Vineet Bhalla (Klazart) Interviewed About Authonomy
“On the 19th of this month, Vineet Bhalla uploaded his work in progress, “Lesser Sins” to the HarperCollins UK online slush-pile-meets-idol-contest Authonomy. Two days later, Vineet slipped into his Klazart profile and produced a nearly seven minute video asking his YouTube fans to vote for his book and providing step-by-step instructions on how to do so.
“Come Monday, Klazart’s book had received a handful over 6,000 views and that had translated into under a thousand votes for his book on Authonomy. As Vineet’s book, LESSER SINS, climbed the Authonomy charts, there were widespread reports of the system buckling under the pressure.”
Summary borrowed from the Fiction Matters blog.
I wrote to Vineet and asked for his side of the story, and I found his answers so interesting that I’ve decided to post the Q&A here in its entirety.
* * *
Lauri Shaw: How and when did you first hear of Authonomy?
Vineet Bhalla: I had entered the Amazon.com’s ABNA contest and learnt about Authonomy on their forums.
LS: How long did it take you to write your book, and do you feel the ms is ready to shop in its current state?
VB: It’s taken me a little over two years to reach the current draft. One of the reasons I put it up on Authonomy was because I was unsure about a few things (eg. the prelude), and the feedback I’d received from my writer’s group hadn’t been conclusive; I felt I needed feedback from professionals to help me make a decision about it. I feel it’s almost ready to shop around. I have a little bit of macro-editing to do, and then the fine editing. So I did put it up there before the final edit, but I had my reasons for doing that. I hope to start sending out the Query package, (usually query letter, synopsis, first three chapters in the UK) by mid April.
LS: Could you explain (for lay people) what it is you do for Starcraft and how you built your following on youtube? How long have you been doing this commentary?
VB: I apologise if this answer seems long and convoluted. But I think it’s necessary for me to give some background info before I can answer the question, “what I do for starcraft”
A couple of years ago (around the time I started working on this novel) I started watching warcraft replays(another video game made by the same company) to improve my own game. In the process I discovered the starcraft pro-gaming scene. I found that I enjoyed watching the videos from a purely entertainment perspective and started following the scene. Now starcraft, as an e-sport, is only really big in Korea. They have TV channels dedicated to the broadcast of games played by “professional” starcraft players, many of whom earn 6 figure salaries for their endeavours and are treated like rock stars by the public. Videos of these games are also available on the internet, but they are in Korean. Occaisionally there are tournaments around the world like the World Cyber Games which are broadcast in English, but mostly the content is in Korean.
Three months or so after I began following the scene there was a contest on a Starcraft forum encouraging fans to record their own English commentaries over the game. It was just meant to be a fun, light-hearted thing and I decided to try it out. I recorded my commentaries (horrible and amateurish) and uploaded them to Youtube. I was surprised by the amount of encouragement and feedback I received, and started doing more. Before I knew it, I was addicted and had hundreds of subscribers, a number that grew steadily day by day. I think, I filled a unique niche, people were happy to watch English commentary even if it wasn’t that great, because it was better than watching it in Korean, especially since there was no hope of subtitles.
Within the community, I’m known for being the first amateur English commentator of starcraft, and rightly or wrongly, I’m credited with making the starcraft pro-scene accessible to a much wider audience than just that of hardcore gamers. Many of the people who watch my videos don’t even play the game. Over the two years I’ve been posting commentaries, I’ve had countless offers of money and people asking me to put up a paypal link so that they may donate to support my efforts. I’ve consistently declined for ethical reasons.
LS: Please give me a summary of the Authonomy incident – in your own words, what actually happened here?
VB: When I first learned about Authonomy I was excited. But when I checked it out, I was left with the impression that, not only would it take months to climb the ladder, but that books that rose to the top did so, not necessarily on merit, but on mutual exchanges, backings etc. Perhaps I made too hasty a judgement, but I came to the conclusion that I did not want to participate in giving fake reviews in order to get backing, nor would I benefit from feedback from other users whose motives in providing that feedback would be ambiguous at best. Besides, I was already part of two great writers groups, and another great website where writers give each other critique, advice and support without the carrot or confusion of ratings/rankings. What attracted me to Authonomy was a chance to get to the Editor’s desk and get a professional review. I had looked the the ones given out to previous “winners,” and I felt that the majority of them had something useful and constructive to say. In any case, I initially decided that Authonomy wasn’t for me, because I didn’t like the way things worked over there, and wasn’t keen in participating in the “game.” I felt my time would be much more productively spent, reading a lot and writing a lot.
