Helium.com has established itself as one of the top-tier online resources for knowledge-based articles on a wide variety of subjects. In order to attract the best freelance talent on the web to contribute high-quality submissions, Helium offers its members regular payments for works and page views. However, the vast majority of ad revenue for a title goes to the three highest-ranked pieces for that topic. How does Helium determine the rankings for the content on its channels?
Unlike some websites that allow for non-member scoring, anonymous reviews, and 5-star or 10-point systems, Helium utilizes an innovating head-to-head peer rating system, in which members view articles side-by-side, then determine which example is better and to what extent. For doing so, they earn payments, including a bonus payment if they achieve enough quality ratings a month.
But this raises another issue: What is a “quality rating” and how can one rating be better than another? As it turns out, Helium not only scores the rankings of articles, but also has algorithms in place to deduce how well members are performing the process of rating. Not rating well enough means not earning a rating star, but you must have at least one rating star to earn payments for writing, so quality rating is an essential task for any member, even if you only need to rate a handful of articles per month to qualify for earnings. In order to ensure that ratings are being done well, there are a few tips to remember.
Topical Relevancy
Before all else, it is absolutely essential to ensure that the content of the article matches the subject of its title. This may sound like it was be an absolute no-brainer; but perhaps surprisingly, not only are many submissions not quite relevant to their title, but many contributors choose to spend their content relentlessly self-promoting rather than actually offering useful information. If an article is completely off-topic, it should be reported. But if it is just a bit off-topic, while the other is spot-on, so far you have solid grounds to deem the other superior.
Mechanical Mastery
If a Helium member is contributing articles, they should know how to write. This would imply a basic working knowledge of English grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, etc. Especially for web content, though, they should also be concise, exercise proper structural formatting, avoid the first-person voice, and other tenets of the genres. If an article fails to follow even rudimentary writing precedent and protocol, then the other article is clearly better. Often, rather than over broad content or off-topic extent, the cold mechanics of the pieces will reveal which should deservedly be rated higher than the other.
Stylistic Power
Barring any obvious distinctions in topic relevance or mechanical superiority, it then boils down to the same measures of any other piece of literature, that being the somewhat more intangible qualities of word choice, cohesion, strength of introduction and conclusion, organization, persuasive potential, etc. Sometimes, especially when judging between two excellent articles, it can be difficult to discern which is truly greater. But, keep in mind, our most classic, treasured works are often so remembered because of their uniqueness, in phrase and in presentation. Dickens' intro to A Tale of Two Cities is immortal not because it exhibits flawless grammatical understanding, but because it encompasses the human experience with vivid, big-idea illustration. So, too, much articles be judged by how the writer's choices in word strings works to present an overall picture of the intended topic.
Rating articles can seem intimidating, time-consuming, and difficult. However, once the basic ideas of the discipline are realized, it becomes a pursuit that is more efficient, effective, and even enjoyable. With a solid working knowledge of the rating process, all members can continue making Helium a more functioning home for web content providers.