Jeff Herring - The Article Guy writes:

Chris – your timing is perfect – I’m on the q and a call for the 3rd module of my article writing & marketing secrets telecourse and we were talking about this very issue and I have sent everyone to check out this post.

One of the phrases I’ll often use is “in my experience teaching and coaching hundreds of article writers and marketers, I’ve found that…”

Conveys experience without braggin, I hope…..

Jeff

[Reply]

Dina at Wordfeeder.com writes:

Write about what you know.

Know what you know because you’ve been trained/schooled/experienced.

Be aware of the pervading societal viewpoints of your topic.

Pick a side. Be firm in your convictions, even if what you believe isn’t what everyone else is saying. Express that. Be decisive.

For me, the purpose of writing web articles is become recognized as an authority. That means, instead of hiring an intern to fill space with keyword-addled copy that says nothing… actually take the time (or hire someone to take the time) to write meaningful advice, express a definite viewpoint and defend the principles of how you work the way that you work as it pertains to your area of expertise.

I was actually already thinking about this, because after I read the Gender Genie post I began to question which “style” of writing is more authoritative male, or female.

[Reply]

Dr. Yukio Strachan Phillips writes:

Hi Chris,

This is my first time putting comments on your blog. Your post hit home for me today.

How do you become the Author who writes from a place of Authority?

To answer this question I will quote Emerson

” To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men-that is genius. Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense.”

Coming from a place of authority is coming from a place of authentic conviction.

I wrote my best articles when I was not worried about what other people thought about me or if I would get bad comments or bad votes.

This post put me back on track to get back to submitting articles on a regular basis.
Thanks for the reality check and great post!

[Reply]

Paul Jerard writes:

Hi Chris,

Authorities of any particular subject can easily be detected by the readers. How often an author posts on a particular subject is one sign. How deep into the subject an athor goes is a second sign.

If someone”re-hashes” general subject matter, it is not informative or useful to the readers.

Lastly, Jeff is right: An author who is strong on a subject does not have to brag; the article and the contact information “hold enough weight.”

All the Best,

Paul

[Reply]

Terry Bass writes:

I’m on the side of the speaking strongly with conviction thought process. I don’t believe I need to blow my own horn. I am always reminded of the adage that if you have to remind someone of your authority, you’re in big trouble.
The flip side is the reader’s perception. They come in with their own experiences and if you stretch their thought processes and give them that “aha” moment, you get the gold star. If they think you’re full of it, it won’t matter what my credential’s are.

[Reply]

S Phadke writes:

I think the author may have one or both the objectives listed below when he writes an article for publication.

1. He “knows” he is very knowledgable & experienced in the subject on which he is writing and would like to share that knowledge, educate others through his article. He surely is not asking anybody to award him the status of “Authority” or for that matter “Expert”.

2. He may have knowledge/experience in a particular field or in a particular aspect which he may want to put before the others not necessarily as a revelation but as information or viewpoint quite often lost sight of by many. In this case also I don’t think the author is asking to be called an “Expert” or an “Authority”

With the above in mind I think your practice of designating an author with even only one article publication as an Expert is not really correct. As regards calling anybody as an authority on a subject may best be left to some form of polling from among the veterans in the field – if at all it is considerd necessary.

My opinion expressed above is a considered opinion. I have had over 10 years experience teaching in prestigious postgrad technical educational institution and over 40 years professional experience in senoir positions.

[Reply]

Waheed Elqalatawy writes:

Hi Chris,
To be authority, you should know well what you write about, so that the little hints in-between lines will make audience feel your authority. Being an expert about what you write makes you able to write deep repeatedly about your subject, and people will know it. I say that because I read about people writing about IM, Health ..ets at the same time telling you that the others had done it for you,
and all you need is just to elaborate writing.

[Reply]

Ann writes:

Deep convictions do not an authority make. There are those who have deep convictions based on faulty logic, leading us to expert idiots. Using “expert” and “authority” in a too easy manner dilutes their meaning. Certain topics here could be considered opinion pieces, some are “how-to” articles, some are topics of writers interest. This is a collection of random wisdom, rants, opinion pieces – a window into the collective mind of a group of people of infinite variety and interests. EzineArticles is a cultural collective representing the interests of many.

[Reply]

Christopher M. Knight writes:

Yoda Ann,

I completely agree!

Mental note: Blog next week about master list of fallacies in logic.

Thanks!
-Chris

[Reply]

Rick C. Kern writes:

I know one when I read it.

Anytime I click on an article’s author to see if he/she has more articles I might like I know I am reading an authority’s article.

Yes Chris I have clicked to look at your other articles.

Many articles leave me empty. I have started rewarding them with 2 star feedback.

I have just started rewarding great articles with 5 stars…..

Rick C. Kern

[Reply]

Deanna Mascle writes:

I have always said that I’m suspicious of people who have to tell me they are Christians — I should know that by the way you act. I would say the same is true of experts and/or authorities. You shouldn’t have to tell me about your years of experience, although you can certainly weave it in anecdotally, it should show.

As for grammar and writing style, I think as long as you fall within a certain range of correctness then it is not about how well you write but much more about what you have to say. I always tell my writing students that if your grammar etc. get in the way of understanding then it is a problem and the same would hold true for experts and/or authorities.

[Reply]

Leonard writes:

Chris,
Experts are really people with really strong convictions on a particular subject.
Expert Authors are people with really strong convictions who can take thoughts and make them into sentences.
And Ezinearticle Expert Authors are people with really strong convictions who can take thoughts and make them into sentences and send them into be published for all to see.
Which makes them not only Expert but fearless.

[Reply]

Allan J Katz writes:

I just attended an internet marketing seminar and a couple of the speakers were recommending that we place some sort of expert tag on ourselves, like the Queen of The Written Word, or something. I think this is a good positioning tool which tells others what you’re focusing on, but you still have to know what you’re talking about and get it across succinctly and clearly. I hope I spelled succinctly correctly. Otherwise you might ignore this altogether.

[Reply]

Hermas Haynes writes:

To write from a place of authority, in addition to knowing the subject matter, a writer ought to be able to seduce the reader, with facts, language and style. The degree to which he or she is successful at inter-weaving those three elements, will directly impact their credibility as an authority.

[Reply]

Frank Hurtte writes:

Chris,
Once again you address a great point on a very timely basis.

I believe you build credibility when you quote the results of your own research and your own observations in your articles.

I usually have begun including comments like, based on my experience and when my clients face these issues I recommend.

Further, refering to and quoting past articles works well to establish a need for potential clients to pick up the phone and call. And, this is what most of us hope for in the long run.

[Reply]

kip winsett writes:

I have to say I am in complete agreement with Ann.

When it comes to being an expert, the proof is in the pudding. If you consistently provide information on a few topics and other people test the information and find it useful then you are an expert. It has nothing to do with whether others agree with you or what you think of yourself, or a certificate or training.

Does what you say stand up to testing in the real world and is it useful? If so then people will consider you an expert and an authority.

[Reply]

Chinmay Chakravarty writes:

Hello Sir Chris

If I say I don’t want to brag about myself am I already bragging?

Why can’t a writer just go on writing to the best of his/her efforts and leaving everything to the readers? Why to emburden oneself about whether s/he is called expert author/author/writer/copy writer/content writer/technical writer or Christopher M Knight?

Please enlighten me.

[Reply]

Christopher M. Knight writes:

Hermas,

Actually, you just reminded me of how I feel as an Assistant Soccer coach right now…

I’m not a “Soccer” coach authority, but I am an authority at “Coaching”… earlier this week I was doing a speed and agility drill with the 14 boys on the Soccer team and I was trying to tie in soccer terminology into the drill to help them understand the importance,….except I don’t know any of the Soccer terminology enough to be an authority. At that moment, I felt like a ghostwriter who was asked to write an expert article on a topic I had no expertise on. We’ve all seen those types of articles…

[Reply]

Christopher M. Knight writes:

Chinmay,

If you say, “I don’t want to brag about myself” in an article, I will usually stop reading it because you’d be already bragging.

This discussion is about the identification of what the qualities are of an author who is truly an authority vs. one who is not an expert and tries to fake it.

[Reply]

Waheed Elqalatawy writes:

Hi Chris,
I completely agree with Leonard !

I exactly mean the authority writers is not the one
whose writing is originated from deep convictions based on faulty logic as Ann said, if he does not know about what he is writing about, how can he knows that his writing is biased?, or we would spend day and night reading articles rotating about the topic to decide who is an authority and who is not.

[Reply]

Hans Bool writes:

Great dilema; I would argue that the authority is focused on past experience, the (simple) article author could be the tomorrows’ hero… Author or Authority – Who cares? It’s just up to the client looking for content and or a decision.

[Reply]

David Phillips writes:

“By their words shall they be known”.

Does the writer try to convince or to objectively inform the reader?

So, is the political speech writer placing an article in the column of The Financial Times or New York Times less of an authority than the “disinterested” philosopher commenting in the same papers?

Are we selling or teaching, and is it only the latter that can command the attribution of “an authority”?

[Reply]

Christopher M. Knight writes:

David,

I would argue that every writing is salesmanship (or salespersonship) in print.

We’re always trying to sell the reader on something and if we’re good, it’s for their reasons and not only our own reasons.

Even fiction writers are trying to sell the reader into believing the story.

Interesting that you bring up the “Teacher” example as “Authoritarian” is also etymologically linked or a derivative of the word “Author.”

Yet, I don’t think people like being taught in an authoritarian manner without regard to a feedback loop to ensure understanding and relevance of the message to the individuals personal or business circumstances.

[Reply]

Donna Sanders writes:

I believe that to be an expert involves total commitment to a subject that could takes years to master. An authority is someone who has researched the subject they are interestetd in at length and who feels comfortable in a conversation with another person talking about this subject. There is a confidence level, but all the answers are not known. To know all the answers, or 99% of them, is to me, an expert level. People want to read an article that they believe the other person knows what they are talking about. They don’t have to write a dissertation, but it takes more than just passion. Knowledge has to be involved to make it real. That is our job, to do the digging on the subject to make it real to us and to share our knowledge with others through our writing.

