BIT OF A RANT: While I like the work of NanceGreggs, Bob Geiger,

[Radio_Lady]

and BobCatJH, would someone please explain why their journals are almost continuously linked to the front page?

A couple of people whom I directed to http://www.democraticunderground.com -- specifically asked me if "those two Bobs and Nance" actually run the place? I think that -- with 94,000+ registered members and a large number of journals -- whoever is choosing or editing this top page could give us a larger RANGE of CONTRIBUTORS!

From now on, I am going to send interested people to: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/ rather than the home page. I think it has a better look for possible members and those who are querying me about the site.

Just a thought...

Thank you for listening.

In peace,

Radio Lady

PS. This is also crossposted in the DU Lounge, but of course, that place is considered "out of kilter" for a lot of DUers. Appreciate your consideration as a "serious" subject.

[myrna minx]

1. Um, why are you calling out these writers?

They are wonderful contributors to DU. :shrug: I think that you should PM Skinner with your questions. On edit--I did not nominate this thread.

[pooja]

3. they are... but many people contribute compelling, whitty things

and perhaps get a look or two. Open up your mind and let other people in. Its the only way you learn and grow ever.

[Radio_Lady]

10. That's my point exactly. I will have to do more research on this to

come to a final conclusion.

Thank you for contributing on this thread, which has been LOCKED in the other forum.

[AZBlue]

2. Because there's a lot of obvious bias here?

I'm not commenting on those three writers in particular - just stating what I've personally observed here in general.

[pooja]

5. yes, don't let everyone wake up all the way.. keep snoozing a bit

[Radio_Lady]

11. Not sure "snoozing" is the right word. Maybe letting a little light in

on this subject is what I was aiming for.

Has anyone else addressed this issue?

Thanks for contributing to this thread.

[Annces]

4. Good point

A variety of voices on front page would be nice. I think DU doesn't want to be thought of as wackos.

[Radio_Lady]

8. 94,000 members and only a few on the home page. I find that a bit

odd.

Someone says it's based on MOST VIEWED journals.

Without a counter on each journal, who can say if that is so???

I'm pretty skeptical about this, especially because the subject was LOCKED in the other thread.

That's pretty interesting.

Yes, I will address Skinner on this because I think it's important.

Thank you for listening.

[gully]

14. Well journals on the home page would continue to be "viewed" more

so that would mean they'll perpetually be on the front page LOL.

[pooja]

6. left-gate keeping is worst than being an obvious blow-harded

bigot... at least you know what they are about.

[Radio_Lady]

7. This will be locked in just a minute. Obviously, I'm not supposed to

discuss this with DUers on an open basis.

Thanks for your comments.

[NightNurse]

12. My husband and I think your posts are great and respect your opinion highly

Our college classmate, the late "Birdman" called this place a "junior high school cafeteria".

No evidence to the contrary.

[Radio_Lady]

18. Are you addressing this to me directly? If so, thank you.

I have no axe to grind -- the only time one of my comments made the "GREATEST" I was totally shocked and amused.

[AZBlue]

49. Excellent description.

eom

[Samantha]

55. The "late" Birdman?

I remember him ... he was a real character ... always showing up on my Gore threads, trashing, bashing him to push my buttons ... Birdman was a gas. But you say "late" ... ???

[katsy]

13. These are great contributors.

Click on "Journals".

These contributors you've called out continuously appear on the Most Views: Today, This Week, All Time.

I never miss a chance to read their contributions to this board. Why are you targeting them?

[myrna minx]

16. I enjoy their contributions.

:shrug: I think their articles are superb.

[Radio_Lady]

20. Simply because I feel there are others who could also be posted

on the home page, that's why.

They happen to be there this morning, and I've seen them over and over again.

Frankly, I don't know how many journals are on the DU, but just because they are not viewed as much -- what makes that the ONLY factor in being chosen for the front page.

This is just my opinion, and I'm sorry if I've opened a "Pandora's Box" for you.

I don't consider it TARGETING in any way. I don't dispute their writings are fine.

[BattyDem]

9. I think if a great article or journal entry is posted on DU ...

it should be on the front page. I don't care who wrote it. If the same people are featured over and over, then so be it - I think DU should be proud to have such talented people as regular "columnists" .... JMHO :-)

[Radio_Lady]

15. I didn't think we had "regular columnists" in our membership.

But, perhaps we do!

However, that doesn't preclude others coming up with a bit of brilliance now and again.

My thought (and it is ever so dark) is that these people are contributing a lot of money to this effort and that's why they get where they are.

But that is unproved, also.

[BattyDem]

24. That's why I put "columnists" in quotes

I was calling them columnists for lack of a better term. The reality is that certain people do post great stuff every day, so in a way, that does sort of make them columnists - not officially of course - but most of us do look forward to reading their latest entries in the journals.

