You don’t need eagle eyes to spot that we’ve just made some massive changes to authonomy.com. In one afternoon we’ve transformed the site from a flat collection of books to an ordered, ranked, efficiently running talent-spotting community. And perhaps the biggest change you’ll notice is that not only are we ranking the best books – we’re ranking the trend-spotting readers who find them.
How does it work? Recommendation - the virtual bookshelf on each member's profile holds the key. Every time a member finds a submission they like and places that book on their bookshelf – showcasing (and recommending) it to the authonomy community - the book earns points that drive it up the Book Chart rankings.
And what about the readers? We rank all of authonomy’s members according to the performance of the books on their bookshelves – in short, you share in the success of the books you back. authonomy.com rewards those readers who seek out the newest, freshest work, and who make every effort to champion those books within the community. If you’re the first person to recommend a hot new script, you’ll gain more from its success than anyone else - conversely, if you back books that are already popular, you’ll find your reputation might not rise as quickly as you’d like.
And finally, we've introduced the Editor's Desk - a clear transparent way to reward the most consistently popular manuscripts with both recognition - and a shot at the big time. Each month, we'll be whipping off the top five most backed books to date - and submitting them to HarperCollins editors, who'll be feeding back their comments through the site.
I could go on - but for now it's far better if you hop in and have a play yourself. Keep an eye out for more posts over the next few days that explain a few of these radical changes in more detail - in the meantime, we hope you like what you see.
53 comments:
Love the new format! Looks really professional.
Just a quick thought, though. If there's only space for 5 books on your bookshelf, isn't that going to really affect the listings? It will mean that the same few books will remain at the top for ever, unless you remove them from your shelf, which is hardly fair.
Considering how many books there are, wouldn't it be better to have ten spaces?
What does everyone else think????
Well, it is interesting. And aside from the nasty looking red down pointing arrows next to both my book and my person, I'd have to say kind of personally exciting. At this point one does have to wonder just what this transparency everyone has been asking for will do to influence how we all use Authonomy.
Best wishes to all and many thanks to those who have put Boomerang on their shelves. I appreciate it.
Alan
Hmmmm, couldn't help noticing the extremely high correlation between people featuring in the "top talent spotters" chart and the authors at the top of the book chart. All highly predictable, of course. The triumph of networking, as ever. Good luck to all those who have put the effort in to get where they are today. It wouldn't be much of a site if they hadn't worked so hard.
As for me, I think I've seen enough to realise this isn't a site for people like me. I have a terrible suspicion that the site will now be flooded with meaningless comments as people learn the lesson of the site that networking is king.
The system as introduced does mean that we will all have to become networkers and does discriminate against minority tastes.
It will encourage people to form "supporters clubs" to get friends and family to register with authonomy and add their book to their bookshelf.
I think that the additional element needs to be an occasional sampling of the books not at the top from someone at Harper Collins with perhaps an editor's pick to go alongside the popular vote.
But then languishing down the list, I would think that wouldn't I?
Congratulations to the first top five who I think have set a high standard in their particular genres.
Oh well, it was a nice idea while it lasted. Once the site comes out of Beta this system will be ripe for abuse. It's ironic isn't it, that one of the top ten talent spotters hasn't been online for 53 days. What a disappointment.
Hello Mary - a quick comment about the bookshelf. We've limited your bookshelf on purpose, precisely because there are so many choices - you should feel absolutely happy to swap over the titles on your shelf on a regular basis.
Indeed, the Book Chart is produced by counting the number of recommendations made over the last thirty days - not by adding up the number of shelves the book is on.
So you're not harming a book's chances by removing it from your shelf - but you can harm your own reader ranking if you stick with a few choices for too long!
This is a nice development. Sounds like it will really kick the site into gear.
I'd echoe the concern on how the top five will be selected if the shelf space is limited.
Blue_Sargasso as the system is open what would prevent you from networking yourself?
From a completely non-partisan perspective how else could they mine the site for five books other than a ranking system or a completely random one?
Just a question.
Eoin
I've posted this on the Authonomy forum as well but I think it's important to mention here. I could be wrong, but if a book is ranked 0 it doesn't appear in any of the lists. This means it can never be 'discovered'. At one stroke, Authonomy seems to have limited readers' choice. Is this just a glitch?
Congratulations Authonomy on the site's new look, and the top authors.