[Reply]

DianeD writes:

Hi Chris:
Great question with so any answers, but I think the one that cannot be argue with is this “your life’s experience is about you so you are the original author”. Who can disagree with that?
We’re all authors with authority when we’re sharing information based on our own personal experience – good, bad or ugly!
Diane

[Reply]

Cheryl Wright writes:

An expert is not defined totally by the articles they write. They are also judged by their other actions.

For instance, I write articles about the craft of writing. I write them with conviction and in an active voice. That shows the reader that I know what I’m talking about, simply because my writing is not passive.

(Active = authorative. Passive = unsure.)

However, I am also a working writer. I currrently have seven published books, with more contracted. I write for magazines and websites, and for businesses. And I run a consultancy service. My readers either know this or can find the information easily, and it serves to confirm what my articles tell them – that I know what I’m talking about.

Anyone can write articles, that’s a given. But not everyone knows what they’re talking about, and that’s the difference.

And it doesn’t matter that fifty others have written an article about the same subject. If they don’t understand the subject matter, they’ll come across as novices.

Articles need to be informative and factual, not to mention well written, otherwise readers will not perceive the writer as an expert.

[Reply]

Kate Boswell writes:

I am a little bit uncomfortable with the title Expert Author because it is given to everyone who posts one article. I have to admit that after submitting my first article, I was excited about receiving notification of my Expert Author status. I thought it was because I am a licensed professional in my field. Then I went to the website and noticed that each and every autho is an Expert. Any reader visiting the site will see that, so it somewhat waters down the ‘authority’ of professionals who write articles about their area of expertise. Kate

[Reply]

Robert Ritter writes:

Chris, this is a great subject and one I think deserves some thought. I do not think that a writer necessarily needs to BE the authority on any given subject, but he/ she should be able to competently present the facts so that the reader is well informed, entertained and learns something new that they did not know before reading the article. It certainly helps to Be an authority on any given subject, but drawing from your own life experiences, as well as citing other known authorities on the subject can be just as good.

I do not think that most readers are as concerned about whether you are an authority on the subject as to the accuracy of the information in the article. A true authority does not need to brag and if he does will lose credibility and lose the reader.

The quantity of articles written, again, does not necessarily reflect on the author’s expert status, but the quality of the piece certainly does.

The number of words should be precisely the number of words needed to accomplish the goal of informing the reader sufficiently, yet leaving them wanting a little bit more. This is why they would come to your website.

The quality of English is paramount.

Lastly, you give the reader confidence that you are the expert and authority by presenting the facts intelligently with wit, humor and accuracy. The perception of whether or not you are an expert is irrelevant. Helping the reader to be informed while enjoying the article will go a million miles toward your credibility as both an author and expert alike.

[Reply]

Denise Corcoran writes:

Chris,

What a great question. In my book, there are 2 kinds of atuhority – “perceived” authority and “real” authoriy. Both are important for me to deem someone as a true authority.

“Perceived” authority is based on the subjective, often unconscious criteria of the reader. Eg., the criteria could be as simple as the frequency of seeing an author’s name or their photo. For another, it could be based on status or image. Eg., a reader may see a doctor with M.D. behind their name as more of an authority about stress than a health practitioner (even if they are writing about the same principles).

Another criteria could be he endorsements an author gets. If you are lucky enough to get your book noticed by the Oprah show, you will by association be elevated to authority level. If your aricles get posted on a prestigious site (like Inc.), you gain implicit endorsement.

For some, the criteria could be articles with hard core stats and research; for others it could be a well thought out opinion. Visuals, tonality, words, etc. all can play a part in being perceived as an authority. it will vary from reader to reader.

“Real” authority is about delivering the “goods” better than anyone else in your field. For me, that includes expertise or knowledge about an area and more. I see multiple levels of being a “real” authority. The teacher level provides me with solid information and how to acquire new skills. The mentor level helps me to gain new insights and how to accelerate my learning in life/business. The awakener level makes me think, question the paradigms that limit me in life/business and helps me to see myself with new lenses. For the latter level, that authority must have gained profound wisdom and learnings in their own life.

My final thoughts: if you want to become an authority in your niche, find someone you admire as an authority in any area and study their thinking and practices. The best and quickest way of creating success is modeling it.

Denise

[Reply]

kip winsett writes:

In response to Donna’s “To know all the answers, or 99% of them, is to me, an expert level.” I have to say that in my opinion answers are vastly overrated. They’re a dime a dozen in that damn near everyone has answers of one sort or another. They’re like advice and opinions.

Personally I prefer people with really good questions. The kind that make you say “Whoa, I never thought about that.” A good question can really provide the opportunity for someone to change.

[Reply]

Jinger Jarrett - Internet Marketing for Free writes:

Christopher,

You know, without a doubt, that you are the expert on your topic when you do a search in the search engines looking for new information on your topic, and you are ranked #1! LOL

Although good grammar, spelling, punctuation, and good article structure are extremely important to creating a good article, the most important thing you can do is connect with your reader.

Write to his/her need. Add value to his/her life and convince that person you really care.

Every article should demonstrate a problem, but it should also demonstrate the seeds of the solution and then lead the reader to you.

Sincerely,

Jinger Jarrett

[Reply]

shan madiha writes:

Hi

Today morning i got your mail,then i realise is it correct that i am a expert author?

no body knows that how we came expert author because its heart expression on the paper that people loves. I dont have exact answer to this qusetion but no body answer exactly about this question this is my thoughts

thanks

[Reply]

Elaine Berry writes:

“….the quality of your English and sentence structure…” By this criterion, your own articles wouldn’t always qualify!

[Reply]

Strephon Kaplan-Williams writes:

Am I an authority on anything?

I have been trained as a scientist:

– know your field

– produce results that are significant

Thus authority from a scientific point of view does not depend on the person but on your knowledge and the results this knowledge produces.

As I self-analyze and want to create product, in my case, a book, I plan and take the years it takes to study the field I want to write about. If I have a new perspective and have made new discoveries of significance, then I write my book. If the book sells well then I am of help to people and am an authority.

It’s not up to me to call myself an authority or to use words to sell myself as some authority. This would inflate my ego because personally I long to be recognized. I must curb this tendency and simply do the hard work of study and research in my field and see if I come up with something of help to others.

Truth in reality is what is helpful to myself and others. I have to watch where I overdo it and act like I know something when in fact I may not. I must watch out that I don’t bullshit others. My ego is so full of desire to be special. I had years of working with teachers and therapists to get me to see my ego tendencies and to counterbalance them.

So if I can produce truths that are anonymous, so much the better. I don’t count. Humanity does. This is not false humility but a practice. In truth I like to be special, original and to triumph!

I have to watch out that being in authority roles does not ruin me with inflation and false assertions of a truth. It’s not easy to tell when I am truly striving for excellence of value and when I am striving for ego-polishing and recognition from others.

The success of my books can only come from the quality of the information I put across. Being on Oprah or any other celebrity show would be ego-polishing for me and might ruin my integrity in searching for truths that help humanity

Authority? Let the public decide. Let me just get on with my work! Let me just live the truths I do know, always open to learning more.

[Reply]

Brian Ankner writes:

To become the authority in your niche is a matter of content in your articles. Period. If you are actively involved in your niche, IE: a Chef with a cooking site, your articles will have content that “authors” will not be able to “find” in the usual places.

If your not involved in your niche you must dig deeper than just skimming the surface. Remember, possible publishers of your articles ARE involved in their niche and will spot a boiler plate article easily.

Content = Authority = Getting Published = Traffic!

[Reply]

Jean Shaw writes:

If you write articles containing personal stories there’s no question of you being an “expert”.

Provide the personal touch and use language everyone can understand (without having to dive for the dictionary).

(Unfortunately my area of expertise is autism!)

[Reply]

Christina Sponias Chatzidimou writes:

Hi Chris!

We writers can write about any subject, knowing it or not. We can repeat the same things in several ways and make the little notion we have about certain matter seem to be a deep analysis! We can play with the words and write pages and pages without saying anything substantial, but also without showing our ignorance or how deficient is our knowledge. However, I believe we can show real authority only when everything we write is essential, when we give only useful information and really wise advices to our readers.

Christina

[Reply]

Strephon Kaplan-Williams writes:

Hello Everybody!

I have read all your comments for your experience, since I believe everyone is an authority on their own experience and anyone dedicated to writing like we all are is also dedicated to saying something useful for others.

But now my take on the issue is the question, why would anyone read my articles and consider me an authority?

Just because I might have useful information to convey does not make me an authority, does it?

If I am not read. If I don’t interest people, grab them, then I am not an authority to them.

My 350,000 books bought means only that each book impressed someone as a potential necessity for them. Yet even when they bought a book of mine a few might just put it on the shelf as too difficult to read, as with one comment I got.

Turning to articles here, what makes an authority article that the interest-area reader will start reading and carry through on with the information?

So I wrote down about ten structures to go into all my articles. I don’t give these here since I am still working on them, and will sell such good information as a seven dollar report.

But the first one is: 1) tell the reader what you will do in the article. 2) next define the information problem you write about from the readers searching perspective. What are they searching for, and how do you in your article meet their need?

Many more key points in the design of an authority article.

What is an authority?

Not someone with information only. Someone who can also define the problem for you, and a whole bunch of other things.

I have done considerable consulting to organizations so I know from experience you do more to define the problem with your customer than you give the solution. Help them get the problem defined and then how they can work at finding a solution that works for them.

This key idea can be major when built into the article template you use to write your article with.

Free advice from a non-expert. If you want ‘expert’ advice, don’t you have to pay for it?

[Reply]

Christine Sutherland writes:

Hi Chris

I am very glad that this topic is being considered and hope that a different classification policy might be in the wind?

Anyone can write from an internal sense of authority, but as Anne and others have pointed out – it ain’t necessarily so :-)

Therefore I tend to believe that the best judge of whether someone is an expert in a given field is a panel of independent people.

If quality is the aim (and I am totally committed to that!) then not only should the article demonstrate knowledge and experience, but it should also demonstrate a high level of writing skill.

No matter how “expert” someone is, if their work is littered with spelling and/or grammatical errors, they lose credibility, and the site which promotes their work loses credibility too.

