Rob has a very smart post, which sparked a thoughtful comments thread, over here. I was wary of even chiming in, considering how productive it has been without our input. I also don't want anyone to think there is a foolproof way to make it on the cover. But I thought I'd try to clarify a few issues that were raised by the post and in the comments:
1). If a story is on the cover, it should be an Editor's Pick. If not, it was oversight or error. When that happens, let us know.
2). All Editor's Picks won't make it on the cover. We just have limited real estate -- it's hard to get all the great content on there. We still hope that people will find that content through the Editor's Picks tab on the cover page.
3). Update times: We're still sticking to the twice-a-weekday publishing schedule though, you may have noticed, we're mixing it up a lot more in between those two publishing times, hoping to get more content on there, especially during heavy news cycles.
Again, I'm wary of adding to Rob's list because, the truth is, there are great posts we all swoon over that are often unclassifiable. One of my first bosses, a brilliant editor, used to say he was only looking for interesting stories to run in the magazine -- maddeningly vague, completely subjective and totally true. The best content can sometimes never be predicted. That said, some general suggestions for writing not just for the cover, but for your own audience:
• Be a great filter. A number of posts have made it to the cover by alerting us to some great story (or video) somewhere else. Cam's piece alerting us to Obama's appearance on O'Reilly; Stellaa's post on the riveting videos of Sarah Palin before her congregation; a wealth of entertainment gossip that others have posted. We're looking for quality, but we're also looking to build a vibrant magazine cover -- interesting, breaking news or fresh information helps a lot. (Tagging it "breaking news" helps in these cases.)
• Back up your points with links to primary sources. We don't know if you're an expert or not, but we can tell if you're grounding your provocative posts in fact.
• Write for your audience. Internalize what their needs are, what questions they have, what will be interesting to them. Maybe you're trying to build an audience of, say, orthodontists, ornithologists or Japanese pop-culture junkies. Your posts may not make it on the Open cover that often -- or ever -- so don't write for us, write for the people you want reading you.
• Upload a photo in your profile account. It's hard to want to invest time with a post whose writer can't take the time to upload a simple author image.
* Craft your headlines. Yes, we change them on the cover all the time (a lot of times, purely for space reasons). But in scanning through the Most Recent directory, a good headline (clever -- or even just very direct) can make a difference. Headlines, after all, are essentially ad copy. It's your hard sell.
Generally, on most days, there's just two of us reading through the day's offerings. It is, may I humbly say to you, a pretty great job. The quality is often remarkable. But it's a growing job, with 200 or more posts some days, a number that will only grow. We do rely on Ratings, we look at Most Read (which is getting a database upgrade -- but will return to the cover soon), we look at what's getting comments, we look at contributors who are consistently great. And still, we'll miss great stuff. But the cover isn't the ultimate metric. In the coming months, we hope to have traffic information easily available to all bloggers, so you can see just how many visits your posts get. I can tell you that your blogs are also getting scanned by those pesky Google spiders, and you're getting traffic from the big search engines, too -- some of the most popular posts on Open haven't even made the OS cover but made big connections in the larger Web universe. More on how to optimize that later (unless one of you want to blog on how to use Google to build your audience? Alert me if you do).
Also: the share buttons in the top right-hand corner of most posts can really be valuable -- a story that gets a lot of bookmarks on Digg or Reddit will get an awful lot of eyeballs outside of our universe.
Scott Rosenberg
caitlin shamberg
Thomas Rogers
Rebecca Traister
Lexus HS 250h
Shell
Salon.com
Comments
Solitude is sometimes a wonderful thing, However, here on OS solitude is not what we are seeking. I mean, how many of us write something just to blast it off into empty cyberspace like those satellites that have all kinds of memorabilia in their gut. Even if there IS sentient life out there, the chance of intelligent life finding that one tiny satellite in the entire vast universe is infinitesimally small.
I'm sure that your post is a response to the many posts I've seen recently about not getting on the cover or not getting noticed. But most of the advice that I have seen is technical and I think that part of the answer is social.
I really think that some more advanced social features could facilitate a way for OS members to get to know each other as well as better support the work that they admire. Even a simple way to comment on comments would help. Now, if you want to have any discussion with an author or another member with the current linear mode it is necessary to go off comment and then it's impossible to keep track of who is saying what to who! So - threads perhaps? Or perhaps someone has a better idea.