The main route to ascendancy in this country has always been through Networking, so there's nothing unusual about it. Nor is it wrong, so long as it's not one's only talent.
It's always been a fun site and in order to study the art of others, I've deleted my seemingly useless novel (which after eight years still needs some work). I intend to tell my original mentor (twenty published novels) that it's all her fault.
My book shelf is currently empty because I've only read comments. Blue Sargasso's are light years ahead of everyone else.
Blue,
Do keep in mind, please, that you've been on my shelf for weeks. ;)
Cindy
Blue Sargasso, I really don't buy this whole networking/clique thing. I was quite surprised to find myself fourth highest talent spotter this afternoon.
I don't have a great deal of time to spend on the site, I don't know anyone from elsewhere on the Web, I just turn up occasionally, leave the odd comment and stick books that I like on my shelf.
Maybe I've been lucky with my book choices, but if I can do that anyone can. You have to make the site work for you.
Well, I see there were a few references to my name, so let me address them.
To Eoin Purcell. Writers are supposed to spend time writing, are they not? I've observed that some people are so busy posting comments on Authonomy (which is precisley the behaviour that HC have chosen to incentivise) that they clearly can't have any time left for serious writing. I'd rather get on with writing, thank you very much, in preference to networking. And I'll get nowhere, you'll tell me. So be it. The odds are that very few Authonomy authors will succeed. Best of luck to you with your future hectic Authonomy networking schedule.
To create any kind of objective system there should be a clear distinction between readers and writers. Writers (i.e. people who have uploaded books) should, in my opinion, not appear in the list of "top talent spotters", nor should they be allowed to vote on other books. Readers with no vested interests should be the judges in these matters, as in the real world. The question becomes: how do you incentivise readers? That was Authonomy's real challenge and it has done nothing to address it, sadly. I fear few genuine readers will be attracted to Authonomy. My hope for Authonomy was that readers would get access to the slush pile to judge what they wanted to see published, in preference to the metropolitan tastes of London agents and editors. That clearly hasn't happened. The idea of allowing the site to be shaped by writers who have a vested interest in the outcome is, to my mind at any rate, preposterous.
I thank Nemesis for his "support". I should observe, perhaps, that he is one of the most active networkers on Authonomy. Good luck to you, Nemesis.
To IanB, I refer you to Christine Keeler's famous retort to such assertions. Strangely, I wasn't surprised in the slightest by your appearance at No. 4. There are nearly four hundred books on the site, so I don't really know what "making it work for you" means. If everyone does what you suggest, we'll have one hell of a lot of disingenuous comments on the site, and very few people prospering from such activity.
I certainly thank Cindy, and I wish her the best of good fortune with her work. I suspect that Authonomy won't be quite the right platform for her either (and indeed many others), but I hope I'm wrong.
Anyway, the logic of my position, as Nemesis implies, is that I shouldn't be on Authonomy, and that's quite correct. I'm afraid I didn't see the FAQ that related to deleting my User ID from Authonomy. Can one of the technical people enlighten me or is my identity trapped on Authonomy until hell freezes over?
Oh, I like what Cockaigne and Gulliver said (particularly Cockaigne's point about minority tastes). And I should add that some of the books of the "networkers" are very promising - indeed I voted for three of them myself: Debbie's, Sylvia's and Superluminary's. I just wish that readers had been allowed to decide the matter.
Blue,
One last thing. In all honesty, I don't expect a serious work such as mine to rise in the rankings on a site like Authonomy. My novel serves a particular purpose that I can only address in earnest once it's been published. In the meantime, I post it here to get whatever feedback I might while I prepare to send it out. Your work, however, appeals to a broader audience, so please consider the reads you might garner once the site goes live. In reality the rankings don't truly address the quality of each individual work. But I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know...
Best of luck to you, regardless.
Cindy
Now I know I'm a useless writer.
My mentor always said she loved my style, but pleaded with me to write less subtly, or readers would misunderstand me, which appears to be the case here.
Me Network? I've been known to play "in character" occasionally, purely to entertain myself and anyone else who might be as bored writing/editing their own novel. I have never said anything on the Forum or recommended anyone's book. I just didn't find time. I have spent eight years researching and writing to discover from a science fiction writer's point of view why scientists can't find a cure for HIV Aids, and what effect social changes have had on it. At the same time I have tried to write it allegorically, for an enjoyable read, but I ain't Orwell.
