Peer rating on Helium presents an opportunity that doesn't exist in precisely the same way in any other setting. By writing on Helium you allow your work to be "graded" by people you don't know and who don't know you. It is an anonymous evaluation that the Internet offers to be immediately judged by your peers. Peer ratings can obviously be a two-edged sword. Writers open themselves up to a kind of deep scrutiny we seldom allow in any other facet of our lives.
In a way, it is a one-on-one competition with the writer competing with the rater. You are quite literally saying; I'm the target, shoot away. In some ways it's like a one-man stage show. There's only you and the one-person audience, and as any comedian knows, audiences can be tough if they don't enjoy what they hear, or in a writer's world, read.
Why was Simon Cowell just offered a $144-million dollar per year contract to return to American Idol? It's simply because he's brutality honest and sometimes wrong. But, is he the one whose opinion you really want to hear? That is how peer review on Helium is. We really want to know what others think, and we're willing to put our feelings on the line to find out.
From the first day anyone starts writing on helium, it becomes obvious that rating is the soul of the site. You are inviting perhaps thousands of people to openly judge you, the quality of your work and your opinions about a host of subjects. They also have the option to send notes that may be critical or positive. Writing, of course, is still the heart and objective of Helium.
Helium's single person member audience is not known so he or she is free to make judgments without recriminations. It's the reminder of what happens when casting your bread upon the waters. Because there are no seeming penalties for poor rating, there is a special responsibility every peer-rater carries. Each must be brutally honest, completely fair, provide his or her full attention and have a full-measure of empathy. Empathy is another way of suggesting that we follow the Golden Rule. As you rate on Helium, so shall you be rated. It is an immutable fact of human existence.
Every writer wants an honest opinion of their work. As a rater, my goal is to rate an average of six times each day. I rate at least twice in the morning, twice at noon and twice in the evening. There are substantial benefits to dividing up your rating day. You are not overwhelmed trying to gather rating stars, you don't overload yourself, and I believe that the rater can be fresher and give a better rating. If you don't like rating a specific number of articles, chose a specific amount of time. By the way, rating about six times per day will put you over the five-hundred number in ninety days if you're consistent.
To some, it seems a chore, but I believe rating has great benefits. It helps your writing by seeing what you don't like. It helps your writing because you see what you do like. It helps broaden your knowledge and understanding of subjects that you never thought you'd read about. You can see titles that sound fascinating to write to and stretch your experience and skill.
To be sure, there are articles with which I vehemently disagree. If the content, logic and writing are sound, compared to the competition it doesn't matter.
Because a Helium writer is not aware of who is making the peer judgments, he or she has to develop a bit of a thick skin. It may sound harsh but, no one likes everything you write, get used to it. After writing a thousand articles, you'll even find that you don't like some of your own articles and that, too, is a training experience that pushes you to do a better job.
Since all of us are rated by a wide-range of peers, we can be confident that in the long run, our rating will be fair and reasonably accurate. At times our feelings may be hurt, but if your feelings don't get tested, now and then, how can we improve.