In the past few days I've stopped writing at all to post a few things that just help people to get to know my personally,(and because I needed a break from politics) but I don't know if anyone sees those posts either.
No one likes those hideous counters at the bottom of web pages , but perhaps an invisible tally could serve to inform authors if anyone is visiting. If someone finds me and is uninterested, that's ok! I think I can speak for others when I say we'd just like to know if anyone is out there.
Thanks for explaining the editorial process. Major Kudos! I love Open Salon. I've been fan of the regular Salon for a long time time and am thrilled that there's an open environment for sharing and posting.
Julie
Ahem. Despite this assertion, our pink-haired friend is on the cover right now, under 'top-rated 24 hours.'
Where there's a will, there's a way. Troll on, Freaky.
(And Kerry, thanks to you and the other editors for your hard work and good job on the site. It really is appreciated, and I find the site very well designed, easy to use, and terribly addictive.)
You do have a great job. And thanks, I'm not sure I know of anyone who isn't happy to be along for the ride.
I'm just not so sure about using ratings as a means to find front-page or editor's pick posts. Not all of us actively "network" here, and I for one am uncomfortable buck trading or appealing to "friendship" for views and ratings. A lot of others are probably that way as well, and likely don't get the high ratings as a result, despite having done great work.
I never check the "highest rated" column. I sometimes look at what my friends have posted recently, but most often I just look at the activity feed and click on things that sound interesting, or that are written by people with whom I'm familiar.
I don't know - I just hope this place never becomes a jealousy-ridden hive for favoratism, frustration, and desperation to be heard. The smaller community was nice for its slowness and intimacy. Now it's not necessarily worse, just different.
I'm trying to figure out what's different between my experience here versus at salon, and there's something more connecting about being on salon. I think it's because there I find threads where my "friends" are. Maybe that's true here as well, and I've just not been here long enough? Also, I find that I'm spending more time here and less at salon, and I'm feeling bad about that and pondering why. This site feels more social and that one more intellectual maybe--but I still feel sort of alien here. Not asking anyone to solve this, just observing. And it worries me that salon will lose its readership as people move here from there. I'm wondering what your goals are about this. Surely you don't think people magically have twice the time as before just because you've opened up a new forum for them?
Also, you still didn't really mention timing. If you get 200 posts a day, when do they come in mostly? Is it better to post with the flood or during low tide? Or are you sleeping during low tide?
I like to know stuff up front; I've not been here long enough to have the right to complain, but as artsfish says, occasionally I've found something that's just terrific and really feels like it should be highlighted, especially as compared with some of the more gossipy front page stuff that occasionally makes it.
Multidemensional posts humanize us to the other, so the brutality can be minimized. But, I don't think we should be afraid of conflict, because out of conflict comes growth.
Kind of along those lines, and regarding the original topic: I think it's easier for nonpolitical posts to make the cover. That's because there are so many political posts that you have to be really good to stand out. I'd guess at least 50% of the OS blog posts in the last week have been about Sarah Palin, but only 2 or 3 of them make the cover at a time, with another maybe 7-10 cover posts that are about different topics entirely.
As for the echo chamber concerns: We're not trying to advance any agenda here. We'd love to consistently showcase a broad array of smart thinking, from across the political spectrum.
I think you're right about that. They simply can't have the front cover be all politics (Palin) all the time.
For my part, political commentary (and sometimes satire) is my bread and butter, so I'm just going to have to deal with the consequences of running with a bigger herd.
Agreed also on the sentiment that there should be more Republican or conservative views, although they would probably appear in such small numbers that they would get torn assunder from all sides. This would probably then result in only the trolls being willing to show themselves, and so the obnoxiousness factor would skyrocket.
Even still, it would make for more interesting engagements. Nothing like a truly adversarial argument to bring out one's A-game.
I find McGarrett50 to be a thoughtful conservative type.
PS: LOL, even as I post this I realize my last two comments have been touting unity over divisiveness and here I'm looking for some contention. Maybe I need your couch!
