As mentioned in a reply I gave to a recent forum post, I want to try to answer as many of the most common questions we receive here at authonomy as I can. I felt the best way to do so would be through a series of blog posts. Over the next few weeks I will post questions and answers up here, two at a time so that the posts are relatively short. If there is anything general about the site that you would like to ask then please leave a comment and I shall do my best to answer in the near future. I hope these posts prove to be of use. I am sure you’ll tell me if they are not.
Isn’t it time authonomy had a revamp?
When Rachel and I first took over management of authonomy back in 2010 we had a number of changes we wanted to make to the look and functionality of the site. Unfortunately, every time we made even the slightest tweak it had a knock on effect elsewhere. Any fix we implemented seemed to break something else on the site. It became clear that the original coding (the programming behind the scenes which makes authonomy work) was not very robust and it was pretty much a full-time job just keeping the bloody thing in one piece. To be honest, it drove us mad, especially as it was clearly a source of frustration to many of you and there was bugger all we could do about it. A major overhaul was needed and that would require a lot of time and even more money.
I am delighted to say that after much planning, budgeting and pleading we have managed to secure a significant investment from HarperCollins that will allow us to completely revamp the site. There are lots of things we want to address: it needs to be faster, the search engine needs refining, the system for rating books could be a lot better, reading books on screen should be easier and more slick, we need to get rid of all the ‘please back mine and I’ll back yours’ spam, there should be an app for your phone or tablet, and so many other things. Trust me, there is a really big list.
I don’t want to make promises I can’t keep but we are looking to start the work in the next couple of months and have it completed this year. Once we have a more detailed timetable we will report back and will be approaching users for feedback and comment.
What’s all this I hear about self-publishing?
We have always linked to self-publishing services here on the site, for a long time it was Create Space, more recently Authoright. Of course, these companies paid for the advertising space and you were free to check them out, use them or ignore as you saw fit. We are looking into the possibility of offering a more comprehensive self-publishing service as part of authonomy but if we do this it would be a separate part of the site and there’d be no obligation to visit it or use it, although I dare say we’ll bang on about it quite a bit.
These plans will also never change our main brief, which is to find new talent on authonomy and publish it ourselves.
33 comments:
Something similar to the YouWriteOn ratings and reviews system would stop all ‘please back mine and I’ll back yours’ spam.
to decide which suggestions to include in the revamp, please use a panel of Londoners to consider the considerable number of suggestions made over the years. You may not feel you need them, but it'll do wonders for your cred.
Top marks for explaining why some of the issues are there and for getting the budget to do something about them.
These have been covered at some point or another by members on threads, but I'm going to put them here just in case.
Reviewers: some qualitative way of scoring this would be better than merely number of comments made. Same with "top talent spotters" which at the moment seems to work in a curious and inaccurate way.
Shelf: I like the idea someone had of pretend cash to spend on shelf books, but the fear here is it would slow things down too much (a little slowing would be a good thing - too much would maybe be detrimental to the site??). Maybe an 'opt out of the desk run' option would be needed as well, so that the slowed momentum of fewer backings would be applied to fewer books, and thus overall momentum not lost.
I do think a *lot* of people on site would like to opt out of the desk race and just give/receive useful feedback on their work instead.
Forum: I like the prettiness of the forums here, compared to a lot of other sites which are quite ugly, but would like an easier way to see where friends and people whose views I want to read are posting. Maybe each profile could have an indication of which discussions they're involved in?
Please fix the crying emoticon. Sometimes we need it. ;)
Less moderation would be good. Of late we've been veering towards Orwellian levels of punishment - and suspect this isn't really being dished out on *human assessed merit* but more on number of abuse button presses. We are all adults. We ought to be able to moderate ourselves in the main - even if sometimes the process is slow - it's one of the things I most like about this site and one thing I feel strongly about for a site full of writers.
Also, in similar vein, I disagree *strongly* with suggestions that have been made about elevating some members to semi-moderator-type positions... blah blah blah... this is, imo, WRONG.
The site has, over the last 4 years I've been here, ebbed and flowed as these places do and ought to do. There is no constant state, there is no true consensus - and this is (imo) exactly how it should be. Change, flow, and an overall undulating evolution is way, way better than trying to fix the place in aspic in a way that suits the mores of current members.
Okay, that last one was perhaps more of a rant, but if you're contemplating new ways of 'rewarding' members with 'top this' and 'top that', I think it worth bearing in mind that natural ebbs and flows of change (in members, in atmosphere, in focus etc) are essential to keep any communal environment alive and healthy over the longer term.
