Randy, are you sure you didn't mean to title this Oh Gawd, Did I just slit my wrist? ;-) ?

WOOF

That's spooky, TripleC! I just spent the last ten minutes worrying at that very post. And to answer your question, maybe that would have been a better title.

She seems to have a presence of sorts at other places on the 'net but I honestly know not why her statements and opinions are "front page news" here. Perhaps because they are here and easily clickable when one is reading another story they get more attention than they would elsewhere.

You can always ignore it and come on over to my page, Randy.

It's funny, I generally agree with Amy on even some of her more controversial statements, but find her supporting arguments usually pretty unconvincing.

But, evidently some people like reading her. So they're getting something out of her posts. At least, they're getting more out of her than anything I write. So, it's hard to criticize.

There's been some past speculation about why the editors make the choices they do; here's mine, in case you haven't seen it. The relevant bit is about expertise. The editors seem to like posts that have an authoritative flavor to them. (I put it this way instead of saying that the posts actually are authoritative because there's been some dispute about whether some posts are, and of course the editors aren't really in a position to evaluate it. I'm not passing judgment, in general, myself.)

I like the reading the exchange of comments. She gets a lot of traffic.

Whether you like her take on things or not, the good doctor's posts are certainly more valuable and substantive than endless and almost daily accounts of family life and hobbies written in excruciating English.

As for why the doctor's posts are rated, picked, or front covered, who cares? Is there any money in this kind of homage?

Hey Randy... RE: I sincerely want to know your thoughts. No fire aimed at Amy here.

No fire from me, either. First... if you go to Amy's blog, you'll notice that of her last 10 posts, 9 are EP. But it's not just Amy. JTH: 9 out of the last 10 posts are EP... Saturn: 10 out of the last 10 posts are EP.

And there's the new finds and stragglers... gracielou only has 6 posts, 5 are EPs... allen only has 10 posts, all 10 are EPs. Gary is straggling in thre - about half are EPs. If he put more of those leather jacket young Gary pics, he'd be up there more. That's like, almost up there with Freaky and he doesn't even have a foot hole.

So, it's not so much that it's "DrAmy.com" here. It's more that the editors know what they like, know who turns it out... and sometimes they even "find" those people outside of OS and invite them here.

Obviously people read Dr. Amy, or she wouldn't be on top of the "most read" or "most rated" columns so often. Same with JTH, and Gary and Gracielou and many of the others.

But, taste is a highly personal thing. So, if we don't like the style of one of the picks, we wonder why they heck they're on the cover so often. Human nature, I guess.

IMHO, the real answer is that people like Amy are on the cover often because the editors want them to be. And that's their right. It's their cover. If I'd done all the work to build this place, I'd be putting who I want on the cover, too. lol. Some of them would be those same people. Gracielou and Gary. And hot damn, Cartouche and MaryT would see more cover action, too.

Okay, shutting up now. lol.

Allow me to be very clear, here. In case anyone reads my semi-open call as a Dr. Amy hunting license, that's not my point. Nor is the post about why I'M not on the cover. Good Lord, I've seldom written anything worthy of such coverage, so it's not about me.

But frankly, it's not about sameness on the cover, per se. We all have our favorites and our non-favorites. I've actually declined to click on several cover stories simply because I'd rather pass on the filtering and seek out my own favorites.

I cheer (silently) when a favorite makes the cover, and boo (silently) when a non-fave is on the cover day after day after day.

Dr Amy has been installed as House Doctor for OS. Kinda like having a doc in the family, so proud.

I have (just) discovered that there is another doctor here, though he doesn't get into arguments. He DOES provide annotations and sources for his articles.

So, my newest unsung read - jeffrey dach md at http://open.salon.com/user_blog.php?uid=5400

(and he has a very interesting article on overprescribed SSRI's - the Prozac class drugs. )

Randy,
I have to say, I have had similar thoughts. Thanks for bringing it up.
Jon

Well, don't forget teendoc. I'm sure there are dozens of medical professionals who write with authority and write well. They just don't write at least once a day.

There's also pontificatrix, who's one of the best-informed and smartest writers on Open Salon. She's a shrink.

First off, I have to say that ranting boomer's comment was my favorite! What a wonderful and smart person!