I look forward to seeing where this leads :-)

Warmly
Christine

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Until just recently, I had at least one article in EVERY Category, just to say I did it. Obviously no one is an expert in all the categories so, I would say having one article in a specific category or niche definitely does not make one an expert. Now that is not to say that someone might have only posted one article who is an expert, but a reader probably wouldn’t consider them such, even if they were, unless their by-line showed them to a superstar in that domain? Or the article was SO Good that it were obvious. Just thinking outloud.

How about 10 articles as a start, that is to say a reader might start perceiving one was an expert if they had 10-articles on the subject and they were informative and extremely enlightening?

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Oh and to add to that last comment. When you approach 75-100 articles or more on a specific subject or even surpass it, then it would be hard to say that one was not an expert on the subject. Because even a writer who is not in that domain, would have had to study up on the subject a tremendous amount just to write that many articles, which might make them an authority of information on the subject even if they were not a hands on expert in that domain or industry. Any thoughts, I have very much enjoyed the many well-thought out comments here, ALL of them actually, this is a great dialogue, I have been following and I thank everyone for the intellectual stimulation on this topic. It appears we have some experts on what makes an expert.

[Reply]

Christina Sponias Chatzidimou writes:

You are right Lance; I feel I’m learning a lot here the same way you do!

Christina

[Reply]

Christopher M. Knight writes:

Christine,

:)

You are right… an additional classification system is on more than a few whiteboards in our office.

The future of EzineArticles is at stake because we must figure out a way to help our readers identify the truly expert content vs. the thinly written non-truly-expert content.

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Christine makes a very good point indeed. One thing I find interesting is the number of business articles that are written by folks who have never really done anything in business and yet write articles as if they know everything about business. It seems that just because someone can write a decent article with good sentence structure, does not necessarily make them a knowledge based authority or expert.

When we talk about reader perception of an authors credentials, it seems we ought to also talk about deception, trickery or even questionable marketing ploys as well. You see just because someone has a degree in business, well it is not the same as winning in the free-market. If one can only succeed on the key board should they be allowed to give advice as if reality based to those who are searching for real answers?

Another point, I would like to make about Christine’s astute observation is this. Often online article writer’s write thin content as to not give away too much, only enough to entice the reader to click to their website. This has also been recommended in the many eBooks on Online Article Marketing and this constitutes a “Catch 22” for some authors and they will need to work this out for themselves?

Do they write thinly done articles with minimal content, just enough to wet the appetite or do they go full on and write one of my 1500 word articles and explain everything in depth. Having written many of both types for various reasons, this might also become part of this conversation?

And also as part of the conversation, where is that line to be drawn. I mean I can probably write an entire eBook on just about any subject I have 10 or more articles in or one or more white papers on half of those categories. Yet, this is an article submission site? And Christine brings up a really good point. Everyone wants to be thin, but is it unhealthy for your online article marketing endeavors to be too thin? Or too rich in content?

[Reply]

Christopher M. Knight writes:

Lance had a lot of great questions here…

Let me throw one more issue into the author as the authority criteria mix:

The website URL link in the authors resource box is also a very important determinant of the authors authority.

The active link in the authors resource box either sells the reader further on the confidence they should have in the author or the lack thereof…

Something to consider…

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Good point Chris. Although in my case your website sends me too much traffic already with 11,111 articles and so I have a non-active link now on the articles I write, as those old articles just keep on pulling for me?

I suppose I am one of only a few who has this problem, yet I agree with what you are saying completely, today, I have a link in my resource box to a gentleman who is sponsoring my bicycle ride across the nation for charity, would you like me to hook it up to one of my websites?

Then again there are people who are experts on Showing Dogs or Horse Shows and they sell nothing to the industry, but their articles on real estate all have links because they are in that field. Their articles on dogs or horses come from an authoritative standpoint, you can tell by reading them, but they are not selling anything there. If those by-lines do not have active links, I really wonder if that hurts the credibility of the article. If they have weblinks to their Real Estate business, it does add a link, but absolutely no credibility, as that is a completely different field entirely? Any thoughts on this comment?

[Reply]

Christine Sutherland writes:

Hi Christopher

I agree the resource box is a very useful place to demonstrate credibility, and at the same time Lance makes great points about relevance and congruity.

I guess this is probably something very much on the mind of anyone in business, after the big Google lesson on relevance.

Lance, you make great points about thin articles and this gets down to purpose. I write for only two reasons: one is to attempt to influence opinion (for example a fast and furious rant about “The Biggest Loser”) when I see things go on that I know are wrong or even harmful, and the other is to get visitors to my sites (often an overlap, because many things I’m passionate about I have a site for :-)

In each case I’m really using articles to get a message across and so “thin” seems like a good idea (on the basis of keeping it simple and making that message as coherent as possible).

When I want to say a lot more, I generally write a book. I don’t have much that’s in between.

Anyhow, we’re getting to the crux of what relevance or worthiness is about, aren’t we? (And I’ll get back to my initial point that maybe an objective panel has to be the judge of this.)

I think an author can only be considered “expert” in certain fields, not just “expert” generally.

Perhaps the articles can be given a star rating by the panel, and this rating could be moderated by reader votes thereafter?

Perhaps to be given “expert” rating in a category, that author should have a certain number of articles with that particular rating?

Perhaps, Christopher, if you’re wanting to even take EzineArticles to another level, it might be worthwhile considering having a featured section where only those articles which meet certain quality standards are listed? If people want to dig deeper they could then access the whole database.

This could encourage authors to raise their own standards in order to join that elite featured group?

Sorry I’m rambling a bit here. It’s an important conversation and I’d like to contribute all I can.

Cheers
Christine

[Reply]

Strephon Kaplan-Williams writes:

I don’t agree with Christine on having a ‘quality board’ trying to judge experts and expert articles, if I read you right, Christine.

– too much work

– so called experts who get themselves on panels are often ambitious and controllers, as I know in the dreamwork psychology field

– scientific journals use control panels of so-called experts but these journals are full of extremely boring stuff that’s not really revealing of humanity’s creativity

– Lance’s point is a good one that if you write a large number of articles in a category you must be an expert of some sort

– but I have already questioned what defines a mutually exclusive category? If you can’t define a category how can you define an expert in it?

– how do numbers define a category and therefore an expert in it? This I would like to hear about.

– Panels? Who picks the panels? Ambitious people? So-called experts? Self-proclaimed experts? The whole Ph.D. game farce of giving boring people these titles for conforming for years to other boring people at collections of buildings called universities, which are really banks taking in tons of money? I’ve been in ten colleges, including four graduate schools. How many expert professors did I have? Very few!

– Edward Teller, the father of the H-bomb, said I could not take his laboratory class in physics unless I took his lectures also. I went ahead and just took the lab, and got a straight A from Teller anyway. Knowledge does not come from outside so much as it comes from inside you with your own native confidence and intelligence.

– In the book writing field the best I can come up with is that an expert is one whose books sell. Writers on their blog sites push themselves as experts in novel writing because they have, say, six novels published that have won awards. But they don’t give numbers. Seven out of ten published novels, it is estimated, fail to make money for publisher or author. Thus I don’t think that publishers and their editors are experts for publishing so much crap that people won’t read.

– as a book writer I look at my own sales. I get comments from readers on how useful a book was. Not a lot but enough to know I am doing something worth while. But the only thing that makes me a writer are the numbers: 350,000 books sold and probably read, maybe more than that by now. That’s what makes me an expert, or I would be wasting my time, my whole life even, on works that people did not read and benefit from.

– this is why I keep asking, what are the numbers? Lance you are the top article writer, but how many reads do you have? Is there a field where you are expert, determined in part by the number of articles you have written but also by the number of reads you have for your articles? I know and respect your intelligence and commitment, but where are your numbers?

– I don’t think here we have available other writers’ statistics, so I have no idea who is a good writer or not unless I see their stats. Christine, what are your stats? I like to see results and not just ideas.

– Give me stats! I need stats! Where are the numbers that give some objectivity to this discussion? I was asked here about being a scientist. A scientist believes in numbers objectively gotten, when this is possible. Something must be objectively measured.

– on this forum I see high intelligence and respect in discussing issues. When I see this I see expert writers at work, and I would trust them more in what they write because anyone here writing puts herself or himself under challenge.

[Reply]

Denise Corcoran writes:

Hmmm, what an interesting change in gears this thread has taken.

Let me first say, I appreciate Christine’s suggestion about someway to differentiate between high value content and thinly veiled content, now that EzineArticles has become a great resource site on virtually any topic and probably the top site where writers post articles. If there is no differentiation, there is the danger of quality degradation in articles.

I do agree with Stephon that the idea of an expert board opens up too many other potential challenges and risks that could both negatively impact EzineArticles site and authors’ reputations and incentives to post articles here.

I also agree that having some objective measures could be one way of making this differentiation, in conjunction with subjective reader comments.

While # of views/reads of an article would be the most obvious, in my book, it still does not tell me anything about the quality of an article per se. All it takes is a juicy title and description to draw a reader’s interest and viewing.

Some of the other stats that you measure, Chris — eg., # of times an article was emailed or published — to me is more respresentative (although by no means perfect) to reflecting the quality of an article.

I know one of the things Inc.com does is, within each main category, they have a box with tabs (which you can click on) and find out which articles were the most freqeuently viewed and which most frequently emailed. This set of tabs is featured on every article page within that category.

Another site at which I pulbish indicates if your article is among the top 50%, top 25%, etc. of all the articles viewed on the site

I think the key is 1.) to perhaps give more visibility, or recognize, to authors/articles with higher stats; 2.) to make it easier for readers to rate and comment on articles (which could also be added into the measurement mix). why not put the rating bar right under the author’s byline or on the side?

With more visibility to higher stat articles driven by the reader, you will give authors incentives to produce quality articles.

Denise

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Dear Strephon Kaplan-Williams (SKW),

Indeed, I agree with SKW, in that a quality board is way out of the question as some days there are well over 1,000 articles submitted in a single 24-hour period, simply outrageous how much work that might be. I also agree with SKW on the “human innate characteristics” of small panel group participants, it is so common place, I call it a given, thus a panel in itself would be problematic, and who watches the panel and then are their disputes on rulings, thus rules and once you make “one rule” well you got em’ lifetime job security?

