by Mishima666 and Kent Pitman
This article is the result of a collaboration between Mishima666 and me. The first part is an essay by Mishima laying out the issues as he sees them. The second part offers some additional commentary and suggestions. We emphasize the joint nature of the project in order to offer an example of the kind of creative and collaborative work that we feel the forum should be encouraging.
What Belongs on the Cover
by Mishima666
All of us on Open Salon are engaged in an experiment in community blogging. The concept of "community blogging" contains an apparent contradiction. Blogging is by nature an individual activity, and the formation and development of a community is a group activity. Part of the experiment of OS is seeing how the individual and the group can interact so as to improve each other.
Of course, that's from the perspective of the OS members. On the “other side” are the OS editors and others who are responsible for turning this experiment into a successful business—something that turns a profit while staying true to the vision of OS.
The place where the interests of the individual, the group, and the business most strongly interact is on the cover. The cover is where the individual post receives greatest exposure and recognition. It is the place where the group “gathers,” so to speak, to see what's happening. And it also, for non-members and potential advertisers, is a public demonstration of who we are, what we are interested in, how we write, and what Open Salon is all about. Thus the cover, and the management of the cover, are critical to the success of OS, whether from the perspective of the member or the business staff.
And with every month the cover becomes more important. When OS started there were maybe two hundred posts a month. Now, sometimes there are over two hundred posts a day. The number of members and posts grows, but there is only one cover. Thus the management of the cover becomes increasingly important, as an ever smaller percentage of posts end up on the cover.
So the issue is this: given the importance of the cover, what posts should end up on it? I have one simple guideline:
The cover should be used to display the serious, creative work of members of the OS community, whether humor, photos, original art, essays, satire, political commentary, poetry, or whatever.
The cover should not be used to display things that have not been created within the community, in particular YouTube videos. To be clear, I like a good YouTube video as much as anyone else. Some of them are marvelous. They just shouldn't be on the cover. Post them, give them a good buzz with ratings and comments, let them appear in the “highest rated” and “most viewed” categories. That's fine. They just shouldn't be featured on the cover unless they are the work of OS members. I believe OS has developed to the point at which there is sufficient talent and volume of member posts so that it is no longer necessary to fill up cover space with items from outside the community.
The cover should not be used to display non-serious posts that have been created by the community—e.g., recipes, cute pet photos, and so on. Again, with limited space and an increasing number of posts, the cover needs to be increasingly selective. And yes, I've had my own cute pet photo on the cover. But it's time to move on and make room for posts of greater substance. And these lighter posts can still be published, rated, and commented on—just not featured on the cover.
“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory [...] will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”
—Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address
March 4, 1861
The cover also needs to be a place where quality posts of either political orientation have a chance to be seen. Open Salon has a particular social and political orientation, and there's nothing wrong with that. But there should always be a place on OS for a good post that goes against the grain and forces people to defend positions that are normally taken for granted. To have everything from one part of the spectrum simply makes people intellectually lazy.
We get that which we reward. If we reward the trivial, the throwaway, the cut-and-paste, then we will get the trivial, the throwaway, the cut-and-paste. By increasing the quality of the cover page, we raise the bar, and perhaps in a small way, raise the quality of posts in general.
There has been a lot of discussion of the cover and the reasons why people want to have their posts on the cover. It is often stated that “shooting for the cover” is an exercise in vanity and rather pathetic self-promotion. A while back in a comment on another post Kent Pitman reminded us that this is not always the case. “Shooting for the cover” can also be an expression of ambition, in the good sense. It can come from a desire to influence how people think about an issue, a desire to make a difference and make the world a better place through the presentation of important ideas. This is a good motivation, and especially if it inspires members to do their best work.
In that regard we should have to work to get something on the cover. Being on the cover should be an accomplishment, something to be proud of, not just because there was some blank space that needed to be filled. Posts featured on the cover should have both good content and good formatting. A cover post should be the best that we have to offer.
The alternative is poorer-quality posts and a cover that is not a source of pride. One member, known for his good writing, in his final post “on the way out the door” noted that “I was hoping to use OS as a showcase for my work but I doubt if anyone will be impressed by the downmarket tabloid that the cover has become.” Others have expressed similar sentiments. It is sad when we lose members because they feel embarrassed to be affiliated with the site.
To be fair, there have been, and continue to be covers populated by serious and interesting posts. But the quality is not always what it should be. In that regard we must rely on the editors to the raise the bar and make the cover something that good writers aspire to, in the process perhaps even inspiring mediocre writers to become good writers. As a community some of us have been lazy, and have allowed a few people to bear an unfair burden of writing posts that are actually worthy of being on the cover. To make Open Salon a better place requires the work of all of us—members who will take the time and effort to write quality material, and editors who will exercise the judgment necessary to make the cover—and OS itself—what it has the potential to be.
Why Not Multiple Covers?
by Kent Pitman
![[ Literary Machines ]](/files/cover-color-cropped-150x128-bordered41247428658.jpg)
by Ted Nelson, 1981
![[ Plan of chapters ]](/files/intro-250x400-cropped1247428717.gif)
![[HyperText: Alternate Versions]](/files/alt-versions-hypertext-250x3551259481391.jpg)
As Mishima notes, everything comes together on the cover.
Right now the cover is an embarrassment to serious writers. It is full of NSFW content that make it a thing that serious readers cannot visit on a regular basis. This is the opposite of what I would think is desired.