So Blue, I did not imply that you should not be on the site. To the contrary, your views are the main reason I even bother to read the Forum. Now that I've dumped my novel for a while, I intend to read a few of the others, including yours, and I hope I won't be judged to be networking if I find any I like.
The idea of friends and family being let in to pump up the rankings is a pretty poor one, in my opinion. Their opinions are worthless, unless they're commenting on a book by someone they don't know. Letting them in and giving them voting ballots along with their free hotdogs and gallon of slurpy Coke.... What for? It would introduce falsehoods into the rankings. Sargasso is generally accurate, if bitter. But triumph of networking? People apparently like easy-to-read books, with dragons and elves perhaps and maybe some sex. There are a lot of people in bookshops reading books I wouldn't read myself, but so what? They won't read mine because they're not interested. I can't persuade them not to pick up trash, and they can't persuade me it's worth picking up. That's the writing life. I've looked at Blue Sargasso's books, drawn to them by his intelligent comments, and I put them down because I don't give a damn about the FBI and conspiracy thrillers. They can be intelligent and well-written but I am totally turned off by CIA/FBI bullshit. These idiots couldn't handle 9/11 or the Pakistan nuclear bomb, and I'm supposed to believe they employ super smart babes and rock-jawed heroes? Can't suspend my total disbelief. Absolutely uninterested. Let the bastards figure what led up to 9/11. So tastes vary, and luckily for BS there are millions of other readers who will give his books a better chance. Nothing to do with networking.
I am still in a state of shock... I didn't expect to be near the top, especially as the work I've posted isn't ready - rewriting, getting ready to re-upload as I type... Perhaps not, any more.
However, to see that I am totally unranked, nowhere on the list, even though I have 58 mostly positive comments (and on 6 watchlists), has dumbfounded me. As has seeing certain books with very few comments, no participation at all by their writers - except to put their own books on their shelves and nothing else - actually on the list.
Something is wrong here.
Also, what happens to the likes of my work now??? It's not visible on the site. Has HC taken all the unranked books off already, and therefore not giving them any chance at all???
Kay
I have to apologise... Since writing the earlier comment, as I'm still in a state of shock at my own nonentity, I just looked at the Books section, and see now how you are doing this... I think.
Can I say this, though, please...? I think the Books page, which shows everything, exactly how everything works, with the top picks of the month as well as latest books, comments etc., looks MUCH BETTER than the present Home page.
As it is, any new visitors will only go for the presently ranked books and nothing else.
Thanks, and my apologies again, as I think you've all done an awesome job on this.
Kay
Well, Kay, that's not right. There are some books here that I have severe disagreements with and they are indeed ranked, so something is awry.
Kay, ironically, one of them is on your bookshelf. You're too kind.
The whole competitive nature of rankings is bound to alienate some people, especially the folks who feel their work isn't being immediately recognized. The natural tendency is to discount the process, bad mouth those who are have snagged a bit of attention, and generally make it clear that they are above it all and honestly couldn't care less, thank you very much.
Hey, I've felt that way myself, even though I know I have no business presuming to pass myself off as any sort of elite intellectual with a serious message for the unappreciative masses.
Then there are those of us who find ourselves in the spotlight, and can't help but wonder how long it will last and with what, if any effect. I can't speak for the others who found themselves in the initial top five, but mostly what it did for me was make me wonder whether it would take one day or two for my book to plummet in the rankings.
And yet I still have to applaud H/C for creating and working so hard on Authonomy. The business of book publishing is a risky one, with a lot more failures than successes and having the courage to try something new is a good thing.
In the end we are all responsible for our own success, however we choose to define it. If we try one road and it doesn't work out, chart a different path, but don't blame the road, the people who paved the road or the people who choose to continue traveling along it.
Seems to me sometimes that the internet was custom made for grumbling. Well we've all got something to grumble about, but the fact is, it seldom does any good.
I am now going to write a scene involving dragons, elves, sex, the FBI, KGB, a white rabbit in a waistcoat, a dangerous babe and a meerschaum pipe. Ought to be fun!