SKW brings up an interesting question? Definitions and back to my point of making rules, definitions are similar, in that you make one definition, you are forever further redefining it and creating more. This leads to bureaucracy which is indeed leads to less fluidity of motion, and less agility, thus ruins all the good that is. If you have more definitions, rules and panels all you have created is more minutia and less efficiency, to what avail? SKW is correct in my humble opinion

SKW asks: “How do numbers define a category and therefore an expert in it? This I would like to hear about.”

I too have the same question, because it seems like the numbers are irrelevant really, but someone mentioned so I thru out that thought?
SKW drills us hard on this issue as he asks the tough questions: “Panels? Who picks the panels? Ambitious people? So-called experts? Self-proclaimed experts?”

Then SKW mentions Mr. Teller and it is interesting as SKW questions the experts as isn’t this what Einstein indeed also tellers us to do? He is questioning the experts. Personally as an online article author, I am so busy questioning the experts, I might feel slighted if one were to proclaim me one, although it appears there is no escaping it, as Einstein proclaimed later in life how he lambasted the experts only to become one himself? Indeed, isn’t life funny that way.
In fact I use to have a disdain for writers, as a doer, because I was doing things and they were writing about it. Now in retirement, I am doing more writing than doing? So who is the expert, authority and who is to sit in judgment on this issue. So, I say to SKW: here, here, good point indeed.

SKW states; “In the book writing field the best I can come up with is that an expert is one whose books sell.”

Ah ha, and thus let the reader decide, there are readers of all reading grade levels and of all interests across the spectrum. And to that point SKW is correct in stating how few books really become best sellers and the vast majority do not break even.

SKW asks; “Lance you are the top article writer, but how many reads do you have? Is there a field where you are expert, determined in part by the number of articles you have written but also by the number of reads you have for your articles? I know and respect your intelligence and commitment, but where are your numbers?”
Indeed, I am well qualified in the real world of achievement and estimate now some 40 million articles read considering 4.4 million article views here alone and 156,000 ezine publisher pick-ups; 10 eBooks written, One of many co-authors of a book still selling on the shelf since 1999 so that one is a smashing success with an extremely long life, well over 1 million copies sold now. An eBook that has well over 1 million hits online since 1997. Still, as far as writing is concerned, I do not consider myself a writer. I am very good at many things, but I do not consider writing to be amongst my strong suit. I stand by my resume and will put it up along side anyone’s in the World. So, I accept that challenge, no worries.

I think statistics are important too, I think the reader ought to have something to say about value of an article. Writers and Authors often get their hackles up and sometimes get a little persnickety too. That is the nature of such folks, I have come to accept the writers for who they are and no longer consider them lesser of the doers, just different. But I can say this, I would rather read from a doer, who is a writer, than a mere writer who is pretending to be an expert or authority.

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Dear Denise Corcoran (DC-10),

I am using DC-10 instead of the abbreviation DC, because I know way too many bureaucrats and I would never wish to slander a fellow writer in comparing them to that group of folks.

DC-10 states: “Let me first say, I appreciate Christine’s suggestion about someway to differentiate between high value content and thinly veiled content!”

Indeed this makes sense, although we must also understand that the average internet reader really and truly does have an 8th grade reading level in the USA and it is a lower average in many other parts of the world, so we need to also understand that reality, even if we choose not to use that fact in a decision making process of determination for level of content quality.

DC-10 states: “While # of views/reads of an article would be the most obvious, in my book, it still does not tell me anything about the quality of an article per se. All it takes is a juicy title and description to draw a reader’s interest and viewing.”

Yes, absolutely, great point, the number of article views cannot be the criteria, in fact it might be the obvious as catchy titles might bring more run of the mill unsophisticated internet surfers to the articles, which might not be the exact clientele one is looking for. Although if someone is selling something silly or some popular or trendy trinket, then it is their exact customer and thus we need to understand that there are many online article marketers with many different objectives, types of target customers and reading levels to deal with?

DC-10 states: “Some of the other stats that you measure, Chris ‚¬€ eg., # of times an article was emailed or published ‚¬€ to me is more representative (although by no means perfect) to reflecting the quality of an article.”

Yes, I believe this is also true, in fact I have seen that some people pull a 100 articles in a row from my article list. If they pull them in a row and put them on various websites, then are they looking for quality or just need bulk content? Still the website owner is choosing right? Often, I see in the middle of the night someone will pull down all the articles in a specific category only. I have 156,000 ezine article pulls now on 11,111 articles so that is quite a few.

DC-10 makes some good suggestions: “I think the key is 1.) to perhaps give more visibility, or recognize, to authors/articles with higher stats; 2.) to make it easier for readers to rate and comment on articles (which could also be added into the measurement mix). why not put the rating bar right under the author’s byline or on the side? With more visibility to higher stat articles driven by the reader, you will give authors incentives to produce quality articles.”

These are good ideas indeed, very interesting too and that might work and might even get people on the site once they know what that bar means to search for other excellent articles with a high-bar rating? It might even get some loyalty so many authors can get more readers, especially the ones who deserve them the most. I like the way you think Denise, good stuff.

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Dear Christine (CAS),

I think that you are correct in considering that authors write on different subjects for different reason and by the way that was a great article on “The Biggest Loser” well done. And your point about the author being an expert in one or more fields but not in others also makes sense.

For instance for me, I have expertise in Franchising, Small Business, Marketing, Branding, Car Washing, Trucking, Aviation, Technology, Sports Competition, Winning, Philosophy, futurist topics, Motorcycle Racing, Military Tech, Humanities, Politics, Economics, Innovation and various related fields. But I write about all sorts of stuff and I would say that those areas I am not so good at, it is a challenge to write a strong article, I am happy with and thus I would not obviously be any kind of expert in those areas.

CAS states: “.. .. .. In each case I’m really using articles to get a message across and so ‚¬“thin‚¬ seems like a good idea (on the basis of keeping it simple and making that message as coherent as possible). When I want to say a lot more, I generally write a book. I don’t have much that’s in between. Anyhow, we’re getting to the crux of what relevance or worthiness is about, aren’t we?”

Yes, we are and this dialogue seems to be approaching a potential solution to meet Chris’ objective, which in turn will serve us all better.

CAS states: “I think an author can only be considered ‚¬“expert‚¬ in certain fields, not just ‚¬“expert‚¬ generally. Perhaps the articles can be given a star rating by the panel, and this rating could be moderated by reader votes thereafter?”

Indeed, if that is feasible considering the resources involved to look over the articles and considering my previous comments on “primate politics of panels” then this would solve a problem. Since there are only 3 pages of authors who have over 100 articles, then starting with only those authors of over 100 articles, it could be done fairly easy – there is a company called “Topix” which has local panels rating news, volunteers even, and it works fine.

If there were only 300 authors to rate, this is easily feasible and eventually maybe it could be taken down to 75 or 50 articles and thus someone to get to the rating system level would have to pony up and write some articles, thus also stretching them to prove they could perform and “SHOW ME” type proof of expert status.

Also remember that the author could submit which categories they feel most qualified in and the group could choose these categories based on their accomplishments in the real world and then “+” their articles? I am a firm believer in real world experience and doing over merely someone who is a “great writer” and can spin a phrase.

CAS states: “If people want to dig deeper they could then access the whole database. This could encourage authors to raise their own standards in order to join that elite featured group? Sorry I’m rambling a bit here.”

I do not see as much rambling as I see good solid brainstorming going on there and to that point, what you are discussing makes a lot of sense. I DO believe that it is important to reward for quality and give credit where credit is due. You, CAS, are due some kudos, you are a very good writer and you give good information in excellent quality articles, I am personally impressed. So there – take that!

[Reply]

Strephon Kaplan-Williams writes:

Help Lance and Chris,

I am not an author with 100 articles and have a more limited testosterone at age 73.

Therefore I propose to get me in the higher category that you do the following formula so as to equalize, some would say, the handicape ratios in my favor.

For of course I am in the lobby of the older folks. The formula goes something like this:

– reverse handicap for the age wisdom factor. + 100 for age over seventy when anyone who reaches that age is wiser.

– handicap for anyone Lance’s age, assumed low forties of – 100.

– testosterone factor: multiply scores at the end by – 4. Younger ages have more testosterone and so need to be severely handicaped to produce some sort of equality.

– another handicape for number of articles. Divide total number by number of years existing, by grades in high school, again by number of viewers, and create an X factor to be multiplied by a Y factor to negate to zero, our baseline, agreed?

– something like this should put me on par so I could be in those top 300 – 500 who have been writing longer here than I have, thus producing the Z factor which is ratio of inequality to equality to produce par for the course, which is what we started with anyway!

– I forgot to add in the ‘extended life factor’ because I am not sure how to calculate this yet in my case, no end dating having presented itself.

Sorry for the higher math!

[Reply]

Strephon Kaplan-Williams writes:

Help Lance and Chris (LC),I am not an author with 100 articles and have a more limited testosterone (LT’s) at age 73.

Therefore I propose to get me in the higher category (HC) that you do the following formula so as to equalize, some would say, the handicape ratios in my favor.

For of course I am in the lobby of the older folks (LOF’s). The formula goes something like this:

– reverse handicap for the age wisdom factor (RHAWF). + 100 for age over seventy when anyone who reaches that age is wiser.

– handicap for anyone Lance’s age (LAH’s), assumed low forties of – 100.

– testosterone factor (TF): multiply scores at the end by – 4. Younger ages have more testosterone (YAMT’s) and so need to be severely handicaped to produce some sort of equality.

– another handicape for number of articles. Divide total number by number of years existing, by grades in high school, again by number of viewers, and create an X factor to be multiplied by a Y factor to negate to zero, our baseline, agreed (XYZB)?

– something like this should put me on par so I could be in those top 300 – 500 who have been writing longer here than I have, thus producing the Z factor which is ratio of inequality to equality to produce par for the course, which is what we started with anyway!

– I forgot to add in the ‘extended life factor’ (ELF) because I am not sure how to calculate this yet in my case, no end dating (NED) having presented itself.