There are usually no more than 20 posts on the front page covering a whole range of topics. I don't know who chooses them or why - my guess would be that it's a combination of the subject matter, the number of recommendations and how well-written the post is.

I don't think there's anything sinister going on - I think the "regulars" are on the front page because they write often and they write well. I've made the front page a couple of times. I'm not a great writer, I'm not a prolific writer (less than 6000 posts in over three years and the vast majority of those posts were simple comments, not long essays) and I don't contribute a lot of money because I can't afford to ... and still, I made the front page. I don't even remember what the topics were, but for whatever reason, the posts hit a nerve at the time. I think the mods simply try to include posts/articles that will grab people's attention and make them want to come inside and stay awhile. :-)


edited: typo

[Radio_Lady]

29. UPDATE: I just had lunch and came back to an unlocked thread!

Thanks for your musings.

I'm really not trying to "feather my own nest" (my journal is mostly for movie and book reviews and never expected to make the front page) -- nor am I trying to "stir up a hornet's nest" (the people chosen by the administrators certainly are good writers, but sometimes it might be wise to just encourage someone who may be starting out as a novice democratic thinker and exploring his/her writing skills).

[JeffR]

35. I can assure you that this theory is utterly without merit

eom

[Radio_Lady]

37. I'm not sure what your post means. WHAT IS without merit?

[JeffR]

39. That these contributors are heavy donors

I notice Skinner took umbrage & you apologised to him downthread. Never mind.

[Radio_Lady]

41. Yes, I should have put the sarcasm icon up, but didn't. Mea culpa.

[JeffR]

42. Don't sweat it

You've clarified your remarks.:)

[Radio_Lady]

43. Well, I just noticed your link to Nance Rants... so is this person a

professional writer? Just curious. It's interesting that she was born in New York City, but "lives and works in Toronto, Canada." Her ABOUT page is curiously about the places she has posted, but nothing about herself.

http://nancerants.awardspace.com/

[JeffR]

44. She should be, but she isn't

She's my SO.

[Radio_Lady]

46. What I have is, she is young, involved with Jeff R, presumably in Canada,

writing like crazy on Democratic issues (with dozens of Google pages as citations) -- and not making any money for her writing.

Well, it's an unusual but interesting picture. Hopefully, you are either supporting yourselves through some other jobs, or just independently wealthy!

Thanks for the post!

[Radio_Lady]

48. (Jeff and Nancy, prepare to go unnoticed by this poster.)

No reply on that end, eh?

[NanceGreggs]

50. Being as you've asked ...

It’s obvious you’re insisting I jump into the pool, so let me dive right in.

You’ve asked, up-thread, if I am a professional writer. No, I am not. I did write professionally back in the ‘seventies, but for a music industry magazine that had nothing to do with politics. I write now (here at DU) out of passion for the cause of (hopefully) assisting in putting my country back on the right path, and not for fame nor remuneration.

You seem to find it ‘interesting’, as you have said, that I was born in NYC and now live and work in Toronto, Canada. Many people, as is more than evident here on DU, were born and raised in one place and wound up living in another. I don’t see anything sinister or untoward in that. It happens. As a matter of fact, I am only one of the 6.6 million Americans currently living out of the country, according to the latest stats.

Yes, the “About” page on my website says very little about my personal life. That’s because my personal life has nothing to do with what I write about on the site, i.e. my view of American politics. While I may think my own life is fascinating, I’m sure most people would find it a complete snoozefest – ergo, I feel no need to put the few people who log onto my site to sleep. People either like my scriblings, or they don’t – rambling on about my favourite colour and my astrological sign, IMHO, does not add anything of value to the site.

As for the comment: “(NanceGreggs is) writing like crazy on Democratic issues (with dozens of Google pages as citations) -- and not making any money for her writing,” followed by: “Well, it's an unusual but interesting picture,” again I don’t know what you find to be ‘unusual but interesting’. I am but one of many in that category, which I find to be neither unusual nor particularly interesting.

Hundreds of my fellow DUers spend countless hours of their time contributing their thoughts and their comments, here and elsewhere, not to mention the incredible talents of those who ferret out breaking news from all over the net, newspapers, the MSM, and personal sources to add pertinent facts and perspective to the discussions here. They are not rewarded financially for their painstaking work. I see that as fellow citizens interested in contributing information to the political discourse, rather than something that is suspect.

“Hopefully, you are either supporting yourselves through some other jobs, or just independently wealthy!” As a matter of fact, yes, we are supporting ourselves by working for a living – along with just about everyone else who contributes here on a regular basis. I have been a court reporter for almost twenty-two years, a job I wouldn’t leave even if I were ‘independently wealthy’ – because I am fortunate to have a career which I absolutely love.