Secondly, let's not forget about Dr. Rahul k. Parikh. I always enjoy his posts.

Dr. Amy is prolific, I will say that much. She also has a great instinct to know when she has gone too far, and how to pull back in and invite people back to reading her posts. She lost me on her what I consider to be narrow and uneducated view of alternative medicine. I swore her off. Then she went and wrote about the sexting...and I enjoyed her post. The cover thing will always be a mystery to me.

I had the same concern (said sierrasong meekly, not wanting to criticize).

I have no explanation for why every time she farts it's front page news. The stuff is not badly written and is often interesting but I 'll bet money that she just synopsizes articles from online medical journals. She's really not the brightest bulb on this tree despite the Harvard pedigree and the odorless quality it bestows on her output. At any rate, all I have to do is ignore it.

I will agree that the stuff is not badly written.

Whoa, this is great. Last I looked Dr.Amy's Wanted for murder... and Randy's What is this? Dr.Amy.com? were #s 1 & 2 on the most rated feed!! What a horse race. But I think Dr. A wins by a nose because she's on the COVER and Randy's not. Nah nah nah nah nah nah!

And hatchet, honestly, nothing wrong with a Harvard pedigree. Although Amy graduated with a mere cl, sniff ...whereas some folks I know, ahem......

WOOF

And, hatchet, furthermore Hahvad men (and women too, I guess they have them now) do not fahrt, they rearwards exhale odiferous wind.

WOOF

CCC- Did you get a scl from Harvard? You always impressed me as a big WOOF before, but if so, WOOF WOOF.

Yup. NO offense to Amy, but within milliseconds of the post, EP and Front Page. She's batting a thousand. Check for yourself. That's why I asked the one day are some of the writers paid. I wasn't being snide at all. I have liked some of Amy's posts for sure. Just don't see it being front page material day in and day out when there are people out there who have written some pretty great stuff and never get mentioned.

Again, Amy, not toward you. You do a very nice service to this community with advice and you keep your cool under fire. I admire you for that.

I would add (at my own peril) that there are others too...

G

I only read her stuff when it's obviously controversial. I find it very clinical and cold otherwise. But I am in the minority there. She's got to be doing something right.

From my perch as a newbie, it seems there are definite favourites at OS and although I've scratched my head at a few of the EP's and top-rated stories, I have to surmise that this is true of most boards/forums. I briefly thought about trying to mold my work into the favoured styles and topics but then decided that's not why I'm here. I've had plenty of front-page stories in my day. I view this as a place to experiment and to get feedback, good, bad or indifferent.

From my perch as a newbie, it seems there are definite favourites at OS and although I've scratched my head at a few of the EP's and top-rated stories, I have to surmise that this is true of most boards/forums. I briefly thought about trying to mold my work into the favoured styles and topics but then decided that's not why I'm here. I've had plenty of front-page stories in my day. I view this as a place to experiment and to get feedback, good, bad or indifferent.

Damn. Don't know how I did that and also don't know how to correct the double post. Sorry.

My take is that certain people--Dr. Amy, Paul Levinson, David Sirota, and perhaps Mortimer Hayden Smith--were invited to OS by the editors, and at that time were promised prominent placement of their submissions on a consistent basis, in lieu of traditional monetary compensation.

This is 100% speculation, however.

Emma, I'm not sure what the point would be in tailoring your writing in an attempt to "make" the cover. I'm glad you're not trying to.

3C, someday I'll write something that deserves to be "most read" and it will languish in the basement. Ironic, huh?

These "meta" posts, as Rob calls them, serve as a timeout, a rest period, and while they may have little value to posterity, I don't find them to be a waste of time.

I think Stellaa, as always, makes the most cogent analysis. Maybe there is something interesting there. Eh.

I think people have valid strong opinions on this issue, and I think they should be heard. It's healthy to vent frustrations.

But there is something discomforting and mob-ish about this ad-hoc gang ups on a member of our community.

I'm not taking sides, passing judgement, or offering a solution. I'm just offering a thought.

I tend to think Blake and Rob. The Saint Amant are spot on.

Stop your complaining and go read Dach's latest blog and give him the thumbs he deserves. The editors will have to notice him if he get the ratings.