Sorry for the higher math! (HM)

[Reply]

George Lockett writes:

So suppose we create a system that allows us to rate people initially with over 100 articles and rate them as experts.

So what is the purpose of doing this? Will they be given a higher position in that category? Or higher star rating?

Will a system be set up to allow the “Experts” to answer questions from readers? This could be a very good way of generating more articles.

Will this be a place for the media to find experts for TV and radio interviews?

I think an expert rating system would have many advantages for readers, but how to choose and assess? Is not the Google algorithm, already doing this automatically as it displays its search results?

Thank you all for your interesting comments.

George

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Dear Strephon Kaplan-Williams (SKW),

You bring up an interesting point about wisdom and age and as Ronald Reagan might say we should hold it against those “younger people” for their lack of experience. We must also consider that IQ is said to drop as one gets older and if you do not use it you lose it. Just like muscles the brain must be used. You are using yours at your age of 73 which already gives you the edge, coupled with all your years of observations of repeating cycles of society and civilization, as well as your experience. Duly noted as well it should be, kudos and yes you are correct one with wisdom “should be” a more valued resource.

The ability of a younger man to produce more testosterone and use that to ignite their fire into action will in fact, if they use it correctly, allow them to do more quicker. Sometimes as you seem to point out they will spin their wills with lots of commotion taking much longer to get something done than one who has the proper philosophy, wisdom, talent, experience and past period observations of cause and effect of actions. You basic “Brains of Braun” motif, and so it would be hard to debate your logic.

Yet, I feel my 27 years experience in business, 13 years in athletics, 8 years in politics, etc., etc. is similar in nature to a 60 year old retiree. Actually I feel since I was self-employed as an entrepreneur working 17 hours a day, seven days a week that in fact I should be able to double my 27 years because the average person works 8 hours per day only.

Plus, since I took no days off I feel I should add 104 days per year times 2 for each year worked for that plus double that up for working the 17 hours instead of 8, which is 208. Thus I wish to add that to my now 54 years experience which would add another 18 years or 72 years more business experience. This goes for the business category of course. I therefore challenge others of any age or any testosterone level to compete.

Indeed, although I would not of course need any of the those Viagra Pills to perform or do the higher mathematics, I duly note your experiences and expertise as well and merely ask, let’s examine the score board as you say: Stats, real world knowledge, success, numbers, etc. For the writing, it seems I am new at this only been writing for two-years, but still in that two-years I have done what would take another 10, which is about the ratio of my other endeavors, perhaps maybe even a bigger gap now that I think about it.

Not every young man is young, dumb and full of piss and vinegar to no avail, there are standouts who rise to the occasion and it is obvious who they are, as they stand out above the crowds, there are always anomalies in society and social groupings. You are on one side of the spectrum, I on another, and thus I think your content and articles are good enough to stand on their own accord without the AARP lobby helping you. Because, quite frankly you can handle yourself on the keyboard or in a full speed sword demonstration to those who wouldn’t dare risk decapitation doing it themselves. So these are my thoughts on your thoughts, although this is an intriguing concept indeed.

[Reply]

kip winsett writes:

Wow, this sure has sparked some interest! A couple of thoughts occurred to me as I read through the entries that followed Chris Knight’s comment on “The future of EzineArticles”.

The issue seems to me to be very broad with much in common with modern human life in general. Too much complexity, too much information, exponential growth, systems (infrastructure) breakdowns.

Some reading about CPR (common pool resource) leads to an improved understanding of the “commons” in general. Do we need to think about exinearticles as a ‚¬“common to everyone resource‚¬ or is it to become a limited resource for a few? What justifies either or both of those choices?

Reading Kurzweil (The Singularity, as an example) we can think about the fact that when making decisions today we make them based upon our observation of the rate of change of today. But that rate of change is growing exponentially so we needs must include in our thinking about the future the fact that its rate of change will be even greater. Meaning, in simple terms, you can no longer think about the future only through the spectacles of today. What impact will changes in the next year have on EzineArticles 2 years from now? Today’s world requires a different kind of prediction theory.

Tainter’s “collapse of complex Societies” offers some insight into the predictable results on any system when population densities increase beyond the ability of the system to handle. As articles increase in number across the net (regardless of quality) how will that impact the value of the articles? Or from another pov if we consider information to be a resource, can we say that proliferation of articles, in general, makes finding a useful article more difficult?

Schmookler writes in “The Parable of the Tribe” that culturally humans are now selecting for power (in a Darwinian sense). The net equates power with money so we see a radical (deeply rooted) shift toward monetization of everything on the net. People are drawn to write articles to a large degree because they want to make money on the net. Is this acceptable? Is it a paradigm shift or simply a step toward one?

Biggest question for me. What model needs to be implemented in order to benefit the community of which I’m a part? This, of course is a tribal issue not a collective one so others may have other more pressing questions.

A brief addendum on “expert”. Michael Crichton is a huge best selling author. His views on global warming are at distinct odds with most in the scientific community. Is he an expert on climatology? Gore has certainly achieved fame and recognition for his book on global warming. Is he an expert on climatology? Given that the 2 hold widely diverging opinions it seems likely that only one of them is right. Which one?

How can we believe anyone who answers that question?

All of this is simply a wordy way of saying I don’t think the fundamental issue has been well framed. The “decisive responses” made by various contributors (do this, do that, do the other) are old and, well, tawdry responses to a problem that is different in kind.

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Dear Kip Winsett (KW),

First I would like to say that it has been my pleasure in reading a number of your articles, thank you they are indeed excellent and I come away with a greater understanding or knowledge from each one I read.

Now then on the issues of complexity, I too see a problem with the establishment of a complex decision matrix for article quality, because as Stephen Wolfram shows in “A New Type of Science” we can see the clear resultant immediately. Former FED Chairmen Greenspan also warns us of problems with bureaucracy in free-markets. And although Einstein alerts us to the fact that change is the only constant, large changes and complex rules only cause the law of unintended consequences that we are constantly warned about and see in real time in human civilizations, IT Systems, transportation, education, distribution, communication and the like.

In reading the works of Douglas Adams, Issac Asimov, Arthur C. Clark, Stephen Baxter and others we see their projections both forwards and backwards and the challenges of the growth of systems and the Bell Curves they scurry over to the inevitable decline or Collapse, as Jerred Diamond might agree. The more humans in a system, the more interwoven groups in system promoting a specific agenda or the more components introduced to the decision matrix the more difficult to maintain a sense of order and it is evident whether you are reading one of Henry Kissinger’s essay and critiques of the UN or programming an Artificial Intelligent SuperComputer to calculate and estimate weather patterns based on current conditions off into the future.

Thus I guess the real comment is KISS – Keep it simple stupid and thus if something is done on a semantic searching level to pick out the most best expert authors, it must be a simple concept or philosophy guiding that process. As search engines change or as the new way of finding information shifts, so too will be the availability of information and the ease at which the most relevant information is found by those who seek it. Since information is here and much good information, hopefully the systems looking for information shall find it, this is best for all concerned.

I believe that KW’s comment on future projection and direction is a key element in such a discussion, because if you are set up in advance to ride the next consecutive set of waves, we will all surf into the future in style.

The authors who are driven primarily by money to write may have a greater incentive to write well structured and grammatically correct articles, but there will be various strategies they CHOOSE to deploy with regards to information flow. If a consultant gives away all his industry secrets, he may not be needed.

One has to ask what the web is for. If it is for the distribution of information to humans, then it levels the playing field and in doing so will cause conflict for those who have hijacked the information holding it out to the highest bidder. In the future he who controls the information is indeed the man with the gold who will indeed be the one making the rules in the new paradigm?

The promotion of the fact that a panel is deciding who the experts or authorities are maybe relevant to the reader, but in the end there will be enough arbitrary valuations going on that one will have to ask if the reader is indeed well served. Just because someone can write good does not mean they know what they are talking about. Just because someone cannot write good does not mean they don’t.

[Reply]

Strephon Kaplan-Williams writes:

Thanks to the thinkers here. Just thought alone is worth the effort.

The orange groves of the fifties between downtown Los Angelus and Santa Monica are no longer available to us with their springtime fragrances.

Systems theory (ST) demands that we take note of this. Survivors in an age of population overflow will need to survive as teams. To the extent that individuals of super-attenuated intelligences (ISAI’s) seek to cut a mark into collective happenings, to that extent they lose their bearings and will not survive.

The answer is teams of coordinated effort and intellect (TCEI). The Age of the Individual is long over.

Information processing (IP) no longer can be done by great minds, the Einstein Effect (GMEE). Individuals must seek team information. Computer-Generated Intelligence (CGI) is outperforming Individual-Generated Intelligence (IGI).

Remember when the computer won against the chess master? When was that? Or IP’ companies failed that were individually run?

The transition point (TP) was around 1996 when Human Intelligence (HI) maxed but was being taken over by Information Processing Systems (IPS’s) of well-coordinated intelligences (WCI’s) working in teams to produce interlinking software between multiple computers (MC’s) and Internet Networked Information Processing (INIP), indeed, such as this blog or forum can be at times when the collective effort leads to new collective perspective and new decisions made to go with the new insights and values generated.

The interfaces must be in place. Those who do not engage in mutual cooperation (MC) and intelligent information objectivization (IIO) will not obtain resource allocations (RA’s) needed to survive at the individual and collective level.

We must never think of ourselves again as individual intelligences (II’s) based on individual physical brains (IPB’s). Collective Intelligence (CI) based on coordinated team intelligence power (CTIP) is the only solution possible to meet collective conditions of humanity (CCH’s).

Said more briefly: II’s-IPB’s does not equal or surpass CTIP in dealing with successfully CCH’s.

Will we meet the challenge? What are we going to do about this?

Acronyms are necessary to clarify intelligence processing arrangements seeking breakthroughs in correct thinking. Sorry for the inconvenience.

[Reply]

Chinmay Chakravarty writes:

What about a simple and straight solution?

EzineArticles gradation system of Basic, Basic Plus and Platinum must be done by giving a lot of emphasis on language, quality and content apart from the limits of submissions.