Well I don't mind being disagreeable (that sometimes gets me in trouble) but I don't find a lot of stuff on here to disagree with.
I suspect the tone of the site is pretty well set but I guess our best shot at trying to get some differences of opinion around here is for all of us to try to voice our thoughts (even and perhaps especially the dissident ones) but also to be civil and welcoming about it.
I have not read McGarrett50 but based on your rec I will check him out. Thanks. :)
And there is a practical consideration as well for anyone who wants to build a readership here. If you comment on a very active post, you are virtually guaranteed an audience. If you write a new post, it's kind of a crap shoot whether anyone will notice it. I see a lot of the new people writing posts, and unfortunately many of those posts aren't read very much. If instead they began by commenting on active posts their material would definitely be read.
There are very few posts that are great in and of themselves. Typically what makes for a great post is not just the original post, but also the comments. Commenting is kind of like being in a bike race -- you might not be one who crosses the finish line first, but you can be someone who helps the victor to win. In other words, we should look at great posts as being team, not individual efforts.
This is why it would be great if we could rate comments as well as posts, and be able to see not only the top rated posts, but the top rated comments as well. I think that would help new members become noticed and start to build a readership. I believe it would also cut down on the number of new posts, and that the remaining posts would be of higher quality.
I think I have to disagree with you regarding the commenting to readership ratio. I spend a huge amount of time commenting, not because I want someone to notice me, but because I feel I'm in an interactive dialogue and I have something to say. However, I haven't noticed any difference in the response to anything I've posted. Possibly that's because I post very little that has anything to do with politics, or possibly what is there is of little interest.
In any case, as I mentioned above, there is no way to know unless someone comments or thumbs.
And another thought occurred to me; What about people who read who aren't members? A post can be found on Google, but if a non member visits they can only read.
Does this make sense to anyone? (Again, not knocking earnest praise, just the system that encourages trite commentary).
Sure, and that's a perfectly good reason to comment. But I think a lot of people come here because they have something to share and want an audience. But a good post can take hours to write. At some point many people are going to do a cost-benefit analysis and conclude that spending that amount of time only to have the post slide through the activity queue in a few minutes just isn't worth it. When that happens everyone loses.
artsfish: "However, I haven't noticed any difference in the response to anything I've posted. Possibly that's because I post very little that has anything to do with politics, or possibly what is there is of little interest."
Hmmm . . . . I'll have to think about that. In fact I'll check out your blog and see what you have been up to.
Lainey writes: "I think you've crystallized what I formerly called pandering. I think what I really meant was triteness. But it seems necessary to get noticed! Here's what I mean: People (and I'm a people too--not excluding myself here) feel the need to add trite comments like "Great post, so and so" all over the place--NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT in and of itself, just that it feels burdensome after a while to feel the need to show your face everywhere just to get noticed."
I also offer the "great post" type of comment, not so that I get noticed, but so that the post gets noticed. I do this especially on posts that I like but that haven't gotten a lot of action. It's way of making the post visible to others in the activity queue. Of course, if the post already has a number of rating and comments, "great post" doesn't add to the discussion.
I'm just thinking out loud, btw. (I suppose one might call that trite, huh? Maybe I'll go outside and play with my family now!)
I am new here to posting, but I will offer a few, hopefully coherent observations from the vantage point of a newby:
I find the level of discourse very refreshing. I have seen too many sites that are thread-based dissolve so quickly into sniping. In the few times that I have seen name-calling or baiting, either the original author or another called out of bounds and re-focused the topic.
There is a lot of commentary here and in other postings about liberals, left, progressive, right-wing, etc. and polarizing viewpoints. I try to keep track of how each writer is using each term, but it makes me a little bit dizzy.
If I could offer a humble suggestion, perhaps somewhere in there lies the start of another meta-thread from someone who gets more readers than I have (yet - is that more pandering? sorry, I stay hopeful).
I have paid attention to politics for about 20-odd years and the definitions of these terms have gotten fuzzier and fuzzier. Context is important. To my family in the South, I am a crazy communist liberal feminist. Yet, I feel fairly moderate compared to a lot of people posting here, and ones I know in Washington DC, Austin, Boulder and omg-NYC.
