The following is my opinions based on observation of the site, of the successes and behaviors of others, and on my own intuition; it is not guaranteed to currently be or remain accurate, and does not represent Gather's official position, policies, or practices.
I run a number of different groups, and keep an eye on many more, and time and time again, I hear people asking questions about how Gather works, why it works, and why it doesn't work the way they'd rather.
Therefore, I've decided to start a series, 'How Gather Works', which will hopefully answer some of the questions members of Gather have about how Gather handles its personal affairs.
Today's question is:
Why does Gather let people publish frivolous articles?
Because people read them. And when people are reading an article, they're generating income for Gather from its advertisers, and therefore, Gather Points for those doing the writing, reading, and commenting. The more time a user spends on an article (reading, refreshing, commenting, etc), the more advertisements they view, and the more benefit they provide to Gather.
The general misconception is that these frivolous articles are taking away from the attention that more serious articles would normally receive. As a general rule, though, people will pay attention to the articles and images they want to view - and if the articles and images they want to view are banned from the site, they simply won't go there (thus, lowering the value of Gather advertising, and the Gather Points everyone receives!)
It should be noted, however, that there are some forms of content that by their nature do not attract as much attention: adult content. Anything with an adult content flag cannot be viewed by anyone who does not have a 'view adult content' flag set in their personal settings; as a result, casual visitors to the site and members without this flag set will never view the article or image, resulting in less potential earnings. This is the only case in which a particular type of article is intrinsically less likely to earn points.
It is often theorized (although certainly not provable) that articles that have been featured (on the front page of Gather, or on a Gather group) earn more points than articles that have not been featured; this is primarily because featured articles are more likely to be viewed, commented on, and rated than non-featured articles.
---------
Do you have opinions or suggestions to share involving the way in which Gather currently works? Do you have questions about topics you'd like to see discussed in more detail? Ask them here, and I'll try to cover them in my next How Gather Works article!
All contents of 'How Gather Works' are based solely on Austin Cushing's personal experiences, opinions, and beliefs, and are not representative of Gather's actual policies, practices, or mission statements.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 36
In email, as far as I know, it usually depends on the source - for instance, if you receive a Garfield comic in your email, you generally don't have the right to republish it (and I'm pretty sure most emails of that nature have their copyright restrictions included in the emails), ever. Anything that says 'for personal use only' cannot be republished by you.
Jokes, however, are usually safe to share (unless they carry these disclaimers or terms of use). If they have a specific source - for instance, a website or comedian from which the joke originated, it's considered good copyright practice to reference it appropriately.
At the very least, you should probably include a note to the effect of 'from my email' - making it clear that you are not the original writer of the joke, merely a republisher.
I'm pretty sure others have a clearer sense of copyright law than I do, so chime in and help me out, guys!
Connie W.:
As far as I can tell, people comment on articles most often when they feel comfortable writing a response. Providing intelligent critique on the merits of a short story requires more time and effort than posting 'LOL' after a joke - and as such, all things considered, the joke is likely to get more comments.
It is people like you who make Gather a better place.
George Vreeland Hill
Oh, yeah…
"At the "who can view" level if you have selected "everyone" and also selected both public and private groups then the article would be available to all of gather including the members of all groups selected, and the article will be searchable on Google."
On June 5th, I submitted an article to Life Issues, not to mention another article to Building a Better Gather, yesterday. Yet, I am told by Tom, via an associate, that my article is NOT VISIBLE to ANY Gather Member, or editor, even tho I did just as you said above. By the criteria that I mentioned in my email reply it appears that this is not a technical issue but a fairness issue.
Why?, Why?, Why?, Why?, Why?, Why?, Why?, Why?, Why?, Why?, Why?, Why?
Will you answer please!
I think that you get the point.
It sounds like Gather ate your article. I've tried publishing things at certain times when the server was, shall we say, in need of technical support, and watched them disappear, the pictures in them disappear, them suddenly not being posted to any groups, and so forth. I'm pretty sure it's a glitch - and a serious one.
Can you see your article? If you can see your article, and have the link to your article, then at least you know it's on the servers. If you've tried repeatedly to publish an article - any article - and are still having problems, it's time to send a mail to support@gather.com and ask them to take a look at your account, to see if something internal to Gather's servers is mucking up beyond all recognition.
Have you tried reposting your articles since June 5th?
Hehe - my personal opinion is that articles have their own merits, and I like both serious and frivolous articles. Some people get awfully cranky over this subject, though, or loudly pontificate on whether such articles are against the spirit of Gather - so I figured it was a question very much worth covering and discussing. ::nods::
Yet I have an article featured within the group - still only 4 comments.