Status quo is for wimps. ;)
I'd like a category for plays. All my plays have been performed but I've never thought about trying to get them published. Some people have asked if they can buy a script. Maybe I'm the only playwright here, but I'd enjoy reviewing plays.
I have a suggestion, but I'm not sure how hard it would be to implement. I've seen in another site(a poetry site)that the reader has an option to change the page to numbers beside the sentences, or paragraphs. In this way it would be much easier to suggest edit options to the author, in remarks. Just food for thought.
Please fix the glinch that causes a book to lose all its backers because the author accidentally allows the word count to fall below 10,000 during editing. The software ought to check the word count only when editing is complete.
Scott, it isn't "spam" with which Authonomy needs to concern itself.
Although I'm very naive about the internet, I knew there were lurkers, predators, child molesters, abusers on large internet chat rooms (is that what they're called: "chat rooms"?), but, for some probably very stupid, dumb reason on my part, I put my trust completely in Authonomy. A publisher sent me here and when I registered, I totally believed that I was joining in with a group of professional and creative writers. I was, to put it honestly, in awe of those on the site.
I persisted in this belief even though I began to encounter and saw some things that, at first, bothered me, and, later, hurt me a great deal. I'm a persistent person - stubborn - insistence on pursuing and finding the 'good' and overcoming 'evil' - this reflects my personality (flawed)rather than any set of beliefs.
The things that shocked and came to bother me most were the bizarre personal assumptions made about me and the malicious half-truths and false accusations of a few dominant on forums. These I would have expected on an internet chat room - but, surely, I thought, not on this writers' site?!? I continued to believe that these "brilliant, creative writers" (that's honestly the way I thought of all on this site).
I have been wrong in so many of my own assumptions about Authonomy - so many! And, even as I began to realize this, I kept being pulled by the awareness that there are many, many good people whom I've met on Authonomy. I began to grasp the nature of the beast, though, and began to 'let go' of my expectations for the site.
Authonomy is now or has become a microcosm of the whole internet and even the chat rooms. Knowing that, I'm having to make some choices about Authonomy which many other registered users have faced.
I'm choosing at this moment to continue with this chat room - trying to filter out and interact with those who are not abusive nor destructive.
My second choice is still up in the air. I don't believe, any longer, that to be a possibility - especially if I accept the idea that this is just another chat room with a fancy title and sorta aimed toward writers.
If Authonomy truly choses to become an authentic writers' site with the goal of spotting potential talent, then you are right, there should be no spam at all AND no forums because forums set up the basis for a popularity contest. Books should just be uploaded and, by genre, read and rated.
As long as there are forums, however, there will also be spam. I'm surprised this is not a recognized fact. If a writer can not get their book read by becoming popular on forums, they will try to get others to notice their book in other ways.
Some individuals find it more demeaning to try and become popular on forums than to contact other adults ('newbies' are not children) and request them to read their books.
IF, "Authonomy" has become just another chat room, I'll choose to use it as such. I've been advised to advertize my book on as many sites as I can. I'm already on Authonomy and Facebook and really don't have time to join any more internet sites. The most effective advertisement is a one-on-one approach, so I'll approach every adult who joins this site with a "welcome" and an invitation to internet friendship. Newbies are adults - or they're supposed to be - no one under 18 years of age is suppose to register on this site. If newbies can handle all the obsenities and abuse on this site, then they can handle a "welcome."
Still, I'm treading carefully, watching Authonomy to see what it becomes: either the authentic professional site for writers that I once, with rose colored glasses, thought it was or an internet chat room full of abuse and slander and bids for popularity.
There *were* no forums in the early days (I'm a beta member from 2007/2008) and no star ratings. Just backings and it was far more civilised.
Can I answer to the above comment that if there were no forum then I would see little point in being here as I have learned as much from debate on the forums as I have from comments on my book.
As for complaining that Authonomy is an
"internet chat room full of abuse and slander and bids for popularity."
while at the same time approaching "every adult who joins this site with a "welcome" and an invitation to internet friendship."
Does appear a case of having your cake and eating it at best and rank hypocrisy at worst.
I suppose I should go back and read all the lists I've seen on this over the years and do what Sandie has done but instead I'll just offer what I've wanted continually since I joined.
I'd like to see the "click on book cover to see it larger" feature. heh.
I'd like the messaging system to be private.