Under other circumstances, I would not have bothered to reply to your comments. If you do not like my writing, or think it is unworthy of the ‘home page’ attention it gets, that is an opinion you are more than entitled to hold and express.

However, when you insinuate, as you have here tonight, that there is some kind of unethical behaviour being indulged in on the part of the Administrators – i.e. ‘big money contributors’ – I do take offense.

Quite frankly, if I was willing to write op/ed pieces that favoured a particular website’s point of view in exchange for money, I wouldn’t be here – I’d be writing for the Republicans. They actually DO pay, and they’re illiterate enough to shell out money for articles as amateurish as mine.


EDITED to Add: You have printed one glaring piece of misinformation about me that I ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to correct, i.e. "What I've got is she's YOUNG ..."

I'm nowhere near being 'young' -- but far be it from me to argue THAT point!!!

[EarlG]

51. Edited - posted at wrong spot in thread

Hi Nance!

[Radio_Lady]

53. Hello Nancy -- I just saw this message, and will respond to you

via personal message. I can't do it now as I am involved in preparing for some medical testing in the next few days.

In any event, I thank you for responding and wish you all the best in both your paid career and unpaid writings here at the Democratic Underground and in many other places.

You're NOT young? Well, from my perspective as a 67-year-old retired woman, you certainly LOOK young, judging from the photo you posted at:

http://nancerants.awardspace.com/about.html

Scroll down to see a person with dark hair and dark eyes -- who looks pretty exotic to me! I would judge you might be of Mediterranean extraction -- Italian, Greek, Egyptian, Persian???

Peace,

Radio_Lady

(Woman, wife, mother, stepmother, grandmother and volunteer radio talk show host at Oregon Public Broadcasting -- that's after 30 years or more in commercial broadcasting!)

[autorank]

17. Hey Bob, Cool...I'm impressed.

I just assume everybody goes to "Greatest" because I do. I'd be interested in the usage stats for the
different entry points. I think a fair number of people who come here come for LBN. I know lots of lurkers who show up just for that. Then there are links here from elsewhere, which has to be a huge factor in traffic. But you never know. Maybe they'll give us some information but if I were running the place, I wouldn't. btw I don't see anything wrong with this post (which means you're in big trouble;)

K&R

[Skinner]

19. It's pretty simple, really.

Because they consistently post stuff that is 1. Well written, 2. their own work, 3. relevant to politics, 4. in their journals, and 5. recommended.

Every time I see someone write something that I consider homepage-worthy, that person gets added to my journal tracker. I have 50 usernames on my journal tracker. I know EarlG does the same thing.

Sadly, most of the stuff posted on DU isn't original work. Or else it's very short so it's not homepage material. If *any* DUer takes the time to write a long-form post about politics, and if they remember to add it to their journal, and if they get a few recommendations, and if it's not crazy-talk, then we usually put it on the homepage.

But most DUers don't do that. Honestly, I thought more people would try after we created the journals, but most people haven't.

:shrug:

[Radio_Lady]

33. Skinner, I see it from your point of view and all of it is valid.

I have no idea what the universe of journals really is here at the DU. You must have your hands full with all the details of a full-time job -- and sometimes jobs are pretty thankless.

Original work is quite hard to come by -- I know that because I have to fill an hour a week with commentary or guests, and it's easier with guests or someone else's commentary.

Also, the fact is that writers like to get paid for their work -- so some people are above posting here with items that they might get paid for in another venue. Or they will up and quit the DU and strike out on their own -- as several former members did.

Anyway, thanks to you folks who PMed me during lunch.

[Me.]

40. Good Answer Skinner

and one that comes in handy, because just last night, in a case of synchronicity, my brother, who just started reading DU, asked me that very same question. As I log on through Latest, I didn't really know what he was talking about.

*shadow government*

[astonamous]

45. So I just need to be original, sane and remember to

post it in my journal? Damn, I got me some things to work on. Actually, I usually get pretty excited if anyone even replies to my posts.

Thanks for clearing all that up and thank you for re-openeing this thread.

Trudy
www.pryorsplanet.com
www.richardpryor.com

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skinner]

23. I've unlocked this thread because I actually responded to it.

And while I'm here, let me say that I'm fairly disgusted by the suggestion that any of the fine authors featured on our homepage got there because they contributed "a lot of money".

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. So you won't accept bribes?

:evilgrin:

[Radio_Lady]

30. Skinner, I apologize for that comment. It was off the top of my head

which is still messy and uncombed even at this hour!!

The comment was unnecessary -- I was kind of pissed off at having the topic locked.

[Kurovski]

22. Edited

Edit: questions answered by Skinner in above posts.

[boolean]

26. In case you haven't noticed...

Most of the stuff written here (my stuff included!) is pure crazy talk. And we all suck at spelling and grammar and expressing ourselves.

