Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Rising through the atmosphere

My latest article in the Helium Marketplace is now ranked 26th of 168. I made a few minor changes to it via a process they call "leapfrogging", and my rank has been steadily improving ever since (pre-leapfrog, the article was ranked 86th of 138).

It appears, however, that my new and improved ranking has less to do with my edits (as I said, they were minor) than with the fact that I have been rating other members' articles. It seems there is a correlation between rating and being rated, at least according to the following quote from a Helium Marketplace article titled "How to increase your earnings at Helium":
For that reason it's important to rate when you're publishing to the marketplace, so that your articles can get rated.
What one has to do with the other is beyond me . . . but I'm not complaining. If all I have to do is read a little bit to secure a higher ranking, then so be it. The author of this article must have done an awful lot of rating, because it is ranked #1 despite the fact that it outlines one rather obvious shortcoming of Helium's rating process:
Even if your article is the best one, there is still a chance it won't be selected by the publisher. Publishers use a variety of methods to determine which article they want to purchase. Often publishers just choose the top ranked article. Article number two may actually be a better article, but if the publisher never looks at it, they won't know it. It's very likely that some publishers don't have the ability to judge the quality of the articles being written, and are using the rating system as a failsafe device.
Excuse me? If the top-ranked article isn't the best one, then why is it ranked #1? I think I may have just lost all faith in humanity. Or at least in Helium's rating system.

(Ooh, now I'm ranked 25th of 171!! Maybe badmouthing the rating system in one's blog is another factor that affects one's rank!)

UPDATE, 3:21 PM: 9th of 171. Go me!
UPDATE, 7:08 PM: 10th of 176. I fear I may go insane by the 9/1 deadline.

No comments: