by Hugh Holub

Created on: February 25, 2009   Last Updated: March 01, 2010

There are some things I probably will never understand. These include the Internal Revenue Code , where all the money the banks got from the government went, why we can't find Osama bi Laden, and how Helium determines the score for giving rating stars.

I have diligently done ratings, and watching my rating score drop from the 80% range down into the 60% range for the same batch of ratings. My two rating stars evaporated.

How is it that ratings change their values over time? Is the score based on how many people rate the same way you do?

The rating system is obviously subjective. It is easy to tag an article with poor grammar or spelling or formatting. But when evaluating the quality of the writing and relevancy to the reader, that's another ball game.

I sense there may be some kind of bot system working which looks to reduce the percentage score of the rater?

Interestingly, if you do not have a rating star, you don't get paid by Helium. Thus there is a potential incentive working to keep the percentage below the level at which earnings have to be paid.

I think participants in Helium should have a much clearer set of guidelines about the score of their rating activity, as well as assurances that Helium in no way has anything to gain from killing people's rating stars to avoid paying for their writing.

Right now I am having serious second thoughts about continuing participating in Helium.

I've been a professional journalist and edited many articles. That my rating score percentage dropped from the 80% range to the 60% range when my article earnings starting increasing because people were reading them (and ads were being displayed) gives me serious pause.

I think Helium should segment the ratings process between those with professional backgrounds in writing, where the opinions mean something, and then the more generic pool of people who are expressing "this was more helpful to me than that" kind of evaluation.

Watching my writing stars come and go is also problematic. There seems to be a distinct political bias operating within the readership doing the rating. Political or religious preferences should have no role in deciding what is the best writing. There are many conservatibe writers with who I disagree with, but that are darned good writers and I honor their skill and craft. Would that liberals have as many great writers.

The best approach to getting a diversity of writing may be to just pay per view. The articles that get the most views generate the most revenue to Helium and thus to the writer. If the article doesn't attract readers, no pay.

It will be interesting to see how this commentary gets rated.

Learn more about this author, Hugh Holub.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.