Of course, part of the problem is that there is just one cover. That's an unnecessary restriction in hypertext, a fact that has been known since the medium was invented! Ted Nelson, who in the early 1980's invented the term “hypertext,” wrote his visionary book Literary Machines with more than one “chapter one” and more than one “chapter three” to emphasize his view of the possibilities offered by allowing hypertext to show the same content from multiple points of view.
Newspapers customarily do as much by having separate sections for business, sports, arts & leisure, etc. A normal newspaper would not want to share an article between two such sections because it would have to be duplicated and that would be a needless waste of paper. But in hypertext there's no real cost to putting an article in as many different places as makes sense. So the same article might, in some cases, belong in the political section and the humor section. Whether it would make the cover of both sections is a separate question. Maybe yes, maybe no. But the medium of hypertext allows many options.
Also, in the design of business products, a common and useful tool is to appeal to specific model personas, which are fictitious characters that exemplify the specific details of people in the target demographic of a product. Through the use of personas, one can talk in detail about why a certain product feature is or is not needed.
To see why personas are needed, consider that in a large user community there is almost no feature that is needed by every person. It is therefore tempting to say that no feature really matters. So, for example, suppose you wanted this site to appeal to people across the political spectrum. I might claim then that you needed a consistent Democratic point of view always in view. Not so, you might claim, because you can show a counterexample that doesn't even want that. Well, what about a Republican point of view? Again, you have counterexamples. Soon you realize that there is no real definition.
And yet, if you say that in order to appeal to a hundred different kinds of people, you will make the cover contain a hundred disparate types of copy, you're at risk of saying that the cover will always be something that contains material only one percent of which is interesting to any given person. I don't know about you, but sites I visit a lot need to have a higher density of stuff that matters to me.
It seems to me that a great deal of the fussing about what does and does not belong on the cover is caught up in a confusion about who the cover is trying to satisfy. This site has both readers and writers. Many of us are both, of course, but we're most usefully viewed as different people when in those two roles. That is, I as a reader have very different needs than I as a writer.
If Open Salon is going to appeal to someone, it needs to figure out what readers it is going to appeal to. Those are the people paying the bills, the people the advertisers want to speak to. Then, once it's done that, it can figure out what writers it wants in order to provide content to those readers. Or it can start the other way around and figure out what writers it will cater to and then try to find advertisers that want to speak to the audience they create. But right now Open Salon has not committed to either a particular kind of reader or writer, except in the trivial sense that it is well-targeted to the reader who has no particular focus or interest whatsoever—to the reader who will just take what they're given, no matter the topic.
And, ironically, it wouldn't be that hard to create consistency of product. It only seems to be a conflict if you think there can be only one cover, like in print media. But that's a false concern in hypertext. Because there can be more than one cover, with content inside that's still shared, there's no reason that every day a person who wants to read about politics could go to a page that contains just political stories. There's no reason that political stories should need to add “with nudity” to their title just to get past a theory of editing that favors tabloid over substance. There doesn't have to be a conflict over this. It's artificial.
Open Salon could pick a number of popular specialty areas and maintain covers for each of them. If it was work to do this, I daresay the troops would be thrilled to just see a much larger activity feed, a much larger area to highly rated posts, etc. Any part of this that seemed too much work could be done automatically using modules already in existence, or modules very similar to them.
If this were done, Open Salon could become what it should be—the “go to” place for important topics on a variety of subjects, from politics to lifestyles. But it cannot be that by just failing to make the distinction.
Editors, please do something.
![[Gray Matters: We've Got That Covered]](/files/gray-matters-covered-a1259477969.gif)
![[Gray Matters: We've Got That Covered]](/files/gray-matters-covered-b1259479256.gif)
![[Gray Matters: We've Got That Covered]](/files/gray-matters-covered-c1259479290.gif)
A Final Note from Both of Us
It may seem like we're talking at crossed purposes. Mishima is talking about how to reform the cover, Kent is talking about how to have several covers. With Kent's changes, some of the things Mishima has identified could still be on the cover if we had multiple covers. We could have a food page, a funny YouTube page, a pet picture page, etc. Mishima's comments are important in the context of a single cover, because the uniqueness of that resource means we need to make choices about what does and doesn't go there. But if we got out of the rut of a single-cover environment, all of that would change because neither space nor sense of focus would any longer be the overriding constraints. Either way, the point is that what's being done now is not good, and something needs to change.
If you got value from this post, please "rate" it.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
RomanticPoetess
Sandra Stephens
old new lefty
marytkelly
oaxacangringa
CoyoteOldStyle
Salon.com
Comments
A former writer here said to me in a message when I asked why he/she was leaving : "I don't want anything to do with some of this junk here.
If I am a professional writer, I don't want anyone to know I write here. Just look at the cover today."
I can't say I would recommend it either. Not in its current format.
I don't know if we need multiple covers, or groupings, or what but we sure need something here. I never look at the cover anymore. I have my own writers I follow and most of the time I don't ever look at the cover. Why bother?
So you want a set up like Huffpost has, with subject tabs? That could be workable with very little effort on the editor's part, simply by pulling up the "Author Tags" and seeing what's out there in each area of interest.
Another idea is to have an area on the front cover, a permanent area, dedicated to "Reader's Picks". I know there are at least three ladies spending an awful lot of time looking through the site and doing weekly picks of people who *never* make it onto the front page, simply because they're not tabloid material.
Might keep the advertisers *and* the contributers happy.
Rated.
The content creators of OS have and will have no input into what goes on the cover. The cover stories are the editors' best guess about what will generate the most ad clicks/income. Despite the stated reason for OS's existence, the cover is an appeal to "popular" interests and thus will always resemble a supermarket tabloid.