2c. The endless campaigning and spin-wars do little to clarify the debate. What's up is down, what's down is up. Some here argue for position/issue based discussion, but the issues by definition are framed within the labels.
e.g., I have a number of friends who consider themselves fairly liberal (i.e., tolerant or libertarian, really) on social issues but abhor big government. They identify as Republicans.
Yet, are the Republicans still the party of small government?
I know others who don't give a hoot about the structure of government, lean moderate to right on social issues, but saw the Iraq War as the primary issue the last two times around.
So, in summary - Are conservative and liberal only applied to the social issues? Or are they the only ones that are still clear. Which voices is it you'd want to attract.
All would be lovely. But also clarification and discussion would enlighten.
Thanks, Kerry! all!
If the poster can look and see, heh, these folks like my writing, it would really be nice.
"As for the echo chamber concerns: We're not trying to advance any agenda here. We'd love to consistently showcase a broad array of smart thinking, from across the political spectrum. "
This is very good to hear, because as Stella alluded to, I think it only helps us raise our game when we are challenged (constructively and respectfully hopefully), and consider other viewpoints.
I love the forum here, and don't get to spend nearly as much time reading and commenting as I would like. I use my blog here to pursue the topics that don't necessarily fit with my audience and intent in the other places I write, and find this audience really invigorating to continue to work through my craft, not to sound to high falutin, but there it is.
Thanks for this community, and the exposure/substantive feedback it allows us!
(And Kerry, you really know how to make a grown troll cry, I am not sure what Freaky will do when she reads your comment waaay up there. Of course, I can't wait to find out.)
It may not be perfect, but it's still an amazing conception and is very user-friendly AND gives you a shot at gaining an audience without having to immerse yourself in metatagging and other web promotion methods.
I can see wanting to attract a larger audience but it would also seem to attract lots of troll-like behavior.
Maybe I'll add the second line: Note - I only have one out-dated blog posted so do not feel obligated to check me out.
Since discovering Open Salon, I will say that I am not a "social networker" kind of person because of the full and rich life that I have. But I have been taken by the people here and the quality of the writing and the people themselves, and the almost complete absence of malice and snarking that is unfortunately common in many social networking sites.
Since the short time I've joined (August 12th), I've had the good pleasure of meeting in person 5 On Salon bloggers: Joan Walsh, her daughter Nora, Dave Cullen, Lonnie, and JD. This has been unexpected and delightful fantastic. I've made other online friends as well and hope to meet them some day.
I write on a variety of subjects and humor is something I usually inject into everything I write about, as well as my therapy practice. I
find that humor is a potent stress reliever, tension easer and practical. Laughing out loud on a daily basis can add 8 years to your life!
I have no expectations. I've had some of my posts end up as an Editor pick and some land on the cover, much to my unexpected delight.
Also, I'd really like to have page views. At least I'd know that someone visited, even if they didn't rate or comment.
Finally, I'd really like the option to headline (and subhead) my post myself for the cover. No offense Kerry, but you've missed the mark on what I was trying to convey on both of my cover posts. I've noticed other folks' complaints on that subject too.
I wouldn't mind having a deck (subhead) and the option for call-outs in the body of the post itself as well - may as well ask!
Also, I hope you can make it clearer/easier for members to promote posts they really like. You are telling us here something worth remembering -- that posting a comment makes the post more visible to the system. Tell us what else we can do to bring the light to the good work we uncover.
What if there were some kind of a starred rating system that let users rank posts? This might help visitors find some of the less traveled roads. It also allows better resolution than the simple "thumbs up" designation we have now.
I think the key to promoting the best posts is to allow readers (rather than writers) to make recommendations. I know this would be a software challenge, but Amazon has that very nice feature in which readers get a message saying "People who looked at this item also looked at these items" or "People who rated this item highly also rated this highly."
I know such a system is very difficult to implement. But if members can recommend posts to other members, as in "if you liked this you'd also love this" that would help. There is, of course the risk of abuse, but simply establishing the rule that a reader can't recommend his own work would help control this.
Even still, it would make for more interesting engagements. Nothing like a truly adversarial argument to bring out one's A-game.
U R A Chode, Chode.
I love this field of endeavor and I absolutely love the intelligent posts of other writers that I enjoy reading every day.