This, combined with good readership, makes the Platinum level writers logical and genuine experts.

Any problems?

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Dear Strephon Kaplan-Williams (SKW),

Just thought alone generally cannot solve the problem for it is when thought meets action when problems are solved, setting up a system that takes into consideration highly probable future events is the genius that prevents any problems from happening in the future, however pure thought alone will not put a society on such a track or steady course to the Utopia we seek in online article marketing.

The Orange Groves and Jail fragrances in Los Angeles were a temporary need (started in 1882) , they were not the natural sage brush of the coastal desert there, they replaced the habitat of desert turtles, rats and locusts and later as the Chandler Family brought in water with the help of engineers like Mullholland much corruption was proclaimed to have occurred to bring the water in and buy up the land to plant those groves.

Much of the Fragrances of the Orange Groves came from Orange County and the Valley, the 15 mph offshore breeze blowing the other way into LA did not smell of orange groves and Hyperion is the smell of the day, but perhaps it beats the smell of the oil fields back then.

Nevertheless, today 460 square miles of concrete and 16.5 million people cannot be wrong in Southern CA, they have chosen a different life and way of living, one they enjoy and they do not wish to change and they vote. Growth and development are to be expected and since the human race is breeding like rats the world over expect 50 Billion people walking the surface of the planet by 2050 with very few having the water resources they need. Systems theory would dictate that we must build and prepare for the future that awaits and remove corruption or the Status Quo barriers which attempt to subdue change, which is a constant.

It is the unreasonable man which molds the world to his favor, not the group clinging to the old which is moving out of flavor. All hail the individual and the societies made of strength of character and individuals whose efforts bring change, upgrades to systems. For it was the Owens River Bond project, the Chandlers and Mullholland who made the difference ask Upton Sinclair. Any orange trees in LA were pretty much gone by the 1950s, in Orange County, Corona, etc. The dairy cows replaced the trees and now the cows are gone too, and isn’t it a shame we do not have that smell any more.

The age of the Individual is not dead, as society needs them whether they admit it or not, because the masses without these individuals sinks into the abyss of political correctness, stifled into bureaucracy with laws set up for the biggest fool until only a fool would wish to live there. The pendulum will shift as history repeats, all hail the individual and thank you for his strength.

Often groups and teams move much too slow to accomplish the task and spend hours putting into minutes in committees what an individual entrepreneur can do in seconds. There is no glory in bureaucracy or incompetence. I challenge that notion, indeed I would go so far as to say that if evil does exist it is not in the details but rather he is stuck in committee.

Whether IBM or SAP or even Oracle can develop enterprise software that is artificially intelligent and will replace the CEO, you can bet the robots will replace the workers and the Board Members too, so much for the group of thinkers? You may surrender your mind to the Borg now, you may call yourself part of IT or you may succumb to the modern “one-ness” motif, but in the end you will still need the Individual for he and only he can set you free from the chosen traps and promises of civilization methodologies that history has shown cannot work with humans who desire freedom, liberty and pursuits that bring enjoyment to self, family, friends, countrymen and children of the world. It is I the individual who can bring forth what you desire and it is I, the individual that can see what needs to be done, it is not the collective, committee or bureaucracy that fixes or solves problems for they create them, that is what THEY do best!

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Dear Chinmay Chakravarty,

There may not be a simple straight solution, but the most important thing that can be done at EzineArticles.com is to develop a sense of Nationalism, Team and Community and thus no one would want to write a crappy article, because they would not wish to let down the team or themselves or the future of the online article marketing venue. It will take a little work and it will require talking to a few folks, but you are correct the current levels of Basic, Platinum, etc. do provide much of what is needed to bring up the level of quality and expert perception status.

It really is up to each and every individual to find their strength and press on to do the best they can at everything they do, especially here as they post their articles. If so, then you are right, there really are no problems, only 50,000 plus solutions, also known as the greatest collection of online article writers the world has ever known.

[Reply]

Strephon Kaplan-Williams writes:

My own problem regarding my writing articles on the thought and research I do have is how best to distribute that knowledge.

Thus for EzineArticles I ‘write down’ for the more regular reader in order to encourage wider circulation of the article, which then is supposed to bring readers to my site, the writer’s interface.com.

However, for a fully complex theory or thinking, article-giving perspective I have no outreach developed.

Of course getting paid would be nice but not worth the effort to try and market articles of a theoretical nature.

So then I choose for the widest possible outreach to those who would be most interested.

If I did my full theory articles would EzineArticles be the best distribution directory? This can mean reaching intelligent minds, but also reaching media minds.

I would only be interested in author reputation as a circulation factor – to increase outreach and circulation if the article is deemed worthy.

What kind of evaluation there is for EzineArticles means a review system by peers maybe. Will reviews work? To earn posting of your article you also do a review of someone else’s article. I was in such a system for writers for a few months. I worked hard to review honestly and objectively. However, I dropped the system, realizing that ambitious people diverted the system to their own ambitions, forming cliques of positive reviewers – you kiss my ass and I will kiss yours – you kick me in the ass and I will kick yours even harder.

It didn’t work because the world of writings and reviews of writings became ingrown. We were not writers writing for the real world of business where people either buy your books or don’t.

Back to my problem. I write simple, middle-understanding articles for EzineArticles because that seems the level of readability here. In this blog a number of us go all out and show our full intelligence and passion for values.

Where does this kind of writing get a showing if only here in the blog?

Where can full-throttle writing of articles get both recognition and distribution?

So I would like to see an expert distribution system and not just a mass distribution system here or elsewhere with some other directory.

I don’t believe that the ten (or five) best articles for a writer here get listed for people exploring.

Surely software can now help exploring readers more with a selection process, even if left to the author to decide their ten ‘best’ articles for each of the categories they have written more than fifty articles for.

I would like to know a point-by-point policy for quality standards for writing articles here and also what the team here offers back in terms of distribution. Just like there is a point-by-point outline of standards on writing comments here.

My seminal thinking articles need some distribution system to go into and not get lost in the shuffle.

Any ideas or suggestions, or insights from experience? Maybe my impressions are inaccurate. Certainly I need more perspective than I now have.

Why should I write a ‘damn good article’ if the system here is not going to recognize it as such and give it special distribution consideration?

I like the little expert badge to put on my own sites, but when we are talking real, we want to know how the software gets programmed to give distribution, not just to all, but to expert writing and expert articles.

Just found a new site where anyone can bid or take stock out on certain book proposals that are put up on the site. Their principle is: let the reader decide ahead of time before publication. Simon and Schuster has joined this effort, hoping to make better judgment calls as to what books to finally publish.

So people are trying to meet evaluation problems so that production and marketing of final product can be more successful in real terms, which is money exchanged for work expended. It’s called Media Predict. I don’t know anything about it yet.

[Reply]

Chinmay Chakravarty writes:

Dear Lance, Sir

Thanks a lot. It’s a great feeling to have the crowned King of articles respond to a humble citizen.

Please go on leading this learning process.

[Reply]

Strephon Kaplan-Williams writes:

Lance, certainly I follow your thought, but maybe you are not clear on mine?

My concept of ‘team’ is new. You, the lone individual, no matter how hard you try to win races will not be able to do so, or rarely succeed.

Even our marathon winners have figured out they need the help of another runner to pace them, that runner sacrificing winning the marathon to the lead racer, but really it is a team effort. Do you agree?

So between the lone individual and the masses with their collective ‘leaders’ I propose that what will most work is ‘the team.’

These must be individuals who consciously merge their individual intellects, their imaginative powers and their resources in a small group effort towards a committed goal.

Of course interpersonal interactions must be handled and overcome in favor of cooperative movements forward.

I am involved in a team of three now, and have had other small and successful teams to create successful projects. As I think on past history I think the projects went into decline when the originating team could no longer function together.

The definition of team I define here:

A team is a workable, small number of individuals committed to collective solutions over individual ones in the pursuit and realization of a mutually decided-upon goal. Further, a team agrees to pool resources and to blend intelligences and pools of information so as to be more effective in output than individuals alone in the group can be.

Teams are ultimately defined and evaluated by the success of their cooperative efforts in carrying out intentions and producing end product.

We are not talking about so-called teams that do not work, but teams that work. Teams that work are clearly those which produce superior effort and product over individuals working alone, or groups under leadership.

Thus to refer to the political crisis with the Presidency at the moment I think the intelligencia is realizing that the Presidential role has experienced a failure of function due to a failure of team coordination, team thinking, and team production of intended results.

We don’t have to personalize the situation in terms of individual human beings. We do need to evaluate the reality of functional breakdown and its causes due to outmoded ways of thinking that may have worked in the past when populations were one tenth of what they are today.

Personalizing of collective conflicts, the old friend-enemy system, will not work today when everything important involves thousands if not millions of people.

Thinking is crucial. Right thinking is even more crucial. Getting the concepts right that people can develop, the new paradigms needed for new conditions, is absolutely necessary.

What may be a bit flawed in your system is that without the perspective that works for contemporary conditions a lot of wrong effort, a lot of doing, can be taken up, but it is the wrong kind of doing to produce the values and results intended.

Misguided doing without being based on contemporary workable core concepts leads to wasted effort, wasted resources, wasted lives, wasted brain power, wasted sweat.

Again, we need only refer to contemporary political situations like the war in . . ..

Systems thinkers attempt to get to the core concepts behind behavior needing modification to present their analysis at least for the smart ones in positions of power so that they may see what is needed at the core level of experiential process.

In the Los Angelus of the past the wind did not always blow in from the sea. The blessings of desert winds from the east sometimes favored the pure, the innocent, and the not-so-daring.

Ah, nostalgia, the notion that there was indeed a better past than the conflictual present that hounds us now.

While innocence is a virtue, victims of wrong thinking can never be resurrected, nor their misguided values restored . . .

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Dear Strephon Kaplan-Williams (SKW),

*Note out of order, answering in the order received

Indeed the question is how best to distribute knowledge. Good question, one I have pondered myself and my conclusion is distribute the knowledge as fast as possible in as many possible venues as possible. Printed Books take time, research papers often call for a long-review process, but writing articles that are syndicated is instantaneous. It is a trade off of course.

