Write On! :: Discuss the art and craft of writing

On Participation...

by Martooni
Posted to Diaries, Diary on Fri Nov 28, 2003 at 12:52:40 PM PST
[Print]

I'm no old-timer here, by any means. I found this site a few months ago and after taking the plunge to register, decided to actively participate. I try to comment as much as possible (where appropriate) and do my best to submit articles (or at least post diary entries).

I've seen the "New Members" roster grow since I registered, but I've seen very few comments or other activity from the folks who have recently signed up. I just have to ask: What's the point of registering if you're not going to comment or post articles?

There's more...

I've participated (or at least attempted to participate) on other "literary" websites, but was always greeted with acidic, contemptuous, and otherwise negative commentary, no matter the subject or my position. (Kuro5hin comes to mind)

As far as I'm concerned, opinions are what makes the world go 'round -- but on many of the "literary" sites I've found, the opinions of a few narrow-minded idiots rule the roost. I've seen writers lambasted for no apparent reason, then others exulted for even less. One of the things that appealed to me about "Write-On" is the "homey" and friendly environment. The posts (and subsequent comments) I've encountered seem to be honest, non-judgmental opinions and critiques that contain little (if any) personal animosity. But on the "other" sites, it's not uncommon to see particular writers/contributors burned in virtual effigy just because a certain individual (or individuals) doesn't agree with their position or is just in a bad mood.

However, as friendly as Write-On can be, its members have a tendency to not participate. And I don't know why. I have a feeling that the people who take the time and trouble to register are either established or budding writers, and I believe the reason they register is to get more out of the site. But the only real registration "benefit" I'm aware of is the ability to post stories/articles and to comment on stories/comments. Yet, very few of the new members contribute anything. WHY ARE YOU HERE????

Janra--- feel free to whack this post if it's out of line. I just can't stand to see a potentialy great resource undermined by member "non-participation".

People -- really... If you're struggling with your writing (like many of us are and do)... If you have questions about publishing, copyrights, processes, techniques -- you name it -- chances are that someone who follows this site can help. Or can at least direct you to someone who can.

But if you don't comment, if you don't post questions, if you don't post stories or articles, WHY SHOULD ANYONE ELSE?

This is not a one-way street. For this to work, EVERYONE needs to contribute and participate -- not just a select few. Do you have questions, concerns or other writing issues? POST THEM. COMMENT ON THEM. SHARE, DAMNIT!

Okay -- enough from me. Now it's time to hear from you....

Make a new account

Related Links

On Participation... | 8 comments (8 topical, 0 hidden)

On Lurking (none/0) (#1)
by CheeseburgerBrown on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 07:26:30 AM PST

My experience with e-mail discussion lists has shown that the poster-to-lurker ratio is seldom better than 1 active poster for every 7 lurkers. I imagine that Scoop/Slash sites have similar ratios. It's just the way folks herd-up, I guess.

This site does seem to have a lot of generally polite and informed comments. And it is no deader than most. With the exception of a few sites like K5, HuSi and /. most Scoop sites are virtually abandoned ghost-towns. For instance, RadioFreeTomorrow just folded, shortly after slowly turning to petrified wood.

[ Watches tumbleweed roll by. ]

Er, yes. At any rate: the only solution is that what you've already mentioned: comment, rate, post and vote.

I'm from a small, unknown country in the north called Ca-na-da. We are a simple, grease-loving people who enjoy le weekend de ski.

Erratum (none/0) (#2)
by CheeseburgerBrown on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 07:27:58 AM PST

Slashdot isn't a Scoop site, of course, it's a Slash site. For some reason, Slash sites seem to do better than Scoop sites. Maybe because there is less democracy. Who knows?

I'm from a small, unknown country in the north called Ca-na-da. We are a simple, grease-loving people who enjoy le weekend de ski.
[ Parent ]

Definitely less democracy... (none/0) (#3)
by Martooni on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 10:12:17 AM PST

While I follow slashdot daily, I've given up on trying to contribute anything to the fray. Or should I say anarchy?