I say this a someone who has recently had a post on the cover.
Second, I can't speak for others but I completely ignore the cover (except, of course, when I was on it). I go straight to the Most Recent link and start working my way through.
- Mark
(Good post, BTW - rated!)
But you guys are building this with the assumption that there is an editor or editors who see a problem or who care.
I do not fault them. I do not judge them. I can't---because they are not there. I don't presume bad intentions on anyones part. But the single consistent theme has been an absence of an editorial voice. Maybe that's intentional. Maybe not. I wouldn't know. I know there are those on the site who seem to know more than others about the void of editorial voice. I know that when I sent a letter in applying to be editor---I got the perfect answer: Nothing.
I am incredibly grateful for salon media corp for letting me become a better writer, make friends and play with their toy. But it IS their toy. Not mine.
When sites like this become commoditized (which is starting to happen now) the lack of an editorial voice will decrease traffic. But we are not there yet.
So right now I am GUESSING metaposts with no editorial input are welcome because they drive traffic.
But of course I wouldn't know.
Because even with an effort as fine as this one---the only real response back for any type of editor is silence.
So I can only guess that's what they want to say.
Perhaps a quiet nod to you fine writers for helping to drive traffic?
I can see you guys put a lot of time and effort into this, and you both have great points and ideas.
As C Guy points out, they don't often share with us, the contributors. We are all left to wonder.. everything, about what they do, how they think, or if they even care less what WE think. The one and only post I ever saw by Thomas Rogers announced a full time food editor at big Salon, and dangled a carrot promising a spot on the Salon cover, for whatever that is worth.
I made a snarky comment or two on his blog that evening and other people joined in also... other people besides Thomas Rogers that is.
I followed that post for a couple of days and last I looked he had said nothing, zip, nada.
So how do we know ANYTHING of what they think? Why they do or don't do ANYTHING?
Kerry used to engage the community every once in a while at least.
Anyway, enough of me. I'm feeling like Rhett Butler in Gone with the wind. Frankly, don't give a damn these days.
I think most of us have long abandoned the idea that anything we say here is going to have a direct effect on the editors. As the old saying goes, it's like talking to a brick wall, except that with the brick wall you at least get an echo. To the extent that posts such as this have any value, it's only to confirm to OS members that there are others who, like them, believe that the site has untapped potential. And who knows? Perhaps in the same way that dripping water wears away a stone, eventually even the editors might take notice.
Chicago: "What I like about this is that here you have 2 of the greatest minds on the site doing something together."
More accurately, one great mind. I simply attach myself, remora-like, to Kent's ideas. Between the two of us, he's the big fish in the ocean.
My Own 6 or 7 Rules for Success in Business
1. Do not put anything on the cover. If at all possible, don't even have a cover. Limit your proposal to no more than 3 or 4 words (as more than this will confuse the average executive/editor/in-charge-guy. Preferably at least 2 of these words should be "sex," "sexy," or "phenomena." No, strike the last one, it has too many syllables.
2. Once you get a meeting, make fun of the guy who takes himself more seriously than you do...because you're a fun guy! This is guaranteed to work, especially if the person thus made fun of happens to be a woman. Nothing like sexism to put you over the top in corporate America.
3. Ignore what is said as much as possible. Try to be the guy who "rides above" the rest. This should be indicated by an expression of extreme distraction, picking your teeth, and/or rolling your eyes at every opportunity while other people are speaking...especially if it's a woman.
4. Don't be afraid to discuss irrelevant topics. It will be greatly appreciated by everyone, since all are equally miserable in their work. And you know what loves company...that's right, people who like to talk about "Entourage," "Weeds" and/or the latest pay-per-view event.
5. Keep your ideas to yourself. Nobody likes a talented person. Really.
6. Oh, I would go on, but then I would just end up violating my own rules. Instead...did anyone see Nancy get raped on the last episode of "Weeds"? See the fight? No? Geez. Hey guys, who does she think she is, huh? Now, feel free to make fun of me.
http://open.salon.com/blog/designanator/2009/02/14/opensalon_its_bad_for_ya_or_is_it
I will also add that I really like collaborative posts and back on June 24th of last year Dorelvis and I did one about our discovering that we both went to the same art school, had many of the same teachers, etc. The interviews that many posted earlier this year were definitely the lines of a collaborative posts, too.
I 100 % agree that having multiple "covers" or sections would solve some of the things people complain about. I also agree that recycled videos with only the title being written by the poster deserves as much recognition as that poster has "friends".
I think one thing that many, many people complain about is how certain writers are automatically put on the cover. Many of them are great writers, but sometimes it seems that there is no possible way for the editors to have even read the post - it goes up in seconds. I am always curious about that phenomenon.
I sometimes link my work to Facebook, and my friends there really enjoy discovering Open Salon. I like to think they are smart, tasteful and serious thinkers (well, ok, not all of them). I am still proud to represent myself here and be represented here.
Thanks to both of you for your thoughts, and also for showing how well put together a post can be, and how thinking together might be a way to promote change. Rated.
Other than the fact that the two of you address issues on an intellectual level that makes my poor head spin, I admire the informed, thoughtful, and reasoned appeal you have jointly prepared as well as the salient points regarding how to implement it.
Kent, on a previous post of yours I mentioned that one successful online publication, “The Huffington Post” employs the concept of tabs as a means of dividing the e-zine into sections of interest.
I think that could work here quite well. But “work” is the operative word. It would require a large amount of daily work to effect such a change and maintain the new format.