One day, as I was browsing the site, I read the Authonomy FAQ. It said that if we had family or friends, or users on another website or blog that would champion our cause, we should encourage them to come over and do so. In another part of the FAQ HC talk about the value of marketing and networking and acknowledged this as a real and unavoidable aspect of the publishing industry. Well, we don’t need HC to tell us about that, look at the best sellers written by celebrities. This gave me an idea. Most of my fans already knew that I was working on the novel (I’d mentioned it in a few commentaries), they’d been asking me for months: When will it be done? When will it come out? What is it called? Could they read it? And a lot of them had even promised to buy it.
I thought that this would be a good chance to show them the first few chapters that I’d been working on and maybe if enough of them voted it would get me up the rankings or noticed by HC. Looking at the rankings, the top book only had like 250 shelves, and I had 8,000 subscribes. So I thought even 300-400 people coming over would do the trick, though I wasn’t confident that that would happen.
So I put up a video asking the community to “champion my cause” on Authonomy.
From that point on, things went crazy. I put up the video on Saturday afternoon, and went out with my wife. When I came back in the evening the book already had a couple of hundred backers and was rising rapidly up the rankings. People on the forums were convinced I was some kind of hacker, a lot of them reacted angrily, to the point of posting very inflammatory comments on my book’s feedback page. Some of my fans who came to the site saw this and responded, and the whole thing turned into a big flame war. The attacks were no longer directed just at me but at “gamers” in general. People started calling them mindless automotons, robots, lemmings, the borg, illiterate, and so on and so forth.
The fact that there was this big drama caused the news to spread across other gaming sites, and that caused more people to flock to the site to watch the spectacle. The servers, unable to handle the extra load, collapsed.
LS: Why do you think Authonomy’s users got so upset with you, and do you feel they were justified? Why or why not?
VB: I think there are three main reasons they were upset.
1. The TSR’s were ruined. This was something I did not anticipate at all. I had thought that the only effect of my fans coming over would be that my book would climb up the rankings. I had no clue how the TSR algorithm worked and so had no way of knowing that my backers would take over the table. So I can see why a lot of people were upset about this. I feel that this is both justified and understandable. Obviously people put a lot of work into their rankings, and to have them erased overnight, to lose all that work, that has to hurt. If I had been in their place, I would probably be upset also. And I apologised repeatedly for this and still do.
2. The server crashed. Blaming me for this is understandable but not justified. The load from a few hundred additional users really should not have caused problems for any professional website. There are amateur, community forums and sites out there that get thousands of concurrent users and cope without any trouble. I had absolutely no way of knowing that the Authonomy server was so fragile, and really, it shouldn’t have been. This is a fact that has since been acknowledged by Authonomy in their official blog post. My video was probably the snowball on top of the mountain, but it wasn’t the sole cause of the avalanche. Events happened, people reacted, which resulted in other events. There are so many variables that conspired to result in the chaos that happened over the weekend that blaming me for everything might be convenient, but I don’t think it’s justified.
3. My book rising “undeservedly” in the rankings. Honestly, I think if the first two hadn’t happened (had the algorithm been more robust or the servers more stable), then people wouldn’t have been as upset over this. Again, I feel it’s understandable. Many people feel they have worked much harder than me and my overnight success was undeserved. Obviously, this is a charge that I deny. I feel that I’ve worked very hard, both on the novel, as well as on my commentaries that have given me this incredible support. Also, I don’t feel that books that make it into the top 5 do so because of merit. Though no one who is invested and participates in such a system will admit to that.
