3 of 22

Write now Article Tools

Compare the content contributed to Helium with that of a similar program such as Associated Content and you'll find that the latter consists of solid, consistently well-written articles while Helium has a mix. The top rated article on this forum is excellent since it's clear, engaging and situates itself within a larger context of writing standards. Yet other articles struggle with basic formatting, not to mention grammar and detailed thinking. What accounts for the difference between between Helium's content that varies and Associated Content that does not?

1) Helium's submission system is very simple. Perhaps too simple. Small changes such as requiring subtitles (which would distinguish my submission here from the other 50-odd responses to the same topic), creating content blurbs (where I emphasize my major three points) or even allowing user comments would encourage people to put more time into writing each article and also to setting out their content more clearly.

2) Helium's desire to be comprehensive fosters an approach to writing that values quantity as much as quality. Take their star rating for instance: it requires all its writers to be in the top 25% for most of their articles, but increases the number of stars a person has only by considering the number of articles they have written. Thus, a person who writes few articles, but is consistently ranked in the top 10% when she does write is not recognized as highly as a more mediocre writer who has written 5 times as many articles. Requiring that both the quantity AND the quality improve for a writer to gain more stars would help make Helium's writers more careful about publishing their best work.

3) Helium's Leapfrog format encourages writers to improve their writing, but doesn't separate grammatical corrections from substantial rewritings. Thus, if I discover I inadvertently missed a grammatical error and published an article, my only option is to Leapfrog it. Yet that assumes the raters will notice the single word that is different. Helium could either have two separate types of Leapfrogging or simply highlight changes in a document, allow raters to perceive quickly what the material differences are.

4) Helium's rating system if capricious. It's partially based on how frequently one publishes, thus all articles do not receive the same attention from raters. Yet the impartial review process does help maintain an honest (albeit perhaps uninformed) critique of writing. Two ways to strengthen this system

• 1
• 2
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Raising Helium to the next level: Helium's Writing Standards ?
We want to hear your view. Write now!