Speedier search function.
I'd love to see a way to "Ignore" members that annoy.
The editors that are reading need to be made public. That is if it continues to work that way.
Nobody appreciates the potential that interns are offering their insights.
A quick way to mass delete ones inbox or search on personal messaging.
A publishing contract for all books by those that have already made the desk would also be nice.
Here's hoping...
-=Bradley
Hi Scott,
First off, I just wanted to say thanks for looking into all of this. I too run a Website and understand the share of problems that go along with it, and how fixing one area can cause leaks to spring up in others. That you would take the time to try to make things better says a lot about your character and dedication, and it’s appreciated. What you are trying to do with Authonomy is a good thing. Ultimately it lets talented writers get the attention they deserve, and provide a direct link to a major publishing house in an era when many, probably most, of us have felt the cold shoulder of countless agents and publishers alike. The world of publishing has become one where, incredulously, the author seems like the least respected person in the entire book-creation process. HarperCollins and especially Authonomy is trying to buck that trend.
I’ve been on the site for almost three years now, and saw my novel, Old Number Seven, start at over 8,000 and slowly make its way down to the desk this month. So perhaps my insights and experiences might be helpful to your re-vamp.
When I first got here, I thought the greatest asset the site could offer would be the ultimate read by HC, and the promise of perhaps offing to publish it. I was quite frustrated at how long this process took, almost three years in my case. But only at first. What I realized was that thanks to the wonderful people on here who have read and edited the book with me, that I was able to improve it in so many ways. It has gone through two full-blown and huge rewrites based on suggestions here, and about nine smaller revisions, adding in clever suggestions or fixing areas that were weaker, all based on help and support I got right here on the site. Had my book zoomed to the desk way back when, it really wouldn’t have been worth the publisher’s time. Now, based on the strength of the edits of everyone here, I’m really proud and happy to offer it for consideration. Even if HC does not ultimately want to publish it, I feel now that I can be quite successful with self or even regional publishing options, though of course I hope that HC does want it, because I feel some degree of loyalty and appreciation to them for this opportunity.
So I don’t think the site needs to speed up the process of getting books to the desk. Ultimately Authonomy is like a large-scale writer’s workshop, though this fact is cleverly hidden and should probably be promoted more.
In terms of specific suggestions, the biggest one I would make is that you should be able to accept friend requests without having everything your friends do going into your news feed. I try to read and review five books a week, paying back in some way the help that was offered to me. But I can’t accept any official “friends” because if I did, it would not allow me to keep track of my newsfeed. Instead, perhaps a list of friend activity separate from your personal news would allow the community to develop without killing the functionality of the all-important news feed.
Secondly, perhaps add a “Was this review helpful to you?” section like they have over at Amazon, so that the reviewers themselves could be self-policed. Then those who offer detailed critiques would presumably be given higher ratings than someone who just spams a list or doesn’t really say anything useful. Then authors might know who is the most helpful of reviewers to ask for help, not just the person who makes the most comments in a vacuum.
That’s about it. Even if my book should make the desk, I plan to stick around Authonomy and help out new writers as much as I can for a long time. Your greatest strength is your community, and the people here who make that up, and anything you can do to strengthen that should be your ultimate goal in any remodeling of the site.
Kind Regards,
John Breeden II
Old Number Seven
Hi Scott,
Whoops. Marie and I work together at the Website I talked about in my post and the computer here thought I was her. Sorry about that. Here is my comment, and it actually comes from me now. :-)
First off, I just wanted to say thanks for looking into all of this. I too run a Website and understand the share of problems that go along with it, and how fixing one area can cause leaks to spring up in others. That you would take the time to try to make things better says a lot about your character and dedication, and it’s appreciated. What you are trying to do with Authonomy is a good thing. Ultimately it lets talented writers get the attention they deserve, and provide a direct link to a major publishing house in an era when many, probably most, of us have felt the cold shoulder of countless agents and publishers alike. The world of publishing has become one where, incredulously, the author seems like the least respected person in the entire book-creation process. HarperCollins and especially Authonomy is trying to buck that trend.
I’ve been on the site for almost three years now, and saw my novel, Old Number Seven, start at over 8,000 and slowly make its way down to the desk this month. So perhaps my insights and experiences might be helpful to your re-vamp.