While I understand people being upset and frustrated, I was quite surprised, and indeed shocked at some of the reaction. One person, for example, resorted to outright racism, calling me first a “paki” and then a “nigger.” What was even more surprising was how some (I won’t say many) Authonomy members were willing to let this slide and considered this gentleman to be a valuable part of their community. Another member left repeated comments saying he owned a business in India and knew how they (Indians) were underhanded and deceptive people always looking for ways to cheat. Again, very few people on the site seemed to want to take him to task for such remarks. There were several others that did not cross the line into racism but there was a lot of personal abuse directed at me and then at “gamers” in general, on many occasions in the vilest terms. It was this kind of response that I believe upset many of my fans and caused them to respond. Not that I think rude behaviour and name calling is justified in any circumstance.
LS: Did you actually ask people to vote for you – back the book – without reading it first?
VB: This is a great question. Initially, I had planned to say that I wanted them to check out the book, and only vote if they liked it. But then I thought about it, and had to be honest with myself, about what the main point of this exercise was. To get feedback from an HC editor. The theory behind Authonomy is that people should vote for your book because they have read it and liked it. But the reality seems to be very different. In the end I decided to go for it. Honestly, I knew that many of my fans had been itching to read the novel for ages anyway, so I didn’t really need to ask them to read it, but I did want them to vote. Why do people buy a book or watch a movie or support any other product? It’s not always because they’ve had the chance to examine the product closely. How many people in a book store read the first three chapters, or even the first chapter before buying a book? More often they buy it because they’ve read something else by the author, the author is famous, they are looking for something in that genre and like the blurb at the back, the book has been recommended by someone who’s opinion they trust, they like the title or the cover or any number of a myriad of reasons. This is the real world of book publishing. Are we now going to say to people, actually you aren’t allowed to buy a book unless you are part of a particular club or have read X amount of it first?
Ultimately I asked myself this question. If you as an author had a friend who just got a job as an assistant to an editor or agent, and this friend offered to get your book looked at. Would you then turn around and say, actually no thanks, I’d rather spend 3-6 months languishing at the bottom of the slush pile and then HOPE that they give my manuscript a fair reading? I don’t think any writer would say no to an opportunity like that. Writers who have connections, use them to get their work looked at. So why should I handicap myself, and not ask my youtube fanbase to help me out? To me, they are that friend with the inside path to the agent’s/editor’s desk, and I would have been a fool to not make a use of that resource.
So yes, I did ask them to back the book, and that is not something I will apologise for.
LS: Have your goals changed at all since you first joined the site? If so, how and why?
VB: In a sense, I’ve already accomplished one of my goals. To find out if the prelude worked as it was or needed to go. Now I’ve learnt that it wasn’t a good representation of my writing, so I’ve done away with it. The information will have to fit into the story somewhere else. I’ve also had some useful advice on editing, which I’m sure will come in very handy as I begin the “final” edit in a few days. I thought about making a big push at the weekend to get more votes. I think if I really appealed strongly to my community I might be able to get another 1000-1,500 votes. But I’ve decided against it. There is already so much bitterness and ill-feeling that I don’t want to add to it any further. So I’m going to leave it alone for now and see what happens next month. If I stay in the top 5 great, if not, oh well. I’m probably not going to try and make another push. There are a few people on there that I’ve met that are very nice, and I’d like to keep in touch with them, but I don’t think I will spend too much time on Authonomy, I prefer to focus on my writing.
LS: What do you think about HC’s response to the incident, and what are your thoughts on Authonomy as it stands right now? Good points about the site? Bad points?
VB: I’d like to think that HC did what they believed was right and in line with their ethos. I think on the whole they have to be commended for being open and honest and quick in their response. They’ve fixed the servers, improved the TSR algorithm and answered all questions as best as they can. Some have accused them of yielding to expediency, and while I don’t think this is the case, I’m not exactly the most impartial person in the scenario.
As for Authonomy, there are a lot of things to like about it.
I think it is a good, fledgling community of writers that help and support each other, and that is great, though there are a few other sites out there that also fulfil that purpose.
There are some genuinely good people on there and some very helpful ones as well and I’m honoured to have made their acquaintance.
However, as a system for “flushing” out talent I think it still needs some work. The main problem is that the contestants are also the judges. In any sort of writing (or any other type for that matter) competition, the rules expressly forbid judges and their relatives from participating due to the possibility of bias and vested interest, and I think that is also a problem for Authonomy.
There may be people who give genuine critique, but there are also people who give generic feedback.