In the movie “Braveheart,” Robert the Bruce comments on Scotland (the land of my ancestors) using the following words, “...From top to bottom this country has no sense of itself.”
I believe this site is evolving still. What I see as the greatest question facing OS is what type of online publication does it want to be? And perhaps equally as important, what sort of publication does it want to be known as?
In 2008 People magazine boasted a circulation while U.S. News & World Report had only 1,721,377.
Rolling Stone grabbed a share of 1,461,299 while Martha Stewart Living trounced them with 2,033,890.
If I hear what you’re saying, it’s possible to reach a diverse readership with a multiple “cover” design or, as I would suggest, a tabbed header design highlighting the different sections on each page.
In that way OS would attract the People, US News, Rolling Stone and Martha Stewart crowds in an easily read format - rather than requiring readers to sort through a stack of papers on the desktop to find the one they’re looking for.
Rated and appreciated.
“In 2008 People magazine boasted a circulation of 3,746,426 while U.S. News & World Report had only 1,721,377.”
Your sincere efforts at helping every one to see the untapped potential for this forum is important. The idea for topic covers is a good one, and many folks hope the editors will consider it.
Last year when I joined the forum it was easier to contact an editior. Kerry was good about getting back with a few words and answers to questions. Now the volume of people and the resulting number of PM's to the editors surely make it nearly impossible to answer.
I hope eventually more staff can be added to enable them to answer pm's and make the EP and Cover selections more equitable.
Excellent point. Totally agreed.
As to Kent being the big fish? Disagreed. You're both big fish in my book!
As to the whole never getting an answer thing--I don't think we ever do anybody any favors when we enable somebody to not extend the basic business courtesy of a response.
I once wrote Jimmy Carter and got a personal response. Yet most front line HR people will not respond. I don't believe that ANYONE is too busy to respond. I believe the real question is, "Who do I think deserves a response?" Personal priorities determine that. Not the volume of email.
As to readers picks, if I had my guess, they're averse to that because they don't want it shown that a volunteer force can do as well as better than paid editors. Sadly enough, though, if the paid editors do little enough to rummage themselves, the point gets made anyway ... But, after all, the “highest rated last n hours” feeds are readers' choices so of course they can do that. The only thing it lacks is pictures, but it doesn't take ten minutes to write a script that scans a post for the first picture in there and selects it (though they could have other ways to do it).
ChicGuy, I am not here simply because I need a place to post. And I won't just take what they offer and say “well, it's free” and think that is the standard by which I should judge my own work. Open Salon is a partnership. There are many places on the web. They need us at least as much as we need them. There may be a supply of people willing to put up infinite drek, but the more valuable the writing, the more there are other places that want it. I'm here because they offer the hope of visibility, but the more they bury me, the less I have reason to be here. I'm not here for the kudos of friends, I'm here to write political commentary that can change the world. That has value only if the host site is willing to feature it. Your remark “But it IS their toy. Not mine.” is literally true, but its use suggests that we have no bargaining power. This is not so. People have left and people will continue to leave. There are a lot of writers here but a smaller number of really good writers. Those writers, however, will not stay forever, especially when they see the kind of stuff posted in favor of their own work. Only those with very low self-esteem will stay at that point.
Do the editors actually read what they post on the cover? More importantly, do they ever read what they don’t post on the cover? I think, for the most part, they do not, in both cases, read them.
If their primary concern is merely to drive mouse clicks, then the dumbed-down cover content is the way to go. Capitalism drives profits, not quality and not creativity. Such is today’s world.
For what it’s worth (questionable as that is), I think the multiple covers is a clearly easy fix to these problems, but like anyone with a problem, the first step is acknowledging there is a problem. And determining whether there’s a problem, or not, is contingent on purpose of those who make the decisions.
As it is, well, I believe the process is, "Teeheehee!! Throw a dart!!"
:)
I agree with the "Cover should be the best that we can offer", and I can't count the number of cover stories I've seen with only 2 oe 3 comments. That doesn't seem to help the community much from an "outsiders" perspective.
I don't have an issue with You Tube videos being in a post, but if that post is on the cover, the video should only be used as an accent to a more in depth story. JMHO.
Another problem that I have with the cover is the lack of fiction of any kind. It seems to me that a site that is supposedly tailored to writers would give fiction a little more appreciation. There is some very fine work written here that goes unnoticed because fiction is NEVER on the cover.
Has anyone flagged this piece? It seems to me the editors (or at least someone) would have to read it then, otherwise this could easily be missed by them.
Great work guys!
trig, I feel your pain.
Mishima, you undersell the degree to which others, myself included, respect your opinion. (I don't agree always, that's for sure. But my disagreement is not borne of lack of respect.)
BOKO, not sure precisely what to make of your comment, but if you're amused, I guess that's a partial victory.
aim, thanks for the support. My working theory is that whoever manages the cover has an RSS subscription to individual writers they care about, bypassing their need to pay attention to the ratings etc. we so painstakingly create. If I'm right, I think that's a shame. In my experience, systems work best where the designers/maintainers use the system they devise... and a system that bypasses the front page is not a good way for someone to get a feel for what belongs on the front page. (Yes, they "designed" the RSS feed, but that's a rather trivial device and most importantly it's not sensitive to new talent so introduces blatant potential for major bias.)
Dennis, thanks for the support. Regarding tabs, see my earlier comment (to Hglass) about that. My key concern would be things like indexing at Google, bookmarking, etc. Very mundane concerns. But it can be managed. (And I liked the Braveheart quote.)
Gary, I agree the site is changing. One answer, of course, is to say “easy come, easy go” ... it's almost like that's the attitude of the editors. I don't recommend that approach. It doesn't create a sense of true community.