For distribution of knowledge thru article writing, another reason people write articles besides to the informational selling method, online article submission sites work great. Of course if you can accomplish this goal and still attract people to your website to read more, then indeed you have scored two birds on a single fling.

Since online article submission sites spider well in the search engines, one can attract all types of people, and if your target happens to be the masses or the average mean population unit, then such a site works even better. Of course you can still target your particular reader by carefully key wording and a specific high-level of writing (strong content, heavy subject matter). So your strategy Strephon is brilliant.

I agree with you that it takes much more time to sell one’s articles, papers, books or find a publisher, scientific research review board, magazine, journal than to write the actual piece. It is a catch-22. Do you write more or spend more time coordinating to insure proper payment for your abilities? Indeed, I see this dilemma, although retired, I feel for those with this challenge.

If one produces rapidly then even an editor or team of them cannot keep up or the literary agent or white paper proof-reader or fact checker, in fact it might take a whole team to keep up with my production rates, so, it makes sense to consider carefully your production mix and venue outlets, good point.

I believe a good online article submission site can handle the trendy pop culture articles and the serious articles and the strength is in the numbers and the rankings of the submission site. If this is the goal then requesting your favorite submission site to handle white papers, or have sub-categories for more elevated articles, makes sense. Perhaps even an eBook section where they pay out half to the author. I am certain Chris has considered all these things at one time or another, although before launching anything like that, it must be a WIN/WIN, for them and the author as well, otherwise it cannot work.

A limited system of review for only serious authors that could be placed in a special category would be excellent, but if the submission site draws its traffic from search engines those folks are coming anyway, only this way they may eventually trust the source (EzineArticles) more in the future, thus the serious author wins big.

SKW states: “To earn posting of your article you also do a review of someone else’s article. I was in such a system for writers for a few months. I worked hard to review honestly and objectively.”

That is very interesting actually.
SKW states: “Where does this kind of writing get a showing if only here in the blog?”

You should be able to turn your blog postings into articles with some special editing, I do, why waste key strokes?

SKW states: “Where can full-throttle writing of articles get both recognition and distribution?”

Heck there are many places, hundreds of thousands on the Internet.

SKW states: “So I would like to see an expert distribution system and not just a mass distribution system here or elsewhere with some other directory.”

But it seems to me this site allows you to have your cake and eat it too. You choose what to write they distribute to the world and the Internet Surfer if interested will see your article and choose? Everyone wins, as it is the information topics they are looking for, if it is too heavy for them, they click out, if not they win, you win and everyone is happy in cyberspace?

[Reply]

Strephon Kaplan-Williams writes:

Thank you, Lance, for your perspective here.

I hate to miss out on following up on good ideas here with little articles. But I have to choose between the books I am also writing and writing follow-up articles.

Please note that I recently asked Chris about the policy of quoting or using other people’s ideas, such as yours here, in our own articles, and he seemed to be saying that we could not because we needed to ask permission first.

He was going to write a new clause on defining rights and rules on this point for this blog rules. Since you mentioned our writing our own articles from what we contribute to this blog I wonder what your views are about using other people’s words and/or ideas as they appear in these dialogues. Because in fact our own ideas are generated in dialogue with others here.

I would like to quote others here but then to ask everyone their individual permission each time makes the value to do so prohibitive.

I would rather have a simple system that if people write in these blogs they are offering free ideas and writing, like with the articles they also submit here, and so are giving up the right to determine individual permission each time quoted.

I don’t think Chris is right here if I understand him. We do the work of writing here in this blog and so should have the permission to be freely quoted without hassles of needing to be contacted each time to give permission to someone.

I think it should be simply that people can freely quote us in this blog because in writing here we are giving away that right to individual permission first, but I think Chris differs here.

Why should this extremely disciplined and civilized blog be any different from the articles we write to be freely distributed?

Do you have a considered opinion?

I am putting a lot of good energy into this blog and would be well used if others quote me, using my name, without having to be hassled about permissions.

What about you?

If I am writing an article from this blog theme I would want to quote you and others to make my own article richer. I noticed you did write an article from one of our former blog themes, just including your own ideas. I asked myself, where are our ideas you are responding to? I wondered what limited you in your article since you readily acknowledge each of us and our ideas here in this blog.

I hope you and Chris understand what I am getting at, or anyone else, and have good ideas and values to work at a better policy so that our ideas are easy to get out also in other people’s articles without hassles of permissions and so on.

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Dear Strephon Kaplan-Williams (SKW),

*still catching up answering in the order received

SKW states: “I don’t believe that the ten (or five) best articles for a writer here get listed for people exploring.”

Well the most viewed articles appear under every article viewed in the category to which the article belongs, so if you have great articles then you should have a couple in that list and the reader or surfer can click on your name and find all the articles you wrote in that category. Meaning even if they come in on one of my articles, then one of your Top Articles might hit their eye and they browse your best articles, so I believe this site unlike other sites allows for this actually.

SKW states: “Surely software can now help exploring readers more with a selection process, even if left to the author to decide their ten ‚¬best’ articles for each of the categories they have written more than fifty articles for.”

Yes a software program like that on Amazon.com might be instituted to say, Readers who read this article also liked these articles and then at the bottom of each article is a listing of the most recent and most viewed in that category and the reader or Internet Surfer can still click on your name, click see all categories for this author and that already exists here.

SKW states: “I would like to know a point-by-point policy for quality standards for writing articles here and also what the team here offers back in terms of distribution.”

This is what this entire thread is about, so, YOU the Individual needs to think about this, and come up with suggestions, I have given some ideas myself. Let’s hear yours, so far you have shot down my ideas, and still you wish me to join in some sort of team? Interesting? I suppose you wish to run this team? Smile, I know how committees work. Sure I could design a system and implement it and have it up and running this week, but I am retired and this is not my website, I am an author like you, nothing more.

SKW states: “Maybe my impressions are inaccurate. Certainly I need more perspective than I now have.”

Indeed.

SKW states: “Why should I write a ‚¬damn good article’ if the system here is not going to recognize it as such and give it special distribution consideration?”

Indeed, so why do you promote socialistic tendencies, the Borg, Collective Minds, Communism and then make that statement? Do you see the parallels of your comments and the immediate dissection of the plane? Maybe there is a ray of hope in that intersection?

SKW states: “Just found a new site where anyone can bid or take stock out on certain book proposals that are put up on the site. Their principle is: let the reader decide ahead of time before publication. Simon and Schuster has joined this effort, hoping to make better judgment calls as to what books to finally publish.”

Yes, that is an interesting concept.

SKW states: “So people are trying to meet evaluation problems so that production and marketing of final product can be more successful in real terms, which is money exchanged for work expended. It’s called Media Predict. I don’t know anything about it yet.”

Sure, this makes sense and AI prediction software for supply chain management and enterprise software is getting to be common place now, it makes sense that the publishing industry would integrate this with consumer demand prior to release, to make better publishing decisions. Makes perfect sense to me.

[Reply]

George Lockett writes:

I was very impressed with Lance Winslow maths in reply 56 and the amount of work you have done in your life. I could not help comparing it with my own life, where I have sat in meditation 6 hours a day for 20 years and been a hermit in the hill for 10 years just working with nature in the Snowdonia National Park in the UK.

I was also very impressed with Strephon Kaplan-williams response 59, which went into depth on Individual Intelligence verses Artificial Intelligence.

My own view on this is that we are all part of the Universal Life Force and therefore our intelligence all comes from a common source – our spiritual essence.

Each individual see the world through the tinted glasses of their life experiences, their desires and passions; one of the advantages of EzineArticles is that we can all see each others point of view and perspective on life. I am not saying one way of living is better than another, all I am saying is it is the contrast and the diversity, which brings the richness and colour to life and EzineArticles.

My own view is that we need to get out of our intellect and more into our feeling, as it is this, which connects us, closer to the Universal Life Force that we are apart.

SKW in response 63 talks about “talking down” and that his work will not get aired in a forum like EzineArticles and therefore does not produce his best work.

I feel that SKW should produce his best work, for his own self-satisfaction and to break new ground, which the whole of society will benefit from. I feel he should not be concerned who reads it, as it will get into group consciousness just by the fact he has created something on the leading edge of creation.

I am a believer in group consciousness, and if monkey on a remote island learns a new trick. All the monkey immediately know how to do the same trick, as they are all apart of the same group psyche.

I believer in Synchronicity and that we will be drawn to the article, which we desire to read. A bit like when we go to a book shop and a book falls of the self as we are walking past and it just happened to be the very book we where looking for.

Lance talks a little about the Oneness. As I am looking at my computer screen, I could see this as separate from me. But I could also see the electro magnetic field, which joins it to me by the light waves passing between or the sound waves as I type or the air in the room. We all live in a common field of energy, which are five senses connecting us to our environment.

In reality there is no separation only Oneness. If we follow a thought back to its source we would find that we transcend our physical body, be going down the layers of our body we would travel through the organs, cell, molecules, atoms down through the finer particles to our invisible spiritual essence, which exists throughout the universe and is our source of self and thought.

It is the junction point between our eternal nature and our physical existence. We are God creating as we write each article. It is another aspect of our-Self who will do the reading there is no separation. We are all One.

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Dear SKW,

SKW state: “My concept of ‚¬team’ is new. You, the lone individual, no matter how hard you try to win races will not be able to do so, or rarely succeed.”

Which score board are you looking at? Last time I checked, the lone individual was indeed, out in front, numbers, stats and all, so you comment is derogatory, incorrect and most likely in denial.

SKW states; “Even our marathon winners have figured out they need the help of another runner to pace them, that runner sacrificing winning the marathon to the lead racer, but really it is a team effort. Do you agree?”

NO! I do not agree in fact I am a marathon runner and a former competitive track star and all I need is a good pair of shoes so my feet don’t turn purple. Why pace off the competition, let them try to keep up with me. I completely disagree. Set the pace at a tough to beat clip and run down that ribbon strip.

SKW states: “So between the lone individual and the masses with their collective ‚¬leaders’ I propose that what will most work is ‚¬the team.'”

