I don't think that a group consisting of the site owner and maybe a few friends will be fair in the long run, no matter how good their intentions are. Cliquish behaviour is kind of inevitable that way.
I could not agree with you more. I was once told by a friend (with whom I no longer associate) that my stories would be popular in a certain archive because I was friends with the "right" people. And when that friendship fell through, the majority of the group divorced me, one by one. I suppose my writing will no longer be popular there.
(Of course, now I'm bound and determined to post my work there...just to be evol. >:^]] )
I think that for a selective archive, the HASA system is about as good as it gets. It's double blind, which I like because--although not foolproof--it certainly discourages selection for reasons of friendship or retaliation while encouraging honest responses. My problem comes with the wording on the site, that this methodology in some way assures quality. And I do not believe that it does.
I have no problem with archives where work is selected by the archive's members. But it should be phrased as just that. While reading the "About" and "FAQ" sections last night, I was cringing a bit because I could see how people might read the site as being snobby. Work that gets in his "high quality" and "well written"; work that does not is "frivolous."
Why don't you post some of your ideas in the suggestions forum?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
rosecarmine
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-09 03:04 pm (UTC)I could not agree with you more. I was once told by a friend (with whom I no longer associate) that my stories would be popular in a certain archive because I was friends with the "right" people. And when that friendship fell through, the majority of the group divorced me, one by one. I suppose my writing will no longer be popular there.
(Of course, now I'm bound and determined to post my work there...just to be evol. >:^]] )
I think that for a selective archive, the HASA system is about as good as it gets. It's double blind, which I like because--although not foolproof--it certainly discourages selection for reasons of friendship or retaliation while encouraging honest responses. My problem comes with the wording on the site, that this methodology in some way assures quality. And I do not believe that it does.
I have no problem with archives where work is selected by the archive's members. But it should be phrased as just that. While reading the "About" and "FAQ" sections last night, I was cringing a bit because I could see how people might read the site as being snobby. Work that gets in his "high quality" and "well written"; work that does not is "frivolous."
Why don't you post some of your ideas in the suggestions forum?
I will look into this. Thank you. :)