Tink, I've often thought that requiring teachers in school to write down why they think a certain grade is appropriate would avoid a lot of grade abuse, too. Good suggestion, whether or not implementable.
Michael, some good comments there. As to whether anyone has gotten the attention of the editors, I don't know. Obviously, that was our purpose in writing this. I'll leave it to the ordinary mechanisms or to someone with personal connections to get their attention. I'm not going to contact them to say how great this is, blowing my own horn. It either speaks for itself or it doesn't. We've done our part, now it's time for the system to do its part.
I've made some real friends here and in a way I feel like it is a family.. But then I could just be a lonely old man grasping at straws, who knows? Being on the cover just isn't a goal for me and to tell you the truth, I hardly ever go there to try and find content. I read what my friends have posted, I look in their friends lists and sometimes read that.
Pathetic I know.. but it is all I have to offer in response to your well thought out post.
I agree with what both of you are saying. To be fair to the OS editors, we do not know what kind of pressure they are getting from the POB at Salon. If Salon is the "serious" site, perhaps OS has become Salon's version of HuffPo. God, I hope not.
But I do like the idea of their being several OS, where those of us who want to read serious stuff, with our occasional bits of whimsy thrown in, can surf around depending on our mood.
I was surprised by the decision to keep my piece on my interview on Mumbai and the interview with Ted Genoways up for so long. I know it was not getting monster hits, but it felt, to me, like an important piece, and I felt supported by the editors by their choice to make it a front page.
Having said that, I know there are tons of things that do not make the front page, whereas the latest viral YouTube video does.
Perhaps OS should institute a rule where only a certain percentage of any blog post can be copied material I know that these rules apply with design--you have to change an image 85 percent for it not to be copyright infringement, so simply cutting and pasting a breaking news story does not constitute a blog post. There must be analysis, too.
It will be interesting to see what happens when the editors change, and what OS's new charge will be: will we be citizen journalists, or will be the cheap entertainment? I'd like us to be in a position where we, ourselves, are doing investigative work and breaking stories ourselves.
I have to run off to work at moment so I have to keep it at that. Thanks for posting!
Bob
The multiple front pages is a good and simple idea. Politics, Religion, Humor (essential!), Media/Movies, Personal, Memoir, Recipes, Music, Other (or "Indescribable"), and yes, even a page/link for You Tube posts would be great. That alone, once implemented, might bring me back. The cover page always seems so stale to me - there's almost nothing I want to read on it.
My other two cents worth is about this collaboration and my thanks to you both for getting the community talking.
Lovely to see your thoughts laid out so nicely, gentlemen. Thanks for directing me here.
That being said, I dont think change cannot be made. I certainly can. The two of you have outlined ways in which it can. I might add more myself if it appeared welcome. But they either prefer the status quo, or they do not have the means to make any significant changes. Like many of you have stated, we are not likely to hear any position in the way of explanation from the staff. We might presume that is literally not our business.
I applaud you for having stayed. Many good people have left. The numbers may be growing, but the content does not seem to be what it once was. I deeply admire how you are committed to make positive change, and take a leadership role in doing so. I'll help. I wont leave. Maybe the staff will take notice and allow the input. If they wont react to this, they probably wont react to anything. Here's hoping!
After learning about your post, I looked at today's cover. It has grown even worse since I left. Why would I want to read rehashing of news, comics and stories I've just read elsewhere? And it's irritating when a sex-sational story is guaranteed cover space while a thoughtful, quiet, well-written blog will not be noticed.
I am interested in good You Tube items, and I am not a big fan of cuteness. But there are lots of people who go for those videos of cute kittens. I know, because I play them for my cat (both of us are yearning to go back to Mexico, but are stuck in the States so that the family can attend the Rose Bowl).
So, other than being very mildly annoyed at cute things on the cover, to me the cover of OS is almost inconsequential. I look at the titles of the Ed Picks, but I hardly ever click on them, as most of the time. Instead, I look at the recently posted ones and the comments and ratings of people who have just seen something that moved them one way or the other.
Writing is an existential craft, best done by individuals who are inspired by a personal vision. I've seen some absolutely stellar writing, worthy of the finest literary quarterlies, but then, the circulation on these publications is usually microscopic.
Maybe if OS were based in Oxford or Cambridge, we might have a website that more to my particular tastes. But we're living in America. I cultivate my readership as best as I can, knowing that the definition of art is 99% garbage and 1% pure inspirational genius. The monkey wrench in this equation is that these judgments are all subjective. So, I say, deal with it.
http://open.salon.com/blog/kanuk/2009/11/29/living_in_a_third_world_country_aka_the_united_states
It's well-written and nicely formatted. It has opinion, argument, and analysis. It has photos, graphs, statistics, links, and even book references. It's a serious piece, but easy to read and understand, and of an appropriate length for a blog. In short, I think it's a piece that exemplifies the kind of post that the OS community would want.
Now look at the cover -- "Die Hard," bisexual boyfriends, pelvic exams, Tiger Woods. There's nothing wrong with any of those posts per se. But really, in the context of those, is there no room for Kanuk's post? And did the editors even read it? Even glance at it? If not, how did they happen to select the other posts?
From my perspective, what the collaborators have in common here is an entirely misplaced faith in the editors. Yes, they question the editors performance, but not their capacity for improvement. That is because they fail to reckon with the single most crucial factor in the editorial cover-policies: in a word, cronyism.