If you give someone harsh feedback, are they likely to back your book? Most writers are human, and are very attached to their works, if you end up making them feel badly about their work, even if it’s in their best interest they aren’t likely to support you in your quest to climb the ladder.
The TSR system is still easily open to abuse. All you have to do is look at the forums and see which writers(especially newer members) are the most active in giving feedback. Back their books early, because they are sure to climb, and reap the benefits.
There also seems to be a lot of shelf-swapping going on, many people replenish their entire bookshelf daily, if not more often.
For a site that is supposed to be about feedback/support/critique, the forums are very telling. Rather than being filled with interesting discussion (as I’ve seen on other writer’s forums – www.absolutewrite.com/forums being a fantastic example), they are flooded with endless, clever variations on “read my book,” posts. The drive to “get read” seems to obliterate all else and stifle any real discussion.
Also, most people seem to read 1 chapter, give feedback and move on. This is symptomatic of people trying to interact with as many users as possible in the hope of winning backings. While I accept that a reader can often make up their mind about a book with far less information, I don’t think that is what is going on here.
One can’t even be sure when critical/negative feedback is genuine, or motivated by some other agenda.
A lot of people over there have convinced themselves that climbing the ladder is a sure sign of merit, yet there is a clear and distinct correlation that they seem to ignore. Those who spend the most time on the forums, leaving feedback (thoughtful or otherwise), backing other books, and raising their TSR, are the ones who inevitably climb and make it to the editors desk. Is the merit so loudly lauded, the merit of quality in writing, storytelling, originality, voice or the merit of time spent “interacting” within the community? Is it a coincidence that NONE of the books that have made it to the top 5 thus far have been picked up for publication? I’m sure one will, eventually a writer is bound to come along that is actually good but also works the forums/system well.
I think the BIGGEST and most FUNDAMENTAL flaw is the ability to vote for/support an infinite number of books. This is where I feel the root of the abuse of the system lies. If people can vote for as many books as they like, then their vote is worth that much less. I believe that the number of votes per author should be restricted to no more then 10, probably more like 7 per month. Give everyone a shelf with 7-10 spaces. Once you put a book on your shelf, it’s there permanently till the end of the month when the shelves are cleared and you can restock. Votes from previous months can still be cumulative. This way, people would really have to be sure they wanted to back a book for reasons other than the hope of reciprocation and I think we might then start to see books rise on merit.
* * *
At the time of this writing, the book that generated all the controversy, Lesser Sins, sits at # 6 on Authonomy.
Continue reading:
| « Previous: Social network alert | Next: Lemonade Award » |
Subscribe via RSS
Subscribe via email
March 31st, 2009 at 6:55 am
Well
I tend to agree with Vineet, particularly that people are now ‘gaming’ the site, which wasn’t the case ‘back in my day’ to anything like the same degree, although there were already rumblings about it being a popularity contest back then.
At the end of the day, a book will only make it to the top five on merit – you won’t see a completely useless book up there and should see some of the better and more populist pieces up there. The jostling below that has become alarming to watch and does rather sustain many of Vineet’s reservations about the incessant yammering of wannabe climbers over better, more in-depth criticism and review of each others’ work.
Now I think the $60mn question is whether Vineet will make it to the top 5 tonight. And if he does, whether he’ll make his HC crit public. And if he does, what we’ll all make of it!
March 31st, 2009 at 7:10 am
That’s only $20m a pop, Alexander. Aphorisms for teh credit crunch era, eh?
I’ma big fan of Vineet, and I know there are people on autho who think I’m a bit batty for it. But as I see it, he knew what he wanted, devised a plan, and excecuted it. Plenty of others have tried to do the same, but I think much of what people don’t like is that he’s succeeded (well, by this time next month he will have, surely).
I’ve spent months on Autho saying the first thing we need to do as writers is be businesslike about our approach. I think too many writers see writing as a valuable pastime. Whcih is fine – but there are also those of us who want to make a living out of it, and if we want to do that we have to approach it like we would any other business. Which doesn’t mean being slick or nasty (and I don’t think we could accuse Vineet of anything like that either), but does mean a degree of claculation.
What I particularly like about Vineet’s answers here is that he deosn’t say he sees getting to the top of the charts as a way to get published – he wants the ED crit. That’s exactly the mix of focus and realism I like.
