by Ronnie Dauber

Created on: June 30, 2010

Helium offers incredible opportunities for writers to display their talents and express their views before an infinite global audience. However, the fair recognition can be camouflaged behind a rating system that has a tendency to be inconsistent, denying the aspired response for many worthy articles.

The success of a writer’s article on Helium is not always dependent on the quality of the writing, the explicit research and time that was put into it, or the accuracy and benefit of its existence. In many cases, success is totally dependent on the person rating it, based on their own bias.

The people who rate the articles are other Helium writers, all of whom have been given the responsibility of rating articles as part of their obligation to Helium. There are incentives to encourage members to rate articles such as earning recognition stars and receiving financial bonuses at the end of the month.  

Whereas obligation and incentives may seem like a fair trade-off for the privilege of writing and being published, it may be a compromise that jeopardizes the true appreciation of worthy articles.  It does not qualify the person rating the articles, it only rewards them. Rating articles should be a responsible act of judging that comes from knowledge, experience and professional aptitude.

Unfortunately, the inconsistency that is most noticeable is the poor rating technique performed by people rating the articles. They are put into one category and that is to rate whatever comes up next on the page. They are not trained or educated in the protocols of written literature, writing format, researching or critiquing. They are not qualified copy editors with the knowledge and experience to afford them the right to judge the articles, and yet, they share the authority and have the power to either promote or demote them.

Many of them score the articles according to their uneducated opinions and writing style. If the rater does not display professional writing skills in their own work including the use of correct grammar, merit content or presentation, they tend to rate articles in the same manner.  They rate according to their own limited skills.

There needs to be a professional benchmark for raters to use to prevent the inconsistencies in the current rating system.  There should be a score chart on the page for raters to follow so they can score individual aspects of the article as they read along. For example, rating should have to follow the guidelines of format, spelling, grammar, accuracy, quality, credibility, merit, presentation and appeal. Personal opinion should never be part of the rating system.

Many writers have submitted impressive articles that were stifled because of unqualified raters, an inconsistency that is jeopardizing the talents of many people. Not everyone qualifies to rate articles, and perhaps an open incentive is only encouraging this inconsistency. Perhaps rating should be a privilege that comes with responsibility, one that is justified and will produce fair results instead of one that is a hurried obligation.

Learn more about this author, Ronnie Dauber.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.