As the OS community grows ever larger, the desire on the part of the editors to maintain a stable "brand" grows as well, and that desire is conveniently served by keeping their favorites front and center on a consistent basis. Does every cover piece come from the OS elite? Of course not. But it does seem like every post from the OS elite makes the cover. Now those who benefit from this policy, or those who identify with authority of any kind, or those who need to think that things are always fair and right in the end, will doubtless counter that the OS elite produces the best work and that is why they appear on the cover all the time. This would be a point worth arguing in detail were the stakes not so incredibly small and the contrary evidence not so glaring. As it stands, I will simply rate this post for its deftly executed idealism. Well done Mr. Quixote and Mr. Panza. I only wish OS weren't such a windmill (in every sense of the term).
I am struck by the quality of the responses generally. I can't say that I have an actually preference about the directions that either of you propose. Both would make it easier to find the content that individual readers prefer and enjoy. I like to read things that make me think harder. I like it when what someone writes is challenging intellectually. I would like it if it was easier to find those writers. It is often through the recommendations of others, such as Mishima makes in a comment below, that I find such a writer. But its a nightmare to keep track of them after a while. The favorites thing doesn't really work after a while, creating a feed that moves faster than I can track because I am busy with a real life. The idea of having sections, tabs, that are more specific, perhaps linked to certain tags would supply another way to find what I really want to read.
I like Bob's cartoons and I certainly wouldn't want to inhibit their appearance. I don't see why those posts that drive traffic shouldn't be here, but those posts shouldn't suppress the opportunity every other writer has of rising to the top on the merit of their work.
I don't write here much because I just never really have had the time to figure out how to do so successfully. Commenting seems to fill I a need I have to express myself in writing more so than I ever would have thought possible. It seems to me that comments are often quite undervalued here, and yet, in reading the comments here today I see a perfect example of why comments deserve to be relied upon and highlighted editorially from time to time.
The main contributions I see in your suggestions are for quality and accessibility. Both would add to the pleasure of participation here. Until such improvements are made, I can't see that I will be writing here as much as I did in the beginning because I might as well be printing out what I write and then throwing it into the file in my office closet. The benefits of the act of writing would still be the same for me and the reduction in audience would be minimal.
I suggest that we each email the editor at open.editor@salon.com
Click the urgent ! symbol
The impact of consistency might best be achieved by using the same subject header, so perhaps:
Reaching for the Open Sky: OS Community Suggestions
I also suggest pasting the link to this page followed by a short personal comment to the editor.
Well done, all of you!! (I'm reminded of Dr. Seuss's Horton Hears a Who.)
I'm wondering, those who bemoan the idealism in this post or who mention the lack of involvement of the editors, if there isn't also a message here for us readers. I'm thinking about polls that show vast majorities of people who want small government in the abstract but who want their own pet projects funded. Or the people who complain about the crap on TV but end up watching it. Or those of us who worry about the death of in-depth analysis but spend our time on easier stuff. I'm not talking about everybody else here; I'm talking about me. I have found to my utter amazement and chagrin that the sheer number and variety of posts here has resulted in my own scattered approach to reading them, often with the notion that I'll "come back later" to the excellent, serious ones (like doloresflower's global mindset or BenSen's philosophical one just as examples).
Anyway, I am personally going to use this post as a reminder to focus on a few thoughtful essays, and I'm hoping others do the same; that way the OS editors can feel financially justified in highlighting good work.
My feelings exactly. I think with perhaps a few exceptions "breaking news" -- if it is to be featured on the cover -- should have some original thought and analysis. Otherwise why is it on the cover? Just to fill space? If the editors raised the bar and insisted that breaking news be accompanied by some original thought, maybe OS members would rise to the occasion and write better posts.
I love the idea of multiple covers and would hope that one day there would be enough OS staff to allow that to happen. I wouldn't want everything tailored to my taste, though. I've found some wonderful gems by clicking on pieces I never expected I'd enjoy.
Open Salon is so huge (too huge?) these days. It feels like a full time job trying to keep up with my favorites and find new talent so I can appreciate that the editors must be quite overwhelmed. I'd like to see the staff grow in proportion so that more writers and artists could enjoy having their work promoted. I truly believe that OS's greatest problem currently is lack of manpower.
I was not in the original group of invitees to write here, and as I said when I took down all my prior blogs I found this to be a place worth reading and commenting on, not being personally a writer of the calibre of those such as the authors of this excellent piece. But then, isnt that whats really needed? Commenters to show that what is here is being read?
So in the end, if the OS overlords really want this to be commercially successful in the long run, they need to put up pieces on the cover (or covers) that will get read and commented on by more than just a handful of excellent writers. After all, if Hemingway never published, but still wrote, he would still be a great writer, albeit unknown.
SALON- are you listening? If you want to make this what it could be in terms of the commercial AND the artistic potential, read and acknowledge this post.
With that as a given, the next best thing in my mind is to make it a bit easier to aggregate articles based on the individual users' interests. Not exactly a tabbed interface per se, but imagine a personalized homepage comprised of modules that populated automatically with posts determined by your tagging criteria. Of course we can search for tags now. But have a go at it and you start to sense the enormity of the job that editors must face. Unfortunately this puts a seemingly insurmountable burden on OS writers to properly tag their content... no more multi-sentence, nonsensical rambling tags.
We have been granted some tools to sift out the chaff, but I hope more are coming. With some exceptions, searching by editor picks and popularity only recreates the madness that is the front cover. Even if the titles change, the song remains the same. I'm happy that OS has brought eyes to some of the readers here. Admittedly I graze less in these pastures and have moved on to contemplating what this experiment means to blogging in general. Whether it will forever remain the (monetized) bastard stepchild of _real_ journalism or evolve into something more personal... critical, thoughtful, but with a definite point of view.