Alan
Alan, I see I failed to express my inchoate feelings succinctly, which just goes to show I brought insufficient intellectual gravitas to the subject of the slushpile and those in its penumbra. Well, there's nothing in what you just wrote that I disagree with. All the genres that I don't read I do think of as trash, or possibly merely tripe, unless they're for young adults, which is fine; and I'm sure that readers who pick up and put down my book, WFH, think it's pretentious trash, or possibly overcooked tripe, which is why they don't read it; they're unlikely to put it down in a bookstore muttering, 'Forsooth, the dread apparition of a Serious Booke; I fear I dare not dwell on the golden fire of this most exemious exegete, for I would thus expose myself to awful twitchings of my ragged whore of an intellectual conscience, long and sinfully neglected in favour of tales of leprechauns with trifurcate pen-- ....' They'd just dump it and move on. Fair enough. No big deal. This is a slushpile. My manuscripts have been kicked around before. I will, when revisions are over, send them out through normal channels. I can't wait three months for some polite critique from a commercial publisher, which HC essentially is.
This is, I agree wholeheartedly, a great service HC has performed and I would take great pleasure in seeing anyone climb out of this slushpile, in whatever direction they like, towards fairies or dragons or on the backs of either. There are so many books already in the stores that should never have got out of a slushpile (if they were ever in one) that a success story for anyone here (well, almost anyone) would be wonderful.
I'm also proud to say that of the five books on my Bookshelf only two are 'literary', both in ways different from mine; one is a thriller; and one is a book that will make its author famous and that no one but me has on his or her Bookshelf. That book is 'Making a Killing' and its author can presently barely punctuate and barely spell -- but he is a brilliant and totally unpretentious storyteller, and I think he should be a fantastic discovery for HC -- if they have any sense, they'll find him. His ranking: 167 and falling. Many of the other writers whose Bookshelves I've looked at here, in contrast, evidently never stray out of their genre. So I may put myself across as a mind graven with fine scrollwork of Thoughte, but I'm no snob.
Blimey, it's all kicking off... I do agree with Blue that the system seems very open to abuse by friends, family and those with tons of time on their hands. The amount of comments some people seem able to leave here also makes me wonder how they can have time for their own writing!
But, at the end of the day, you've got to be in it to win it, I suppose. This is just one potential way to get attention from a publisher, and if it doesn't work for you then it doesn't work for you. I myself have hardly been able to read or comment on anything on the site for months because I work full time and have been spending every spare minute finishing my manuscript of Quietly Shining (a draft copy sits next to me on the desk right now - waiting for the red pen!) But, once it's done I intend to log on more and see if I can't work the system a bit better.
I'm not sure how exactly how it's going to work - if the top 5 are taken off to be looked at each month, presumably they'll be taken out of the chart and put...where? Will they be taken off of peoples' shelves to make room for the next batch? I'm really curious to see how this will all develop!
Anton,
My last note was one of those, "Gee, this sounds like a good idea" sorts of things until about an hour after I hit the save button. Guess it must be nervous anxiety. Your response was gracious and well considered and I appreciate your thoughts.
Best of good fortune to us all.
Alan
Hi Alan, I didn't read it as I've just popped over now to take some abuse and it was removed already, so I have nothing to clench my tiny fists about.
Now I remember why I really came over -- to complain vociferously about writers who bookshelf their own books. This is a warped distortion in the ranking and favours Harvard MBAs and ex-medical students above honest and simple shepherds and tin flute-blowers like myself. I'm not as irritated by my own low ranking as I am by the chutzpah of these self-promoters. Please fix and make things polite again.
Yours tweely,
One Cross Authonomist
Anton,
I was referring to my note here that begins: "The whole competitive..."
No fist clenching required, I do hope.
In any case what got me a tad riled were jaeger's remark "like easy-to-read books, with dragons and elves perhaps and maybe some sex." To say in effect that "hey, different people have different tastes" and then proclaim everyone else's taste to be trash was uncalled for, and more than a bit pompous.
And anyone who thinks so poorly of writing that is easy to read ought to give it a try. It ain't easy.
Alan
Well well, how fascinating! It seems here we are witnessing a collision between people's wild optimism about what a site like this might be able to do, and the hard fact that it is almost completely inevitable that the community will tend to evolve towards a specific type of book being successful.
A quick justification on that last point: in the initial community, there will be some kind of bias. As the community grows, people that agree with that bias will linger and attract more of the same, while those that disagree will leave.
A huge momentum builds from that initial community. This was part of Facebook's genius - by starting with those at college/university, it set itself on a path towards the more affluent in society.
