) displays a most recent update date. This could be quite handy in determining whether something had changed, in a general way.
I do not believe that many will. Initially, yes. But it will take some incentive to keep it up.
Also, creating new articles just adds more confusion to the mix. Now, instead of going to one article, I now may have multiple articles, each with a different set of informat