When I first got here, I thought the greatest asset the site could offer would be the ultimate read by HC, and the promise of perhaps offing to publish it. I was quite frustrated at how long this process took, almost three years in my case. But only at first. What I realized was that thanks to the wonderful people on here who have read and edited the book with me, that I was able to improve it in so many ways. It has gone through two full-blown and huge rewrites based on suggestions here, and about nine smaller revisions, adding in clever suggestions or fixing areas that were weaker, all based on help and support I got right here on the site. Had my book zoomed to the desk way back when, it really wouldn’t have been worth the publisher’s time. Now, based on the strength of the edits of everyone here, I’m really proud and happy to offer it for consideration. Even if HC does not ultimately want to publish it, I feel now that I can be quite successful with self or even regional publishing options, though of course I hope that HC does want it, because I feel some degree of loyalty and appreciation to them for this opportunity.
So I don’t think the site needs to speed up the process of getting books to the desk. Ultimately Authonomy is like a large-scale writer’s workshop, though this fact is cleverly hidden and should probably be promoted more.
In terms of specific suggestions, the biggest one I would make is that you should be able to accept friend requests without having everything your friends do going into your news feed. I try to read and review five books a week, paying back in some way the help that was offered to me. But I can’t accept any official “friends” because if I did, it would not allow me to keep track of my newsfeed. Instead, perhaps a list of friend activity separate from your personal news would allow the community to develop without killing the functionality of the all-important news feed.
Secondly, perhaps add a “Was this review helpful to you?” section like they have over at Amazon, so that the reviewers themselves could be self-policed. Then those who offer detailed critiques would presumably be given higher ratings than someone who just spams a list or doesn’t really say anything useful. Then authors might know who is the most helpful of reviewers to ask for help, not just the person who makes the most comments in a vacuum.
That’s about it. Even if my book should make the desk, I plan to stick around Authonomy and help out new writers as much as I can for a long time. Your greatest strength is your community, and the people here who make that up, and anything you can do to strengthen that should be your ultimate goal in any remodeling of the site.
Kind Regards,
John Breeden II
Old Number Seven
The forums aren't bad, but they would be better with some of the features I've seen on other sites, like the little icons that show you threads where you have participated and if you click them it takes you to the last place where you were reading (so we don't have to wade through hundreds of pages in the larger posts trying to find our spot.
If the shelf idea is retained, I would suggest a ladder of perhaps 20 or 25 spots, with each spot having a different weight. That would give us Authonomites loads of procrastinating fun trying to rank order our discoveries, and it would help differentiate the truly good books from the ones people just back because they feel obligated (not everyone does this, but enough do).
Thanks everyone, lots of very useful feedback. I cannot reply to each point here but I am pretty sure most of your comments and questions will be addressed in future blog posts.
More anon, and thanks for taking the time to leave such detailed and thoughtful comments.
Given the cries of 'Too much moderation!' on the one hand and complaints of all the evil people in the forums on the other, maybe it really is time to get an 'ignore user' button as Bradley also suggested. It ought to cut out a lot of nonsense for the admin as well if you can just send complainants a 'Hit the ignore button' standard response.
I would yet remind that the threads are knee deep in suggestions. Sorting through them is the work of a committee, not one person. Get some Authonomy volunteer help, it'll make your life easier, your credibility for the changes made when they are made, much higher.
Listen, for once, please.
Love that you're planning on doing something about the spam. I'd love a "report as spam" that automatically blocks the user from messaging me again, like what Twitter has.
This is wonderful news that there will be a survey and I look forward to hearing more about your plans, Scott.
My suggestions are for a little less than we have at present: I don't know of anyone who likes the star system, which has been proven to be open to abuse, and I don't think anyone would be sorry to see it go.
I've been here nearly four years and I still haven't seen the point of the TS Ranking. I think such things were originally devised to reinforce the idea that members were playing an active part in "seeking out fresh talent", but I do feel it's an aspect of the site that's outlived its usefulness and we can do without.
Similarly with the "Most Comments" chart. What conceivable use is that? The person at the top of that chart hasn't been on site for two years, and only got to that position by deliberately posting her own messages to other people in her book's Comments box, thus falsely inflating the total.
Let's streamline all the charts, please, and retain just the book ranking.
My feelings about the Forum are that spats burn out and die of their own accord within a very short time, and so a moderator isn't necessary.
By the way, I like the clean layout and ease of use of the Forum. I've looked on other sites and been put off joining either by jangly "all bright lights and whistles" Fora, or overly-complicated ones. I think Autho has got the balance absolutely right, here.