I see people who regularly garner tens, or more points per article - I am boggled.
Location, location, location. And connections don't hurt, either. In general, the more groups you post to, the better off you become. Case in point - I post to a number of 'post anything' groups, but I also post to groups that are focused around particular topics and as such are more selective in which articles get in.
And, of course, I also run Comment Speedway, which features and hosts articles and images that have less than ten comments to their name, and removes articles or images once they receive ten comments. Sooner or later, everyone gets the exposure they need. There's other groups that do similarly. ::end shameless plug::
No problem! (For those who might be wondering, Your Birthday Week is a group that allows any article - and features the articles of its members on the week of their birthday. Go check that out too, while you're at it!)
.
Is this a joke article?? You have published to about 200 groups, most unrelated to the topic at hand! This article in itself would be considered spam by most
My next article is going to be "How Gather Works: Why does Gather let people publish to a zillion unrelated groups with the same article ? (June 10, 2007)"
Here's a few theories, based on my experience here:
1. Some (many, actually) authors get really bent out of shape when critique is offered. I have seen authors post articles to groups that are specifically for critique and then flip out because they didn't want their article critiqued. Go figure.
2. I have seen authors present content that was opinion as fact and get pissed because someone had the audacity to "question" what they'd presented as "fact".
3. Many commenters claim that they only give 10 ratings to every article. If all material is 10-worthy ("representing some of the best content you've seen"), that eliminates the need for critique. I suspect that those who rate thusly wouldn't offer the best critique anyway.
4. Some of the more fragile egos around here have turned on those who have offered legitimate critique and campaigned against them for having high standards/talent/a desire for quality content. It hasn't been pretty.
5. I've seen entire articles erased by authors who couldn't handle constructive criticism, a comment they didn't like or anything less than a 10.
6. The whole "point whore" mentality encourages some (not all) to leave as many inane comments on as many articles as possible. They only care about leaving "thanks for sharing.." in as many places as possible, and not offering any sort of real commentary let alone critique. Based on the inappropriateness of some of these "thanks for sharing.."-type comments in some articles, I'd bet that many of those commenters don't even read the article before leaving their insipid cut-and-paste comment.
7. A lot of the content is, as Austin calls it "frivolous" and not worth clicking on to open, let alone critique. I've been known to speak up when someone has presented some crap from an e-mail forward as their own personal story or writing but usually, if I know from the title it's just someone's spam presented as an article, I don't bother even looking at it.
I tend to read far more than I comment. Occasionally I'll offer critique, but usually just a correction (spelling, grammar, etc), and usually only to people I know can handle it.
Their friends/fans labeled those of us who cared about quality and critique grammar police, elitists, gang leaders, and an assortment of other less flattering titles.
In my opinion, real writers not only have think skin, they welcome critique. People who put words on paper or screen for praise don't. Gather seems to have attracted mostly people who put words on paper or screen.
"All contents of 'How Gather Works' are based solely on Austin Cushing's personal experiences, opinions, and beliefs, and are not representative of Gather's actual policies, practices, or mission statements"
Perhaps it might be better to let someone from Gather Management tell us "how things work" than go on the speculation of a member?
lisa, i beg you. loosen the stick just a little.
Because people read them."
Case in point: the Good Day articles posted by William. These are consistently the most read and/or discussed. Frivolous to some, but apparently only to the "select" few.
Don't you have someone a little closer to you to help you with that? I'm a bit too far away to assist you. You might want to have them help you locate your capital letters as well.
Why would a member (who is not appointed by Gather to do so) start a series to answer questions about the intentions of Gather management regarding content, especially when part 1 of the series was basic common sense. What's next? Is Austin going to tell us what his opinion is about the way in which points are distributed? The point is, that no one knows, except Gather management and it's my opinion that dispersing such information be left to Gather management.
He already did. That one (theories about point distribution) was part one in the series. I agree with Kevin V. on this--Austin should reconsider his titles ("How Gather Works", disclaimer notwithstanding), particularly when the information is potentially incorrect. "How I Think Gather Works" would be more honest. Let's hope his readers know enough to take his theories with a large grain of salt.
If I see one more article theorizing about how points might be distributed, I'm gonna puke. Same goes for articles boo-hooing about ratings.
And rating means absolutely nothing. The reason being, people can low-rate your article just because they may have disagreed with you on something you wrote two years ago! The rating system is there for those folks who like to play with buttons.
Every time Gather "updates" they do a "screwup" as well. With this recent update they eliminated my ability to publish! Is this site run by highschoolers? Or are there actual programmers working on this?