Before I leave let me renew my request to the gatekeepers for COMMENTS RSS.
peace
Just a thought. But I'm tired of the trivial stuff. I don't mind a good humorous piece--John Blumenthal often makes me laugh. But stuff that you can find on YouTube or TMZ? Nuh uh.
Just to put this into a different context... I didn't even know OS *has* a cover. I don't recall seeing it, though it's likely I have in the distant past.
I get here one of two ways -- links someone posts (usually Kent), or Google searches.
With the plethora of information sources, a closed world's little cover page just isn't likely to be worth my time. It would speak very highly indeed of the site if it did -- but even so, selecting the best from the site, with the best from elsewhere, would be even better.
I think that, rather than focusing on the single or multiple covers for OS, you should be looking at larger aggregation, syndication-like. I don't mean just RSS, but rather where there's some degree of editorial selection, if not guidance. Where Kent's rants on healthcare might make it, but not, say, on abortion. Not because of the quality of one vs the other, but because of a particular focus of interests. But perhaps also leaving out his lessor efforts.
In the best case, this process of selection could bring together complementary views from disparate sources, giving a degree of editorial balance and coverage of the multiple perspectives.
Does that sound a bit familiar? Yes, I'm talking about something that might step into the gaping void left by the exit of serious journalism.
But with something more selective -- selective as in Kent's multiple-covers thought, and selective as in mishima666's idea of increased selectivity. More selective than Newsweek. More focused than the NYT -- but an even broader RANGE of focus available.
The problem, for OS as a profit-making entity, is that leaves them as just a commodity -- blog hosting. But they could compete for the best bloggers, or the best tools. They could compete on splits on the ad revenue (which I believe are currently 0%). They could act as agents of a sort, helping to market and cross-market good bloggers, helping them bring more ad revenue.
(All that assumes an ad-driven business model. I don't think there's any alternative model...)
This is distinct from the "news feed" idea, in that there is actual editorial selection happening at some point in the process -- just as in the OS cover.
I don't see automated systems (such iCurrent -- Kent: Ramana Rao's a founder there) as filling that gap, but nor do I see manual processes as being adequate. But I think we have yet to find the right synergy, between leveraging individual user behavior, group behavior, and actual deliberate judgment (and on occasion, commentary).
But I predict we'll head in that direction.
But I don't think OS covers, singular or multiple, are on the path to that future. And I think you should focus your attention on finding outlets to feature your content which are.
That doesn't mean abandoning OS, just relegating its role in your universe to being a platform, with attached community. While your audience is the world at large, which doesn't much care what OS puts on its cover -- unless that cover happens to meet their particular individual need.
I settled here because they were associated with big-Salon, and it seemed a way to get some visibility that might actually reach some of the Democratic movers and shakers. (I'm not even a Democrat, but the Republicans offered no one I wanted to see elected, and I wanted to help the Democrats because they did field some decent folks.) But, you know, the problem is that the Democrats are not scientific about message, which is why the detestable messages of many Republicans (restricting rights, disempowering societal groups, taking large tax breaks while others suffer) still manage to take hold—the Republicans are scientific about message, making up for the weakness of their platform with the power of their ability to deliver arbitrary junk in the form of message. And it's not like the Democrats have nothing to say for their position, they're just terrible about saying it. So I write things to suggest how they might frame things.
And Salon is a left-leaning platform that pays lip service to caring about these issues. But they bury my stuff against their own interest. They could just as well have a cover page that's like the one they have now and an interior page for politics where people like me can gather and people could bookmark around the net saying "go here to see what is really going on". But they don't make this easy. Even if you want to do it by search keywords, their keyword search facility is really pathetic.
They have it within their grasp to ratchet things up to something great, and they squander that. On another thread, O'Really asked for five words to describe OS. I wrote: “Important visible resource sadly squandered.” They think themselves successful because they're doing better than when they had nothing. But measured against what they could be, they're barely scratching the surface.
What I'm saying is, in addition to thinking about OS's cover, look beyond that to the bigger picture. And that bigger picture is that being on the OS cover shouldn't be enough for you. It lacks the reach, both now, and were they to reform it as you guys suggest.
As a direct result of the OS cover being associated with OS, it means you're writing to a small audience of friends. Yes, you want a cover to reach your audience.
But you want it to be a BIGGER cover, with a BIGGER audience to discover you.
You only reach me because we're old friends. If for your old friends, with many shared views and interests, OS's cover can't bring us together, what hope do you have of it bringing you together with your desired audience?
Some, due to the law of large numbers. But it will be defocused, hit-and-miss.
So regardless of whether you succeed in influencing OS to improve their covers -- look beyond OS.
Think of the OS cover as a communications channel. It's multiplexed now amongst all of OS. Its audience is -- visitors for whom open.salon.com is a destination. Being associated with salon.com makes that a somewhat larger set than otherwise, but it's still a narrow set.
You need a channel that's both more focused -- more about things that would interest people you'd like to find and read your stuff. Since you'd like to reach people who think differently than you on issues, you'd like a channel that would cover a range.
Since you want Democratic movers-and-shakers -- think about who you'd want to appear on a cover with? How many of them are on OS? HufPo? Who DO they follow. How DO they get their news?
By channel, I don't mean you should limit yourself to a single channel. On the contrary, you want your channel to be an aggregate of channels, packaged and combined in ways that make for captivating content for your targeted readers.