It is also very interesting to look over at thesixtyone.com, which is trying to do a similar thing for music. Listeners gain points and functionality by voting for songs that other people vote for later. I voted for a few songs I liked, then came across one I didn't like, but knew that the community at large would tend to vote for - so I voted for it. Over the next few days it earned me far more points than the rest of my choices put together. This is of course yet another feedback loop for driving the community in one direction.
What can ever be done about this?
When this site comes out of beta, we can expect the community to surge, and self-sustaining tribes will emerge for a wider spectrum of genres. But inevitably, one tribe will be bigger than the rest, so their choices will dominate the top 5, and the momentum will all be in their direction.
In conclusion, I think it's a big mistake to take the 'top 5' to the editors. This is not good for the editors or the community.
Instead, there is a massive opportunity for editors to pick their way through the slush pile more efficiently. If I were in their position and could crunch the data how I wanted, here's a few examples of how I'd search for the most promising authors:
-Rather than look for popularity, look for fast risers, rising on the back of votes from accounts that don't tend to vote in block with one another.
-Rather than look for 'good' authors, look for those that tend to polarise the readership. For example, consider the films on IMDb which attract large portions of 1/10 and 10/10 votes. They tend to be very interesting in at least *some* regard.
-Find works that do not appeal to any existing tribe, but isolated members of different tribes. A sure sign of something new and interesting.
That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure with some work, editors could come up with some amazingly powerful ways of cutting to the best work. Whatever 'best' means.
Interesting ideas, metatim. I should point out that the fact that we have an all time 'top 5' doesn't stop anyone visiting the site from searching for interesting books by a massive variety of ways, be they author, reader, or publisher and agent.
You can filter every single one of our charts according to genre, and by a variety of time periods. You can even filter the reader ranking by genre - so you can easily find the best five spotters of Thrillers, or Fantasy, or indeed anything else - and click through to see what those people are recommending at that moment in time.
In short, there's actually quite a lot of depth there already - and if you take a bit more time to play you'll find it's more subtle than it seems!
Metatim, you may be right, but as things currently stand it would be very hard to say that one specific type or genres of book is more successful than another. In the top 5 at the moment there is a fantasy novel leading a pack, a thriller, a dark crime novel, a comedy (I think Boomerang is a comedy, but I haven't yet read it) and mine, which is none of the above. No doubt the top five will change, but so far there seems to be no homogeneity of choice whatsoever.
Anton, I think I just died laughing...
No - checking pulse... Okay. I think we should have a "Best Posts" section, and yours takes the cake right now.
Seriously, though, I know I'm soft - but I can wipe the floor with people on a film set... Does that count?
So... Now we're getting to the live production stage, as it were, I'll have to learn to eat dog... On the other hand, we don't get many published authors eating each other any more. Shame. Mind you, there's a spat going on with the latest Booker long list... Hardly any of them worth the price of dog food, anyway... There, I'm learning.
Anyway, I have to thank you for supporting me, and for everything else. Now I'm nearly done with my rewrite... (just posted some of it, but I've kept the same, awful title just in case...), I shall be by soon to catch up on yours again. I don't know what you mean saying about your low rank - it's pretty good to me, almost in the 5, and so it should be.
I've actually crept up the ranking... Hurrah! I still say, though, that the "Books" page should be the "Home" page...
Love to you and yours, from Kay
Anton, I think I just died laughing...
No - checking pulse... Okay. I think we should have a "Best Posts" section, and yours takes the cake right now.
Seriously, though, I know I'm soft - but I can wipe the floor with people on a film set... Does that count?
So... Now we're getting to the live production stage, as it were, I'll have to learn to eat dog... On the other hand, we don't get many published authors eating each other any more. Shame. Mind you, there's a spat going on with the latest Booker long list... Hardly any of them worth the price of dog food, anyway... There, I'm learning.
Anyway, I have to thank you for supporting me, and for everything else. Now I'm nearly done with my rewrite... (just posted some of it, but I've kept the same, awful title just in case...), I shall be by soon to catch up on yours again. I don't know what you mean saying about your low rank - it's pretty good to me, almost in the 5, and so it should be.
I've actually crept up the ranking... Hurrah! I still say, though, that the "Books" page should be the "Home" page...
Love to you and yours, from Kay
Ah - I must admit that I have not yet fully engaged with authonomy beyond browsing around and testing functionality here and there, so my perspective is somewhat uninformed!