He smokes doc all the time, but you people fail to notice. His post today on SSRIs is spot on. Unlike doc, he is still practicing and researches like a mother fucker before signing his name to anything.

http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=63778

I've only been on OS for about a week. But from what I've observed, Amy gives good headline.

It seems to me that what OS is doing is, effectively, giving certain individuals a column. If they're going to do so, they should say so. Not saying so suggests there's a regular competition going on and that others competing on a fair playing field are falling short. Saying so makes it clear to all that no matter what they do, they're going to lose. If the OS editors own up to the practice, people might or might not like it, but it wouldn't seem shady and wouldn't invite so much comment.

The suggestion of backroom deals taints the excitement here. And it's needless. It's OS's site to run as they please. They have set the expectations and it's not what they're doing but the fact that it doesn't match what they say that is creating the angst.

Also, it seems somewhat add odds with "You Make the Headlines" unless it's referring to a very specific set of people when it means "You".

I don't know why OS doesn't get brave and make its own name in the world. This stubborn insistence on finding others they like on the net and turning OS into a "me too" site is really sad, both because it shows lack of original identity and because it sells short the very people it sought to attract.

Juliet might be a newbie but she gets my vote for best comment.

I think Dachs is a bot. Plus the quasi-spammy nature of the blog is a turnoff.

Lea, I cannot tell a lie. Just WOOF WOOF.

WOOF

Wow, what a horse race. Randy ahead of Amy by a nose in the Most Read. Heading for a photofinish.

WOOF

I've always found it's not worth commenting on ... she only sees one point of view ~ hers. often worth reading and often informative ... but that's about it.

My take - she's there b/c she's a reliable click draw, people like the topics she picks and/or like arguing with her. Dr. Rahul writes less and is already Salon's doctor columnist, so that's why Amy gets more virtual ink. All fine by me. It's unclear to me why the Editor's pick what they pick. Some people like Jess D. Facts and the squirrel get an EP every post. I get my fair share, I suppose, though I'm often puzzled why some pieces make it and others don't. I never get the cover - my style of writing has a following but is not, apparently, what draws clicks. It's their (OS)'s party, though, so they have a right to feature whomever they want, for whatever reasons. If they were going to have a 'column' I wish to would be for 'new voices' - people who've been members 2 months or less. That would be good.

Well what I think about this goes without saying.

Her post invariably get people riled up, so there is a lot of commenting on her posts.

People will rate things because of the content or because they like someone, without regard to the quality of the writing. That's fine, it's the nature of the site. However, it's disappointing when an editor promotes someone who's writing is sub par. I guess the question is, what is good writing? I'm not for censuring anyone, but I often wonder about the stories they promote. The editors say they want variety, yet they don't promote variety. When they do put someone new up, often the work is more titillating than of quality. Or perhaps I'm jaded. Anyway, I spend too much time on OS than is probably healthy for me searching for interesting stories that aren't on the cover and I do it mostly through the recent comments that others have made. It's sort of like a treasure hunt.

I agree with GordonO and Rob (thanks for the kudos Rob btw!).

People who write about a specific topic of expertise tend to make the cover a lot - typically about as much as DrAmy does. The difference between DrAmy and the other local 'experts' is that she
writes very frequently, so her high rate of cover posts is more noticeable. Rahul Parikh has a 100% cover post rate (obvi bc he is a Salon regular), but he's not as noticeable because he doesn't contribute every day.

Jeffrey Dach's stuff reads like the office pamphlet boilerplate of an outside-the-box, SoCal kind of practitioner. I can't say it makes for interesting reading.

On a more serious note (hard to hit with all the excitement of the horse race -- Randy has pulled far ahead of Amy, is at the far turn, heading for home down the stretch....), I agree with Drs. Rob (as always) and P.

I don't believe there is an editorial conspiracy at work here. Rob's Ten Rules for getting on the OS Cover is still the seminal primer in this area. Amy apparently qualifies via Rule #8. And I think that is the problem -- she makes the cut on only rule, and that so repeatedly with a somewhat limited, stylistically infelicitous repertoire, that the suspicion of the natives is aroused.

Btw, there are quite a few others who seem to fly under the reader radar, but IMO, are much more multi-faceted, superior writers and they DO get consistent EP's and covers. A case in point would be my friend Smithbarney (8 EPs out 8, multiple covers) whose gem-like pieces do not garner half the attention as say, this piece :-).