On this subject, can I plug here for my blog today, on the 10 commandments for aspiring writers in 2009?
http://agnieszkasshoes.blogspot.com/
Thanks, Lauri – great scoop as ever
March 31st, 2009 at 7:14 am
A great post and some great thoughts from Vineet. It’s unfortunate that all this has happened.
I tend to agree with Alexander that there is a measure of merit, or shall I call it readabity, involved in voting. A poorly written book will just not get up there with any amount of publicity and popularity. Nor, BTW, will an excellent book without the publicity.
I give, for the site, incredibly harsh reviews, and have not found that an impediment to reaching the top 5.
I wholly agree that the number of votes should be limited.
I do hope that Vineet decides to stay. It seems he has good ideas and has a story to tell.
March 31st, 2009 at 7:33 am
I broadly agree with Vineet. There are the rules as set by Harper Collins, changes can be considered but cannot be applied retrospectively, neither should members take the law into their own hands. Lesser Sins will undoubtedly make the editor’s desk. It’s just a question of whether it is this month or next.
I respect that Vineet has proven his ‘good form’ by calling off his troops. However, personally in response to the ‘them and us’ situation created by a pool of members with the sole intention of protecting the interests of their ‘friends’. I feel he should finish the job, according to his original schedule. If anything, to prove double standards may be overcome.
March 31st, 2009 at 7:44 am
Great interview, Lauri. Great responses, Vineet. It’s been an interesting time on Authonomy, that’s for sure.
Fortunately, I had made the editor’s desk with my novel back “in Alexander’s day,” when there was a bit more honest critique, it seems. And while you needed to be active on the forum and read/review others’ books in order to get some attention, books that weren’t as good got honest critique and did not get shelved as often. Better books also got critical and helpful feedback. There wasn’t as much of the “back everyone’s book and back as many as possible and never say anything critical” in order to get votes for your own. It happened, but it wasn’t the order of the day. I watched as the site changed over a couple of months, however, and soon lost interest in the site.
I went back to authonomy when I heard about the big controversy, where I saw a level of ugliness I wanted nothing to do with (from both sides of the argument). I was pretty ashamed of some of the writers there and the vitriol that was spewed. I nearly canceled my account completely, but instead I’ve just stopped going there. Maybe I’ll return some day, or maybe not.
I think Authonomy worked up to a point. As the site grew bigger with more writers, the competition for the top 5 grew more frantic, and it started to break down. Vineet followed the rules HC had posted, but no one expected someone to bring in thousands of readers and backers, and it overwhelmed not only the servers, but the arrangement of the site.
I wish nothing but the best to Vineet. I also understand why longer term members of Authonomy were upset. No excuse for the behavior though. I’m just glad I had finished up my run at Autho before this happened. It was a pretty sad day all the way around.
March 31st, 2009 at 8:20 am
Klazart’s analysis is spot on. Merit doesn’t matter in the Authonomy community. The monthly top five are usually competent, but not much more. A hopeless book will never reach the top 5, but a mediocre novel that is heavily promoted by its author certainly stands an excellent chance of making it. A superb novel that is not pushed by its author will get nowhere. The idea that there is any sort of meritocracy is laughable, and is usually raised by those people who got their book into the top 5 and then were given a disappointing critique by HC.
Klazart is absolutely correct that any system where the judges are also the contestants is fundamentally flawed. Authonomy will never flush out good talent unless the basic philosophy of the site is changed. The only way to stop systematic abuse is to introduce randomisation techniques i.e. everyone on Authonomy should randomly be allocated manuscripts to review. That way, no one can fiddle the system, all of the shameless plugging will become pointless, and good books that aren’t plugged by their authors will get a fair hearing at long last.
Bottom line is that nothing of merit will flow from a “gaming” site like Authonomy where playing the Authonomy game and understanding the Authonomy political game and value system is far more more useful to you in reaching the top 5 than writing a bloody good book.
Klazart played the game perfectly, but he’s a clever guy and knows that playing the game is completely different from writing a brilliant book. It’s a shame that others, especially HC, haven’t learned that lesson yet.