@Toscka: I did have another look at what's doing well right now after I posted (!) and would tend to agree that right now there is some variety. But I maintain that these feedback loops exist and will tend to drive things in one direction if we're not careful.
@Mark, I agree that the 'top 5' does not stop discoveries being made in other ways, and I do like the search options that are currently available. But as someone that works in marketing, I am keenly aware of the importance of perception. If any one method is flagged up as being a guaranteed way to get HC editor's attention, this will dominate the mindset of the majority, and people will do everything they can to be on that list.
I do like the transparency though. I think it would really help if there was more visibility on people being found by other means. My personal preference would be that, say, just the top 3 go to the editors, and a further 3 are also selected by someone that really understands the community and knows how to bring get at the interesting stuff that doesn't tend to do so well in the rankings.
'A shot at the big time':
Whatever for? Mortal Ghost is already downloaded 50-100 times per day, with lots more podcast downloads.
Has Authonomy added to my readership? Perhaps a bit, since my stats are slowly rising. But it's hard to know for sure, since there are other sites where my work is featured.
Although I joined authonomy some time ago I have really only started spending any time on it this week. I posted some chapters on Tuesday and have been really pleased to get quite a few comments back on it - finally having my work read by people who don't know me (therefore hopefully objective)is great.
As the changes to the site took place this week I don't know if I stumbled across the best time to start posting work or not. I like having a ranking system, it's something to challenge and motivate, however I definitely understand Blue Sargasso's points with regards to networking.
I am working hard on my book at the moment and it's occupying most of my thoughts but as people have spent their time reading my work and offering comments/advice I am feeling compelled to do the same for them (though as I write this I have still not done so, sorry). I don't want to be a selfish authonomy member, concentrating only on my book, however I don't want to be penalised for spending my spare time writing and not reading/networking. I work full time and try to fit in writing as much as I can whilst maintaining some kind of life outside of it all. I now feel I should also be spending further time reading other people's work and giving it the amount of consideration which I feel my own has been given - partly from a sense of fairness as I know how useful and encouraging I'm finding the feedback I've been given and partly as I feel I need to keep working at being noticed on the site. However I guess this is just the way it has to work; those with a lot of time to get the most out of authonomy and networking are very fortunate and those (like me) with less will just have to keep plugging away and spending as much energy on all aspects as possible.
The thought that being on authonomy may mean my work is read by a publisher when it would most likely be overlooked if sent to them 'blind' is exciting, so I am not going to be deterred by the networking aspect.
One point which may well have been pointed out before is that in replying to other people's comments you are effectively adding another comment to your own book (for example I have 14 comments and 4 of them are from me so at first glance is not an accurate picture) - I suppose this keeps all correspondence regarding it together, however I have thought that a separate way to respond may be better. Similarly to Facebook where you have a 'wall' which everyone can see and also a messaging system which is private. Perhaps this creates too many other issues as it's more difficult to monitor or perhaps, being new, I'm missing something.
Overall, I am really enjoying using the site and may be a little addicted to it at the moment.
Metatim has been prescient. He might take a look at the blazing Forums. ('The most wonderful ever!' and 'authonomy ranking is live - what do you think?')
Authonomy, I can no longer sign in. Can you help?
Toscka
I would love to spend more time on Authonomy, being more a part of the community but where I live in Spain I cannot get broadband so my techinical life is stuck in the 'old days' therefore my authonomy life is curtailed somewhat. The advice and help I have had from the Authonomy community have been invaluable and the qaulity of writing has made me more aware of exactly what is needed to be taken seriously as a writer and have helped immensely. But I do think something is still missing I'd like to see more from the publiher for example practical tips on what is you are looking for.
Well, having removed my work from Authonomy, I happened to glance at one of the forum threads: Michael Dickinson's eye-opening, "The Most Wonderful Ever! Fantastic!"
I tell you, I thought I'd ventured into unseen extracts from Lord of the Flies! So many self-serving comments...people being driven off the site...networking cliques being exposed...authors being revealed as undesirables from other writers' sites.
How indecorous it is to see writers, of all people, behaving in this way. I know that many authors are desperate to win publishing contracts, but aren't there any limits?
Last year, Mariella Frostrup said of Authonomy, "But isn't it just like a talent show for authors? Like something you'd expect to see on ITV?" Isn't Mariella spot on?