WOOF

I occassionally read Dr. Amy's stuff, but not regularly. If I want to read Sirota, Mortimer Smythe, and Levinson, I'll go find them elsewhere. They are not the reason I am on OS, and I don't have time to look at their posts when there are so many others equally or more deserving. I'm on OS to read amateur and semi-amateur writers and artists whose work is every bit as good, or better, than the more famous personalities OS apparently wants to feature on a regular basis. Plain everyday people who could by my middle class neighbors in Mid-America. Those normally unheard voices are the ones I want to hear.

Oh, no! Dach backs his medical blogs up with research which Pontificatrix labels boilerplate. Only light and fluffy medical blogging is popular on OS.

Again - Dach's post today, SSRI AntiDepressants: Miracle or Toxic Placebo?, is far superior to doc's limited front page screed on impotence and prozac.

Just because some people can't stay engaged with material longer than a dozen paragraphs doesn't make an article uninteresting.

No doubt OS editors are trying to create something greater than standard blog fare so it stands to reason that they would lure readers with great writers but it seems to lack subtlety.

Clearly some professional writers like David Sirota are using the OS platform to broaden their audience and some aspiring writers like Amy are trying to simply build an audience which she can monetize all of which are acceptable.

But your post begs the question...What is the vision of OS?

And...Are some of the writers plants or hired column writers?

Randy I think your right that Amy's stuff would function better as a daily brief rather than a constant headline similar to the way the Huffington Post does on the left hand margin. On one hand she deserves the acknowledgment but on the other it sort of doesn't fit the perceived OS model.

Which begs the question...Should OS have categories like Sports, Politics, Entertainment ?

It's no secret that I think Amy is arrogant and self-serving. She berates commentors, demands facts, reduces opinions to rubbish and welcomes all the publicity she can get...good or bad.

Whereas some of her stuff is interesting...other stuff like the fecal transfusion post is simply lifted off the recent episode of Grey's Anatomy. She is using OS brilliantly as an audition for a paying job at SALON where she is featured almost daily.

So like I have...stop feeding the monster!

I think Dr. Amy is successful because she has the right "recipe." She fills a niche which not many of us can (medicine); she's reliably prolific (daily); she writes clearly; she digs up compelling topics; and she writes attention-grabbing headlines. While I adore Dr. Dach and wish to see more of him, compare his headline with Amy's and you'll see why she snags the cover.

She actually has her own site "Ask Dr Amy", which is odd, considering she isn't liscensed.

Anyway, While she and I agree on very little I do find her writing interesting, she does know how rile the crowd, and in some respects thats good, she gets peeps thinking.

Steve, you nailed it. Is it going to become Huffington Post?

Me too ME TOO! - but for different reasons. I posted about the same subject, but it was buried bc I don't know how to get my posts read outside of the activity feed.

So I stole your tags. Merci.

I am not fond of Dr. A. for a host of reasons but I didn't write just about her. However you have an excellent point as she doesn't really amplify OS content beyond what is already being kicked about in other news outlets (IMHO).

Admittedly being a tad sophomoric, I think she needs to shut the hell up for a bit.

Have never read any of her posts and after scanning this discussion not likely to. Geez a shrink who ties up her self worth to what lunatics like me comment on a blog has serious issues.
LOVE ME or HATE ME...but PLEASE NOTICE ME

Hmmm...I just checked and Dr Amy does indeed have her own website:

http://www.askdramy.com/index.html

When does she have time to practice? When my dad still did OB, we could never count on him for dinner, let alone being able to keep a prolific writing schedule.

Just wondering.

Hadrian, she's not a shrink, she's a former (I believe former) Ob/Gyn.
Just happens she wrote about anti-depressants today. A subject I probably know more about first hand than she would professionally.
With all due respect to her.

I wonder if there's a Psychiatrist on here who writes about child birth?

Ah, Greg, she's not practicing now? That would make more sense.