March 31st, 2009 at 8:32 am
I agree with Robb here. I made it to the top three around the time that the site seemed to double in size. In the space of a month or two, it stopped being enough to read a couple of books a day. Suddenly it’s a full time job to get noticed over the seven thousand other novels on there, and the site model doesn’t work at a scale like this. Or in other words, the reward doesn’t really justify the work you have to put in. Much better to use it as a writer’s circle, which you could really do almost anywhere…
March 31st, 2009 at 8:42 am
Interesting post. Thanks, Lauri.
I have to agree with Vineet about limiting the number of books a member can back – though I’d put it higher than he does, at seven a week. I don’t think backing multiple books each day to garner support is good for the quality of the chart.
My book, Catch a Falling Star, is currently at number four, and I comment on an average of one book a day. Doing more than that would not be a sensible use of my time. I do not swap reads, either. I am mildly irritated to be informed again by Vineet that it’s not merit that got my book to where it is. I think it’s there because quite a lot of people enjoyed reading it.
March 31st, 2009 at 8:44 am
Good interview, Lauri. Good questions; interesting answers. The proof of the pudding will be in the HC crit when it arrives for Vineet. I am not reading his books yet, as it’s way down in the queue.
I have already said elsewhere that I think most of the books that made top5 were good books which I would unhesitatingly have bought. What I also believe is that the general standard of writing on authonomy is declining – and I think this is because there are many out there who still think it will be a fast route to publication (which Vineet apparently doesn’t, which is wise).
I am not, by nature, a joiner of forums or communities. AUthonomy attracted me because of its competitive nature, and my beliefe is that advertising your book in the forums is a legitimate and necessary activity (you won’t sell books in the real world if you don’t advertise).
One thing I agree 100% with Vineet about is the technology – the site should not have fallen over the way it did when an extra 1,000 people came on. The side should have been future-proofed before it came out of beta.
I have scaled down my authonomy activities, but feel it still has its uses. It has actually encouraged me to get out there and query agents, to interact with other writers (something I never did before), and, most importantly of all, has reawakened in me the desire to write more books.
Like Robb, I’m quite glad that I finished my ‘serious’ time on authonomy before it became yet another flaming community.
R
March 31st, 2009 at 9:00 am
Lexi,
I apologise, my comments are not directed at you personally, or anyone else.
I just disagree with the general conception, that Ranking = merit. That of course, does not mean that one can’t be both highly ranked, and have merit.
I’d venture that all of us feel that our works have merit, and deserve to be published and read, if not, then why are we writers?
Of course, Edith Wharton’s ‘The age of innocence,’ was considered to be vapid, superficial and pointless when it was first published. Henry James was considered to be over-complicated and wordy. Many people even today consider Ulysses to be unreadable. The list goes on.
Ultimately, I suppose, like all other things, History will decide merit. Though I’m still a little unsure about the true meaning of the word.
March 31st, 2009 at 9:43 am
I very rarely get angry but this guy manages to push my buttons with amazing consistency. His self-regarding, self-justifying putdown of the Authonomy community which he did not and does not understand invariably wreaks total havoc on my blood pressure.
I’ve been an active participant at authonomy since last November. While it is true that some books in the top five rose to that lofty state by somewhat sneaky means (though nothing approaching the underhandedness of the Klazart scheme,) a preponderance of the top five have been worthy books that rose strictly through merit and through the active participation of their authors. Klazart’s wheeze made a mockery of that. Many of us hoped, and have been working hard to ensure, that in time all the books in the top five would be works of high quality, vetted by conscientious readers and authors. Klazart is interested in himself and his own book, nothing more. He is not the only writer on Authonomy who could be described this way, but he is by far the worst, and his activities are an insult to those of us who have been playing by the rules the whole time. I condemn his dishonorable scheme and I condemn everything he has said here; most of all, I condemn his failure to understand what he did wrong.
March 31st, 2009 at 9:48 am
p.s. I agree completely about limiting votes. We had a huge to-do about this around December on the forums, the thread participants petitioned the site admins to limit to 5/week, and we never heard another thing about it.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Excellent interview. My problem was that being new to Authonomy as well, I was under the impression that it was the good books that rise. I have to admit that this is not necessarily true. It turns out that it is just a game. A game with merits and flaws.