More and more, Authonomy resembles a version of X Factor where the contestants have to fight amongst themselves to decide who gets presented to the judges.
Apparently a whole bunch of people have arrived on the Authonomy site from the YWO site, and they've brought their existing YWO networks with them, immediately giving them a massive advantage in the networking stakes. In fact, some of the most successful people on Authonomy are well-known YWO alumni.
Victoria Barnsley, c.e.o. and publisher of HarperCollins UK, said: "Very often we hear from budding new authors who tell us their script was loved by their family, book group or wide circle of friends. Authonomy is an opportunity for these authors to woo a large audience, get an army of support behind them, and really test whether their work has got what it takes to make it."
Are authors really willing to become performing seals for Victoria Barnsley's benefit?
Only a tiny number of authors will actually win publishing contracts. The rest will waste inordinate amounts of time trying to, "woo a large audience". And the quality of their books will suffer accordingly.
I know, instinctively, that I could never be successful at Barnsley's Authonomy game, so I'm getting out before I waste any more time here.
It seems the forum threads where the 'dark side' of Authonomy was exposed in all its gory glory have been removed. Do the powers-that- be think this will solve the problem? Perhaps those behind Authonomy know their ranking system is pointless and brings out the worst in people but have no qualms about it. After all, maybe they also know that there is no real chance of HC publishing anything off the site, so what does it matter?
Following on from Gulliver's latest comment (spot on!), I think it's a shame that Michael Dickinson's controversial forum thread has been deleted by the powers that be. Probably because it was where the truth of Authonomy was ruthlessly exposed for everyone to see (the "dark side", as Gulliver rightly described it). It certainly wouldn't have done Authonomy's marketing efforts a lot of good! The truth, as we can see, is always the first casualty of marketing. So, relax, everyone can go back to faking it.
Well done to Michael Dickinson for initiating such an excellently provocative thread. Mr Dickinson is, in my opinion, one of the most interesting people on the site...and by the same token one of the people with the least chance of getting anywhere on Authonomy. Such is life.
Were I moderating the forum, I would've removed that thread as well. Leaving it would have encouraged more unnecessary and unproductive bad feelings across the site. Such a thing was bound to occur as happens eventually in all online groups, and in this case, the anxiety building among Beta group members these many weeks was finally aired then dealt with. No doubt similar situations will arise again, but Rik made it clear how to address troubling situations appropriately without dismissing member concerns. I know from experience that it's no easy task administrating a forum, and given human nature, this sort of thing is unavoidable. Authonomy was not at fault; group behavior is what is, good and bad.
Take care, all.
Cindy
I have only just come across the new format, having logged on today after returning from holiday.
I was pretty depressed to learn my book was one of what appeared to be several hundred ranked at 172, and that it wss on no watchlists or bookshelves.
However, I do like that you can now see all the books in ranked order quite easily, rather than just randomly coming across them.
I share some of Blue Sargasso and others' concerns about the networking aspect of the ranking. Like others who have posted I would prefer to concentrate on writing whenever I actually get some spare time.
I had not worried too much that I did not have time to look at and comment on as many books as I would like, until I saw the new system.
Harper Collins - would it be possible to set up more a uniform way of grading books - say a standard feedback form on which you could give 1 to 5 for set elements e.g. plot, character, style, originality etc? (With perhaps an optional space for a more personalised comment)
I do intend to leave my novel here, I am very grateful for the opportunity to showcase it. Who knows - in 5 years (after the full launch of the site) it might become a cult hit!
Another question for Harper Collins - when the site is launched will the rating system be altered so that pure "readers" rather than those of us with books on the site can influence the list of the top five?
Anyway good luck to the current top five, may your dreams come true.
Meanwhile I have a suggestion for all those others rated 172 - maybe we should start looking at and rating each others books. We have nothing to lose but our nonentity.
I've been having a look at YouWriteOn. It has its faults, but it seems like a better, fairer system than Authonomy, though, visually, it doesn't have the same appeal.
There's obviously room for others to radically improve on the Authonomy and YouWriteOn models. I hope other publishers learn from the mistakes of sites like Authonomy and create superior systems.
I agree with the comments on here that readers should be the kings rather than writers, agents and editors. The one thing the publishing industry is terrible at is guessing the tastes of the reading public - which, at least partly, is why so many books have dismal sales figures.