She also has "Dr. Amy's Pregnancy Store"

My original point, if there was one, was to question why? The post implicitly invites OSticates to tell us why AmyT merits a reserved space on the cover. Is she the best writer, or among the best? Then say that. Are here topics of choice so compelling that any editor would climb over her mother to snap them up? Then say so. Is the humor and conviviality such that it becomes a daily must-read? Are the articles so weighted (or in the alternative, so genuinely friendly) that they epitomize accessibility, or an ability to make the complicated less so?

Fibro, I read and rated your post for today. It's worth a read, and not just by the intended recipients.

To address in part your recent comment, there's nothing wrong with wetting your finger to see which way the wind is blowing. 9 out of 10 bloggers get their inspiration from the things they read, and journalists are no different. It's the way they tell the story that makes it unique. So I won't fault a blogger for topicality or even reaction to the news.

On the whole, I don't have a big complaint about the news judgment at Open Salon. CoyoteOldStyle's report from the Ice Age was timely and helpful. Having someone on the scene spices up the coverage in ways that other communities can't provide.

But when a space is reserved for particular posters, that leaves others out of the conversation. Karin Rego's plaint from wintry Vancouver is a case in point.

I don't live in Vancouver and don't plan to visit. I don't live in a historic home. But I enjoyed reading today's post as much as anything I've read on the front page.

I agree with Procopius: " I'm on OS to read amateur and semi-amateur writers and artists whose work is every bit as good, or better, than the more famous personalities OS apparently wants to feature on a regular basis. Plain everyday people who could by my middle class neighbors in Mid-America. Those normally unheard voices are the ones I want to hear."

I'd say, "Dr. Amy's probably blowing one of the Salon Overlords," but I'm sure it would be taken the wrong way.

Friends......read Jane Austin, Proust, Henry Miller...put some brilliant stuff in, then write circles around each other. Work hard at it...............HARD.....set aside the quality time you need and make it your own.

Two years ago I had trouble making a complete sentence at one sitting. Writing challenged......I finally crawled out of my hole and found a breakthrough. Maybe with time, I can scratch out something worth reading......

I'll second your point, Gary, to a point. I know I'm not devoting the time to earn cover placement. I MIGHT provide insight, but I'm not doing the work necessary for deeply researched non-fiction, nor sweating the details for lighter fare. Mine are musings dashed off in reaction to the news or, more likely, local annoyances.

But in the salon in my mind, there is no roll call, no schedule. Visitors drift from point to point within the room and engage each other.

Most of the time, I just try to get the grammar, punctuation, and spelling right, and I often flub that (here for her, your for you're).

But then, proofreader/editor is my highest and best use, based on history.

Just a quick comment regarding Blake's speculation (above): I can reveal that I was neither invited to OS nor promised prominent placement of any submissions. No backroom deal-- I've gotten some positive feedback, and inquiries as to what my plans were once the 28 Attacks series came to an end, but that's it. Anything I've ever posted has been my own initiative, and from that point it's out of my hands.

Lonnie:

Hehe!

Tks, Mortimer Hayden Smith, for clearing that up.

Randy after further review it does seem that there is a disconnect between what the Editors pick and the users. To be fair, with the exception of the few mentioned, it does seem that they are spreading the love around.

In some cases, like Scott Mendelson who writes great movie reviews, they seem to be trying to broaden the front page beyond politics and the news since he has been a constant pick but curiously no one is reading, rating or commenting on his deft hand.

What is also clear is that they are trying a hybrid approach by morphing the prevailing user rated sites like Reddit, Digg, Current with a typical news blog like Salon.

If you look Dr. Amy is not among the Most Read or Top Rated both user generated. So maybe there is something for everybody once you get past the cover. Incidentally, my favorite gal Mary Kelly IS the most Top Rated writer on OS yet nobody is writing posts about her. My guess is that she has the bedside manner Dr. Amy lacks.

Harry, you win the prize. Now I can't get Maryt's bedside manner out of my head. You nailed it, I think.

Randy, YOU WON! YOU WON! YOU WON!

Ratings points: RANDY 30: Amy 7
Comments: RANDY 65: Amy 19 (9 by herself)

Wow. You took on the GREAT GORGONZOLA, the BIG LEBOWSKI, and knocked her flat out. TAKE A BOW. YO DA MAN.

P.S. She's still on the cover. Dammit.

WOOF

Your graciousness knows no bounds, Cav. WOOF right back at ya.