[Radio_Lady]

32. Boolean, speak for yourself. Some of our talk ISN'T crazy and

I personally reject your suggestion that my spelling, grammar, and self-expression are somehow lacking.

The only reason I brought up this topic is that I know how hard some of us are struggling to get our ideas across, and to just blatantly choose a few members to get "top billing" almost every day -- week -- month -- is not fair.

OK, life is not fair.

But the DU could be MORE fair. That's my opinion and I'm stuck with it.

[asthmaticeog]

27. You're right - the SHITTY writers should have a chance, too!

:eyes:

[Radio_Lady]

34. Wouldn't go that far -- good writing is always essential in a good blog.

[Oeditpus Rex]

28. Because life isn't fair

Nor are editors, necessarily.

[Radio_Lady]

36. The owners of this blog have a right to run it any way they want.

I remember thinking the HOME page was very well organized and interesting when it was launched. Now, I rarely see it.

I basically go to directly to "My DU" at the beginning, and then branch out into other places. I know not everyone does this, but I respond to most of the replies to my messages and also to private messages.

[SoCalDem]

31. I never go to that page.. I have my home page set as the lobby page

but i think it's based on number of views..

I did like the old format better, but things change:)

[Radio_Lady]

38. Unconsciously, I began to go to the Lobby, too, a few months ago.

Sometimes the BIG NEWS ITEMS are just a rehash -- and I'm more focused on simple things -- like what's for dinner?

Right now, we're choking on the Democratic push here in Oregon and, ironically, I like to get away from that at the DU.

[Radio_Lady]

47. All of you who voted this for the Greatest Page, I appreciate it.

Perhaps we've aired our views that the Democratic Underground can be a better website, if we all keep trying to write about politics more frequently, and do the best we can for this amazing group of people.

Cheers -- and good night!

Radio_Lady

On edit: Did this post ever actually end up on the Greatest Page...???

[EarlG]

52. Might as well add my 2c to this thread

First a bit of history. DU was launched on January 20th, 2001. Our first reader-submitted article was published on January 31st, 2001, and we have been publishing reader-submitted articles six days a week since then. Between January 2001 and April 2006 - when we fully switched over to the new system - we had a different method of publishing articles. We took article submissions by email only, and every day (except Sunday) we would publish one or two of the articles which were in the mailbag.

This was very inconvenient for a few reasons: 1) occasionally we didn't have enough good articles to publish, so the articles we did publish would be of dubious quality, and 2) more often we had too many good articles, and some would either fall by the wayside or it would take several days to a week before we could publish an author's submission.

One of the reasons that we created the Journals was because our email submssion system was unwieldy, time-consuming, and inconvenient for authors. We thought that the Journals system would allow authors the freedom to self-publish on DU, and that rather than operating on a daily publishing schedule, we could put their articles on the home page much faster.

Some authors preferred the submit-by-email system and decided not to create their own Journal. Some authors who are not used to blogging find the Journal system awkward and don't use it that often. But many people who were published prior to the Journals upgrade did create a Journal and have since been published on the home page.

They include Pamela Troy, Sheila Samples, Gene C. Gerard, The Plaid Adder, tygrbright, Bennet Kelley, David Swanson, Norma Sherry, Roger Bybee/Carolyn Winter, Brad Friedman, Paul Rogat Loeb, and, of course, Nancy Greggs, Bob Geiger, and Joseph Hughes (BobcatJH), among others. We also still have the regular features - the Top 10, the Crisis Papers (Ernest Partridge and Bernard Weiner), Auntie Pinko, and the Blog Box (Delilah Boyd, who posts on DU as displacedtexan).

The reason that you see Nancy, Bob, and Joseph published more often than anyone else is simply that they write more frequently. They add consistently great work to their Journals on an almost daily basis, and it deserves to be on the home page. It's that simple. There are plenty of other authors whose Journal entries we consider to be practically automatic submissions to the home page, but they choose to write less frequently. And then there are others who update their Journals regularly, but only occasionally add something in the long-form, essay-type format which we prefer to publish. There's nothing sinister going on here. It's worth noting that even Nancy, Bob, and Joseph don't always have EVERY Journal entry they write added to the home page, believe it or not.

As for authors leaving DU and getting paid for their work elsewhere, frankly we couldn't be happier when that happens. We can't pay our authors, but if they get publicity and experience from having their work published on DU and it leads to a paying gig, then that's wonderful. We've always considered the relationship with our authors to be one of mutual benefit - they provide DU with great content, and DU provides them with exposure to a large audience.

One last thing - we don't publish authors' Journal entries based on the fact that their authors have the most-viewed Journals. In fact, it is the opposite. The reason those authors have the most-viewed Journals is BECAUSE they are published on the home page more often.

Hope that clears up a few misconceptions.

[Radio_Lady]

54. Very interesting, and I do appreciate your posting this for us.

In peace,

Radio_Lady