A site that could get large numbers of representative readers involved at the slush pile stage would, presumably, give publishers a far better idea of what books are likely to succeed commercially.
Writers aren't representative of average readers, so a site in which they nominate their favourites isn't any further forward than the existing slush pile system.
It will be interesting to see what Authonomy is like in a year's time when the launch buzz has vanished.
@marnie
It's been discussed elsewhere on the forums, but a formal rating system would likely make the whole 'networking' aspect worse.
It would tempt people to give low scores to books they saw as threats to their own.
As the system stands the worst you can do to a rival book is ignore it so there's reduced opportunity to try to rig the poll or influence other site users.
I take Marnie's point, but is there evidence that this tactical marking down of rivals has been taking place on YouWriteOn? I've seen no complaints to that effect on that site. And can't you remove a couple of unrepresentative bad marks anyway? It certainly seems no worse than the Authonomy system.
In fact I have seen that one person on Authonomy got all of his friends and family to back his book and it has now shot into the top six in two days. That is entirely within the rules and spirit of Authonomy, so good luck to the author in question. Personally, I find that type of thing a much more obvious danger to "fairness" than the outside chance of rigged marking on YouWriteOn.
I think it won't be long until Authonomy is just a way of testing how many friends you have. Facebook campaigns will start swinging into action behind popular authors (who may be hopeless writers).
Well, time will tell.
The trouble lies in distinguishing between genuine friends and family and falsified user accounts, which is for me a real concern regarding the writer who has got to the top six in three days. I hope the site developers can get a handle on that, maybe by tracking IP addresses (can those be falsified?), as otherwise I'll be leaving the site and I'll consider it a failure, though it has been useful in the early stages. There has to be a way of keeping the place honest over the long run. It'll never be perfect, as a lot of people read books on the recommendations of friends and not based on what they browse on-line.
I'm very confused as to how anybody can get all their friends and family to vote for them when the site isn't even live! I know people (writers) who are still on a waiting list for invites, so how do friends and family get them?
Or am I being naive here?
Genuine friends and family - no problem. That's the way of the world.
Reusing beta-keys and logging in as "friends and family" - not on.
I do hope people really aren't doing this. HC - please put a stop to this being able to happen by making beta-keys single-use only or tied to the authonomy log-in.
Is Authonomy the new Ebay? Ebayers will know that there's always a flurry of activity at the very last moment to try to win the auction at the most favourable price i.e. you make a bid at the last possible second to make sure no one has time left to counter bid.
I predict the same thing will happen on Authonomy. If an enterprising person gets fifty people to sign up at the last moment and back his book, he will shoot straight to the top of the charts and get his book considered
by the HC editorial board. Result!
I'm sure any number of ingenious systems will emerge over the folowing weeks. I, for one, can't wait to see what tactics are deployed by "clever" authors.
Forget writing. Who cares about it anyway? Playing the marketing game is so much more important. Just ask the creators of Authonomy.
The Ebay point is an interesting one. The only way round all of these shenanigans and to introduce a meritocracy of sorts is to use randomisation techniques. Every person on the site could specify what genres they are interested in and then be randomly allocated, say, ten books per month to read (in their selected genres). Once they’ve read all ten (first 3,000 words only to make it manageable), they can back their favourite, or top two favourites. Every book on the site would get the same statistical chance as every other book because of randomisation. Even if you simply uploaded your book and did nothing else, your book would still get as many reads as any other book, so no advantage would accrue from, er, “networking”.
Randomisation would make it impossible for any systematic manipulation to take place. No one would have any opportunity whatever to influence the outcome of the book backing process. However, this would also remove the “wooing” of a mass audience that HC is so keen on. So, what shall it be? – “Who you know” (networking), or “what you know” (merit: the quality of your work).
I’m sure the system I’ve proposed here has flaws too, but I believe most could be sorted out mathematically. HC would never adopt it (natch!), but maybe a rival publisher who might be glancing at this blog will go down the randomisation track to flush out the genuinely best books from the slush pile.
I have a book suggestion. I just released my first collection of short stories with publishamerica,com and need someone to review it and see if they like it well enough to recommend it to other readers. its called: "Seven By Jay:
short stories by Jaysen True Blood"
j
I want to recommend my book "Seven by Jay: Short stories by Jaysen True Blood.
j
Post a Comment