I argue that a single site like OS is too static to do that. First, it filters out bloggers who aren't willing to be OS captives. Such as your friends who don't want to be associated with OS because of the cover. Or others who may have their own gigs. So this limits the content you can be packaged with, that you can be associated with.
And a limited audience is a natural result of that.
And I think you should not just think about Democratic movers-and-shakers. Because, I don't think they're listening to you. I don't think they're listening with their ears (metaphoric or real) at all. I think they listen to campaign contributions, and power -- and sometimes, public opinion. And I think with a larger audience, you can influence the influencers that influence the movers-and-shakers -- not just voters, but also campaign contributers, and maybe the people with whom they DO discuss policy.
Something the OS cover page isn't really going to help you with that much, no matter how good it becomes.
This was the kind of place that you're directing me to. It just isn't any longer. They lost interest. They were building a powerful brand of political interest and could have, even with lighter traffic, sold specific advertisements to the kind of base that traffics such a site. But they threw all that away for ads that sell themselves in a least common denominator way, making the issue of focus an irrelevance. This place could have been much better than HuffPo. It could have been the go-to place for politics. But it didn't want to be. If the problem were that I needed to compete to make the grade to be on the cover, I would be writing better or more often. But writing better makes no difference here. It just wastes one's time because good writing isn't what gets one featured.
Two things seem to get people featured: being on the list of the editors' personal friends or using the private mail system here to send one gigantic message to everyone you have ever heard of in a single message saying "I wrote something. Read me." I get many of these a day and generally ignore them. But it works and the people who do this get read. I refuse to abuse the mail system that way, sending blast messages to a zillion people unsolicited. It's impersonal. It's wasteful of disk space. It's everything I don't believe in. But since it's tolerated, it succeeds. It's another example of the system falling apart. If they had a decent subscription system here, it wouldn't be necessary. But I refuse to succeed by being part of the wrong way to do things. Instead, OS will eventually lose me for lack of caring.
However, I suggest my own solution, which, I think, would address both of your suggestions: Have a cover that is more like a newspaper but all in one place. Have CATEGORIES on the cover such as : News and Commentary, Relationships, Style, Politics, Food...... And then have the editors choose, each couple of days, the best-written and most interesting posts under the chosen categories. That way, the cover could showcase a variety of subjects AND the best writing.
As one of the "professional" and widely published elsewhere writers who like writing for OpenSalon I think this would go far toward making the site more serious and interesting. Perhaps there could even be a note at the bottom of the cover which says: For some more posts you might enjoy, and there could be links to some of the quirkier posts that others like, too.
Thanks for taking the time to do this. With the advent of a new editor (some time) now is the time for change for the better.
One thing's sure: Something will change. Salon.com and OS didn't become such Internet powerhouses without innovation. Unfortunately, change takes time - and we want and need change now. And now. And now. :-)
And there is amazing work here--although with the increased numbers it is harder and harder to find. I do think that the editors could really get some bang from their buck by taking the cover choices and EPs far more seriously and by showcasing the very best thinking and writing. In my mind, it is not only the right thing to do but by far the best business decision. We can either succumb to the dumbing down of America or try and beat it back.
2. I am still amazed at the extent that anyone cares about the Cover.
3. The best editorial work, in the sense of directing readers to worthwhile writing is done by WSFTC and her Friday post. Plus Friday Fiction by Unbreakable. The readers have already done the multiple page thing by simply doing it. And I thank them
4. I think that keeping the place relatively civil (especially for the internet) is about all that can and should be done by the people named as editors. They do ok at it.
5. It is pretty easy to find stuff you want to read by following the comments of people that you like and vice versa. It isn't rocket science.
6. There is an element of sucking up that seems embarrassing for a group of writers that aren't getting paid. I suppose it is reflexive. I never wanted a cover but an EP, for about one week.
7. The comments plus keeping the joint relatively civil -- thats a good thing.
I love your reference to Ted Nelson and Project Xanadu. A blast from the past.
FWIW, the relational database concept of 'views' or virtual tables is similar and simply not very complex.
In addition, Google News and Google Reader allow either total or partial customization respectively. So, once again, you proposal has proof of concept in a slightly different, more evolved form.
Editors add value by organizing content for an audience. Their role on OS is hopelessly muddled.
Having different covers for personal narratives, travel stories, humor, history, and food/pets would be a great way to start.
I've also found that even the social issues are one dimensional. That disturbs me the most.
Highly rated.
Thanks to those who posted this on facebook so I could find it.
The lack of comments or responses from Salon editors on this post is stunning yet not surprising. Their silence speaks volumes.
Thanks to both of you for a valiant effort.
It is always possible that someone will step in and try and shape OS into something enjoyable and rewarding, something that comes closer to fulfilling the original promise of the site. But it will be a steep climb now that it has become, well, the mess it is now.
My real hope is that people like you two (and me and anyone else who has glimpsed "what could have been") will carry the seed of this new format somewhere else and it can yet become reality. It is a wonderful idea still, just not one that is likely to be brought into being here.
I've long thought that targeted (multi-cover) editions of magazines are the future online. What I've always wondered about the OS cover is why it is such a visual mish-mash (HuffPo is even worse). You could have categories, certainly. You could also have editorial blurbs that act as better hooks and also provide more editorial voice. I suspect the problem is lack of resources. It's also true that this kind of "curated blog" or "community magazine" is evolving, and the power players haven't got the business model or what drives communities like OS figured out.
I am fascinated by collaborative ideas in magazines--ways to expand the discussion among readers. Rated.
Some great ideas here.