I think the reason it's so popular is because it reached "critical mass". They probably lose as many new readers/members as they gain due to the flamewars and other juvenile behavior, but since they've attained such a large readership it really doesn't matter. The simple fact that a mention and link on slashdot will bring just about any server to its knees makes you wonder just how many users they have.

I guess the point of my post was that I see people *registering* for W.O., but few of them *posting*, making me wonder why they bothered in the first place. You're right -- W.O. *is* a very friendly place. I don't think I've ever found a nasty or otherwise personally negative comment anywhere on the site. So why won't registered users exercise the only right granted them by registering?

Maybe we'll never know...

[ Parent ]

slash vs. scoop (none/0) (#5)
by janra on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 04:29:47 PM PST

I think it's because they depend less on the users.

With slash, it's designed to have a small group of editors posting all the articles which may or may not be submitted by readers, and everybody else just randomly leaves comments if they feel like it. It's more of a group blog, really.

Scoop depends quite heavily on its users for writing and posting the articles, which is something a lot of people aren't used to.
--
Who needs to be big and burly when you can just apply physics?
[ Parent ]

depends on users == trolls reign free (none/0) (#6)
by cbraga on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:41:22 PM PST

BTW, nice touch with the big textboxes on comment/story entry. K5's are waaay to small.

(nt)

[ Parent ]

I don't see it that way... (none/0) (#7)
by janra on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:49:47 PM PST

I mean, would you say slashdot has fewer trolls "per capita" than kuro5hin? A site that depends on its users won't necessarily end up overrun by trolls. Any site that allows comments of any kind can end up overrun by trolls; in many ways it depends on the main subject of the site and what kind of culture it develops.

And the big textboxes are actually the same size, I just didn't make the font teensy like k5 did, so they look bigger. :-)
--
Who needs to be big and burly when you can just apply physics?
[ Parent ]

: Not trolls per capita... (none/0) (#8)
by cbraga on Mon Dec 01, 2003 at 03:33:02 PM PST

But rather that trolls do way more damage on K5 than on slashdot. When they're not driving users off the site they're posting crap to the queue. People can only stand so much... Of course, a month ago someone submitted a two-year old story to slashdot and the editors published it, so they're not immune either.
About the textboxes, they appear huge to me. Maybe it's because I use Firebird.

[ Parent ]

it's the perpetual problem of any community site (none/0) (#4)
by janra on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 11:02:24 AM PST

It's rather a vicious circle; if there is activity, people are more likely to post, and people posting creates activity. It really is a critical mass thing.

And I believe on k5, the ratio is 1 poster/10 accounts, and 1 account/10 anonymous readers. Roughly.

I think part of the problem is that this site seems pretty unique as far as writing sites go--at least, that's what people keep telling me. The majority of writing sites I've seen fall into one of three formats, some with more than one but usually as separate sections of the site.

general chat-oriented forums. People chat about whatever, more or less on the topic of writing. These sites almost invariable have one forum called "the writing life" or some variant on that subject.
critique groups. Lots of stories posted for critiques, few really useful critiques posted. Generally has a problem to some extent with people posting stories but no critiques, often tries to socially enforce an attitude against those "freeloaders"
writing articles. Sometimes as random articles, sometimes as a magazine-ish format, almost never with attached comments.

I think because of that, when people see articles about writing (as we have here), they don't see them as the starting point for a discussion, but as an article for them to read and maybe try to use; likewise, they see comments and wonder where the general chat forums are.

And Martooni--you're not out of line at all. Check out the article and discussion titled "Improving Traffic" (it's in the site news/meta section) for a lot of discussion on traffic.
--
Who needs to be big and burly when you can just apply physics?

On Participation... | 8 comments (8 topical, 0 hidden)