Some books in the top got there with a lot of efforts and pushing. Others might be better written but it still took a little effort to get them to the top. I don’t think a bad book will rise to the top five no matter how much pushing.
Vineet, I really hope you keep your book up there and finish this out. I want to see where it goes.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Lauri, I respect you, not only as a good writer but also as a proponent of good writing and as a publishing futurist. Because of that I’m not going to blow up this blog.
I will simply say that Vineet is a gifted manipulator of both social interaction and of the truth. His responses to your questions paint him as a wide-eyed innocent in this incident and that is very very far from the truth of the events.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:34 pm
I joined the site on the day all the madness started. I almost left immediately. It appeared to be a popularity contest for the writer as opposed to the book. I have found since working on it for a week, that a good book will get looked at. If your goal is to get detailed critiquing for your work, this may not be the best place for you. If you are want to get a general feel for how your book is received, this is an excellent site for that. It has merits and it has flaws but I have found it was well worth the time and effort. I have also had the opportunity to read some excellent stories by other writers, that helps me get perspective on my own work. I enjoyed your interview and appreciate some insight on what I walked into.
March 31st, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Interesting interview. I was a frustrated user of Authonomy during the weekend involved. Like many on Authonomy, my first thought was that Authonomy was being hacked. The combination of the rapid rise of a group of newcomers in the Talent Spotter Rankings and the website constantly crashing certainly made it look like that was what was going on.
Under those circumstances, anger is understandable. Some people lashed out in hurtful ways, and in a few cases with crude stereotypes. That’s not acceptable. On the other hand, it is important to note that a number of Authonomy veterans did speak out against that behavior, and some of them left the community because they did not want to be associated in any way with those kind of remarks.
As to Authonomy: I think most people who have been on Authonomy for more than a few weeks end up holding two somewhat contradictory views on the site. First, there is the ideal: That Authonomy is a meritocracy where people who are good at spotting promising books gradually become more influential and good books rise in the ratings. But there is also the dark side: People swapping support, mediocre books rising in the ratings because their authors are able to spend inordinate amounts of time on the site.
So which view reflects the reality of Authonomy? Both to some extent. There are people on Authonomy who carefully weigh every decision on whether or not to back a book. Good books do rise in the ratings. On the other hand, far too many people do try to figure out a shortcut, some way to avoid all of the tedious bother of producing a good story and helping other aspiring authors do the same. Some of those seekers of shortcuts are subtle. Some are nearly as blatant as Vineet was. All attempt to take more from the community than they put back and inevitably diminish the community by doing so.
April 1st, 2009 at 12:30 am
No one has mentioned that the week before the Klazart incident, there had been a big blow up on Authonomy about so called “sock puppets.” It turned out several members had multiple identities on the site, which, unlike what Klazart did, is specifically forbidden by the site rules. That made me decide to leave because it made an already flawed system completely ridiculous.
April 4th, 2009 at 4:41 am
Vineet is right in saying that reviews should be assigned rather than chosen. There is an excellent UK site that already does that (and predates Authonomy) – youwriteon.com. I also agree that the number of votes a member has should be limited. After all, this reflects the limitations a budget puts on our book-buying in the real world. If every book-buyer could afford to order every book, how would the bestseller lists work as a guide?
August 15th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
I’m a member of Authonomy and also Webook currently. Both voting systems are flawed – biased towards popularity rather than merit.
I can understand how Klazart feels. I joined Authonomy after the whole mess blew up and there was still a lot of residual bad feeling that I didn’t understand at the time.Having read this interview I am a lot better informed as to why people are so touchy over the incident.
I think it depends on how you use the site as a writer.
If all you can think about is getting to the Editors Desk to get the Crit, then what Klazart did is fine. If you want to get honest feedback and help with your writing then you *have* to work the forums because you have to find the more professional members to crit your work. And they are hard to spot anywhere else. It goes by word of post mostly.
On Webook the forums are not as active as on Authonomy. Instead the activity is clique based and when the votes happen (every few months rather than every month on the dot) there is a lot of popularity voting that goes on. I’m not there for that. I’m there for the feedback and help that I get.
Both forums are good places to make friends. And that’s important too – networking doesn’t work unless you know a few people.