Some things I'd like to see are -- first and foremost -- a little tweak to the options in the Comments box to say "Reply on page" and "Send Message to Reviewer". I have messaged literally hundreds of people in my time here, who have thanked reviewers by clicking on "Reply", which puts their thanks on top of the reviewer's Comment. It won't have reached the reviewer who will only see it in the unlikely event he or she returns to that book's Comments page. This really is a very simple tweak.
Some revamping of the FAQs wouldn't go amiss, with an "Advice to Newbies" section -- a collection of the received wisdom of the members, collated and presented in addition to the FAQs.
A word counter so that you know when you're running out of space in a message would be helpful. The ability to select part of the text with which to RWQ would be helpful, too,.
But by far and away the most desirable improvement must be to the setting-up of accounts. It is far too easy to set up a false account and cause havoc on the site.
As far as the original idea for the site is concerned -- that of flushing out new talent -- my suggestion is that you have an HC "gatekeeper" who will look at the first few pages of an ms -- like we do on the "If I were an agent" thread -- when it is first submitted. Anything of promise could be fast-tracked to, say, position 400 on the chart (or to the desk of an HC reviewer if it seems likely to be a gem). The others, many less likely ever to achieve publishable standard, could take their chances in the usual way. I've read a good half-dozen books of superb quality that have languished at the bottom of the charts because their authors do not engage in aggressive marketing on the site, or shun spamming, when -- fast-tracked -- they could come more directly to HC's attention.
Scott, Rachel, we all appreciate your efforts in running the site and being willing to invest time and money into improving it. Thank you.
Pack was spouting this shit the same time last year. Wake up you lot. Authonomy is a billboard and a place for proxy clowns to hang. Authonomy want socks and baby trolls; it's obvious.
It's been running since 2008 and the same shite has been said over and over again. Pack wouldn't or couldn't answer legitimate questions then and he won't answer them now or ever imo.
Jobo, I am not sure if you have ever asked me a direct question via my profile. I don't recall so but apologies if you have and I have missed it.
If you haven't then fire one over and I will answer it.
http://blog.authonomy.com/2012/01/scotts-blog.html
There you go. You might like to tidy that lot up...or not...lol
Jobo, I have answered any outstanding questions on the original blog post.
S
RE: the star system
Contrary to Mr. Maitland's opinion, I *like* the star system.
As a reader it's a valuable way for me to know if I've looked at a book before, and if so, what I thought of it.
It may be open to abuse, which may piss off some writers, but as a reader, with so many books on the site (some of which just aren't all that memorable to begin with) with constantly changing pitches and covers, right now starring is the simplest way for me to keep track of what I've already considered.
If you do get rid of it, I'd really like for there to be something that takes its place. Maybe an automatic timestamp that tells me when I last looked at a book or something.
Scott Pack said...
Jobo, I have answered any outstanding questions on the original blog post.
S
*****************
Not quite, son. All you need to do now is stop acting like a politician, answer the questions fully and block me from here. You can then go off and stick your head in the sand...lol
Scott, I'm glad to hear that you're looking at a revamp as I think the site has positive attributes.
It's not easy for some of us to find/join writing groups in the physical world and places like this can provide a valuable alternative.
The game playing that goes on to reach the desk devalues the rating system and some of the behaviour on the forum is so juvenile it deters some from joining in on the forum.
I belong to YouWriteOn as well and, whilst I prefer the way you can chose to interact on Autho and the amount you can upload here, the rating system seems much fairer there. The random assignment of books, the doing a review to get a review, minimum word count for reviews, the more detailed star ratings and the way genre breakdown of reviews is provided all add more weight to their system (or at least make you feel like it does).
I look forward to seeing what changes you come up with.
Jobo, I think I have given you four or five opportunities to ask me a question direct and you have failed to do so on any of those occasions.
I did spot some queries on the old blog post that had not been addressed and I have done so.
Either put up or shut up, sunshine. Ask me a question or bugger off.
Can you do anything at all about the desk being rigged by those who can bring in sock armies for one friend after another? You can actually watch it happen. It's annoying, it's like a bunch of prefects in a sixth form common room manipulating life to their choosing.
(I put this on the other blog too, don't know where it fits really, it's been annoying the hell out of me for years)
Scott Pack said...
Jobo, I think I have given you four or five opportunities to ask me a question direct and you have failed to do so on any of those occasions.
I did spot some queries on the old blog post that had not been addressed and I have done so.
Either put up or shut up, sunshine. Ask me a question or bugger off.
*******************
You've skirted around like a politician, Pack. I've seen enough to know you're a fkn bullshitter, son. I'll bugger off......lol
Hi Scott,
First, a big thank you for taking the time to solicit the views of authonomy users. You say your ‘main brief...is to find new talent on authonomy and publish it ourselves’. Obviously the site was originally set up to facilitate the finding of this ‘new talent’. It consists of, in effect, two distinct parts: a virtual slush pile, AKA the ED, alongside a writers’ community, that allows users to interact and offer mutual support.
Presumably the community part was included because it was believed there was mileage in allowing a multitude of writers, all with varying levels of competence, the opportunity to help select books that showed promise, and/or help improve an MS to enable it to reach a standard where publication could be viable.
As stated in other comments though, the system as it stands allows spammers and gamers who may not have worthy books to reach the desk more quickly than those with potential who may not, for whatever reason, ‘self-promote’. There is also no real incentive to offer valuable critique over insincere one-liners, or to commit in any meaningful way to offering feedback for an entire MS. Worse, there is no reward system that encourages it either. Plus, there is little motivation for people to make improvements even when valid suggestions for improvement are made.
If you are still keen for the community to do the filtering, then I think the issues in the previous paragraph need to be addressed. I wonder if you have considered separating the ED from the rest of the site, ie, making two discrete parts. By that, I mean separating the ED part from the improving a WIP part. I believe this could go some way to changing the way people use authonomy. Although I do realise you are probably not asking for specific details on how to do things, I would like to show how I envisage this could be achieved in a new post.
Each user has two shelves. One shelf contains the books the user believes have potential, ie, WIPs – the current watch list shelf could double up for this. This WIP shelf should be visible, so books can be seen by other site users and garner support elsewhere. The user could commit to helping the authors, establishing a vested interest in them by offering support, suggestions, feedback etc, which can be as detailed as the user wishes. This way, authors can improve the WIP to the point where they believe it is ready to enter the slush pile or chase-to-the-desk element of the site.
Entering the slush pile would effectively close off the ability to edit further. This is where the second shelf comes in, the current ED shelf of up to 5 books, which the user chooses from the ED section and commits to leaving on their shelf for one month. After one month, the top five books would be selected for review. After that, authors could choose to re-enter the race if their book was unsuccessful, or they could choose to go back to the WIP section for more feedback and re-editing. Users could rotate their shelf if appropriate, although hopefully people would choose to stick with any books that weren’t successful, if they genuinely believe they are ready.
Crucially, the race to the desk would start afresh each month, so no book would be particularly penalised if taken back to the WIP stage.
The TSR could then be tweaked to reflect NOT necessarily the most successful backers to the desk, but reward those specifically who have backed books which authonomy deem to be of merit. Maybe this could be done by grading books that reach the ED. Also, some kind of reward for those who offer the most helpful feedback would be nice, although I know it is not easy to devise a system that differentiates between spam and genuine comments. Maybe it could be done by acknowledging the people who have stuck with an MS from WIP to ED and been seen to offer help throughout the book – maybe this could even replace the hated ‘most-comments’ section on the site. I do think that bringing people to the fore with the skills to spot a suitable WIP and give appropriate feedback is the way forward.
The ED shelf would not have to contain books the user has helped. Eg, say the author believes the book to be finished but the user disagrees, there should be no obligation to add that book to the ED shelf.
This system would have several benefits imo, eg
1 A greater likelihood that only finished MSs would be put forward for review.
2 Users would have to think more carefully about which 5 books they support for the ED.
3 It would pull in the One to Watch section of the site, as people could use it to aid selection, seeing that One to Watch is in effect showcasing WIPs authonomy believe have potential.
4 Users could effectively showcase more than 5 favourite books from the site.
5 Users would be encouraged to become more active in reviewing whole MSs.
I hope you don’t mind me offering my opinion but I hope there may be something in the above that gives some food for thought. I am a retired user but considering returning to authonomy.
Oh, and HUGE apologies for the length of this post – believe it or not, it has been shortened! Thank you for reading.
Zeta
As a newbie I don't feel ready to post detail recommendations, but speeding up page loading times would be immensely helpful! I don't mind the spam so much - it tells me what books to avoid. My biggest disappointment is having to bump a great book to make room for another on my shelf - but I guess that's the whole point. It's wonderful to be invited to read other people's work, and if I get some comments in return, fantastic!
Post a Comment