Sure sometimes, but not always and if you really mean “TEAM” yet talk about collective minds, committees and speak of bureaucratic type examples, I don’t agree. Look at the score board, see? My way works. Besides if you are serious about winning, you need to make sure those on the TEAM are too, so find me team members who work at my level? I will await a list.

SKW states: “These must be individuals who consciously merge their individual intellects, their imaginative powers and their resources in a small group effort towards a committed goal.”

Of course one would expect to be working with equals right?

SKW states: “Of course interpersonal interactions must be handled and overcome in favor of cooperative movements forward.”

“Why would someone join a group who would have them as a member” Groucho Marx.

SKW states: “I am involved in a team of three now, and have had other small and successful teams to create successful projects. As I think on past history I think the projects went into decline when the originating team could no longer function together.”

Great work, very impressive; I ran a Franchise Company operating in 450 cities, 110 markets, 23 states and 4 countries so understand what you mean when you say you are working on (3) teams now, why do you take the father/son approach in our dialogue? I am not your subject, follower or aspire to be your student, prodigy or apprentice and how many inter-related teams do you think an organization that size has considering each operation has 5-20 employees?

SKW states: “We are not talking about so-called teams that do not work, but teams that work. Teams that work are clearly those which produce superior effort and product over individuals working alone, or groups under leadership.”

Yes great but you keep making statements and creating questions here which indicate a nave notion and thus your team should be smart enough to figure those out? If not, then what good are they?

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

SKW offers this advice: “What may be a bit flawed in your system is that without the perspective that works for contemporary conditions a lot of wrong effort, a lot of doing, can be taken up, but it is the wrong kind of doing to produce the values and results intended.”

Perhaps you might indeed speak for yourself, look at the score board and then your own mirror, because I am happy as punch and attaining my objectives in article writing. I am enjoying the benefits and plan to write some more articles.

SKW states: “Misguided doing without being based on contemporary workable core concepts leads to wasted effort, wasted resources, wasted lives, wasted brain power, wasted sweat.”

Isn’t that what we see humans doing with all their sound and fury, indeed I feel sorry for them sometimes, don’t you or are you feeling wasted, angry, bitter and unnerved on this fine day and is this merely a reflection of self?

You know SKW, I am not anti-war, anti-president, anti-US, anti-Capitalism, anti-anything. I believe in living strong, I believing in winning. I am against the innocent slaughter of human beings at the hands of international terrorism, I decry those rogue nation-states funding them and anyone who supports those efforts or speaks ill of my nation, people, country, soldiers. So, let’s stick to the subject. Very bad example on your part actually, as it speaks only to mass media brainwashing popular public opinion, not to reality or truth. We are discussing here Online Article Submission Websites and how best to determine expert status, not war commentary or fictitious histories.

SKW states; “Again, we need only refer to contemporary political situations like the war in . . ..
Systems thinkers attempt to get to the core concepts behind behavior needing modification to present their analysis at least for the smart ones in positions of power so that they may see what is needed at the core level of experiential process.”

SKW states: “In the Los Angelus of the past the wind did not always blow in from the sea. The blessings of desert winds from the east sometimes favored the pure, the innocent, and the not-so-daring.”

Nice quote, did you borrow that from a work of fiction to post on this Blog? Interesting, why didn’t you quote source. The Santa Ana, East winds are rare, hot and fierce, but you would be incorrect to state that the winds blew the other direction often, that is not common. In fact, Cortez the famous explorer noted the winds in his logs and stated prevailing winds and noted the East Winds one season with the fires along the mountains and so did the Chinese Treasure Fleet flagships, hundreds of years the prior. So, if you are going to quote history, beware. Experts don’t do that out of context, experts quote source and experts know what they are talking about. So, one expects you to pony up, and walk the talk. I do.

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Dear George,

WOW, that was perhaps the best post yet. Very intriguing indeed. I really enjoyed that, and now that you have piqued my curiosity, I will have to read more of your articles. Good stuff.

Lance

[Reply]

Strephon Kaplan-Williams writes:

Dear Lance,

Thank-you for the appreciation of the beautiful quote at the end about Los Angeles and the wind. It is the quote that came to me in dialogue with you. So it is ‘our’ quote. Without you I would not have made it. No, it’s not from an outside novelist, though it could be. My use of language is sword-work, a dialogue with core self in interaction with other core selves. I hear the words, see the images, and then write down what comes through.

So I write in many styles to keep fit with language, just as I ran both the mile and the hundred yard dash in high school, but because of short legs, long trunk, and fast heart, did not excel at any, but ran for the glory and reputation of Onarga Military School, Onarga, Illinois, a small school. Ran the ten mile marathon through the Ohio woods as well, but Chester Hartly always beat me! I learned that the thrill was in the running and not just in winning. I am always happy for a winner, even if at my expense.

Believe me it was no fun losing the race for our team as anchor man on the mile relay team. My team mates gave me the lead and I could not hold it! Our best runner I substituted for was sick.

I loved track and am happy for you that it was a fulfilling sport and that you did well in it. For I do know the glory of the race, even though not a consistent winner in it.

I know winning from tennis tournaments as well. In martial arts I practice we don’t win. We simply work at mastery.

So please, I am in no way trying to be an authority figure to you, though I speak my own mind in dialogue with you and several others.

I prefer that we are both in a race to the finish. You can be the winner, but without me, who would there be to race against? I don’t write to win but to get new perspective myself in dialogue with others.

In Pro tennis there are a thousand losers in the tennis tournaments to sustain the one winner of each tournament. For many practice who do not make it into the top pros. They also do their part for the total entertainment of life against life that sports is.

I am on your side really, though I acknowledge that my style, my thinking and my values are sometimes different from yours and can of course provoke you.

Yet if I have caused you suffering, please forgive me. I have some devil in me. My admiration of your vitality, your commitment to values and clear thinking is fueled by my own commitment to the same values. We are often a ‘team’ with some others in these blog themes.

But I operate at several levels in how I write and what I say.

I think you have asked me to stay out of ‘politics’ or larger viewpoints, so I acknowledge this request, though it differs a little from how I usually present ideas, which is to take relevant examples from life that are indeed emotion-producing.

When I worked as a conscientious objector to the war in a mental hospital as a psyche-tech they told me three things never to discuss with the patients: politics, religion and I forgot the third, probably sex.

Ever since I have been highly interested in these subjects!

You can’t keep a man down!

So, definitely, we have battled here but also agreed and brought out issues we are both passionate about. I like a man who speaks his mind. I like a woman who speaks her mind, and have always encouraged both sexes to thus interact with me in personal relating.

For, given my kind of mind and background, I have always felt the need for high-level interaction that matches my own, but which is not regularly coming my way.

I hope this helps you understand where I am coming from.

Strephon

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Dear SKW,

You must understand that I have enough original thoughts of my own accord to ever need to borrow anyone else’s for content. When I write articles from my posts, I indeed post my side of the discussion without using anyone else’s ideas or concepts; I use my words and my ideas. My goals are to have two-original thoughts per day, every day. I have proof of this if you go to the “Future Concepts” section of this website. I think everyone should try for some original thoughts each week, month, quarter or year.

SKW asks: “Since you mentioned our writing our own articles from what we contribute to this blog I wonder what your views are about using other people’s words and/or ideas as they appear in these dialogues.”

It is extremely easy to take one’s own words from a dialogue and expand a thought into an article; I do not think it is appropriate to steal ideas, as that would lack integrity. I believe in fair use, with sources quoted if they applicable or needed to make a point. That is something that is the right thing to do.

SKW states: “Because in fact our own ideas are generated in dialogue with others here.”

Actually this is not how “fair use” copyright law works, but it does not matter of course in this case, as I have plenty of content and 1,000s of words worthy of article subjects. You know there was a famous philosopher who said our thoughts are not our own. I freely give ideas, concepts, dialogue to the world, to do what they will with them and yet I really am in no need of reciprocation, as there is nothing I need in that realm.

SKW states: “Why should this extremely disciplined and civilized blog be any different from the articles we write to be freely distributed?”

Hmm, interesting, well he who owns the blog makes the rules right?

SKW states: “Do you have a considered opinion?”

You may quote anything I say if it helps you in your work or it helps state a difference of opinion or different perspective, I have no problem with that. It’s just a blog, of course the right thing to do, is to state where they came from right? For instance this blog or “A fellow author” or “Lance” or “an article author” or something of this nature.

SKW states; “If I am writing an article from this blog theme I would want to quote you and others to make my own article richer.”

My thoughts are that this blog is to share information and if that is the goal then anything anyone does to promote the amplifying of this information is a positive thing and thus should be commended.

SKW states; “I noticed you did write an article from one of our former blog themes, just including your own ideas. I asked myself, where are our ideas you are responding to?”

Like you said it is too much trouble and takes too much time to ask for quotes or permission, or worry about the hassles of someone else getting upset, so you just skip it and it also prevents anyone from coming back later and having a problem with it, but you can still make an excellent article if you only discuss one side of a dialogue and refer to another side of a debate as; “Some people believe” or “many authors think” or something of that nature. Taking a dialogue and making it into a monologue is still giving a perspective to the reader and if that perspective is the opposite of what the reader’s belief system might dictate, they already know the other side of the debate anyway.

One thing I do a lot when folks email me and ask me for advice in one of my former industries is that I take my answer and make it into an article, since those are my words and then pick a question that goes with what I have written as the title you see? That works, but using this same theme and concept you can take a question on a blog or an answer you give and make that into an article. In doing so you end up adding more to it and making it much more relevant, crisp and worthy, I think all people writing articles ought to be thinking here, why waste key-strokes? Why answer the same questions over and over again. Answer the questions once, make it available to the whole world. Why not? Isn’t that what the Internet is for – to provide information to those who seek knowledge? I believe it is, well as well as being the greatest communication device ever created in the history of mankind.

[Reply]

Strephon Kaplan-Williams writes:

Thanks Lance . . .

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Dear Strephon,

You state: “Thank-you for the appreciation of the beautiful quote at the end about Los Angeles and the wind. It is the quote that came to me in dialogue with you.”

Well it was very good, it reminded me of what real literature use to be, it seems these days that we are losing the great literature and art of writing to the haphazard realities of Instant Messaging. Perhaps this is the last generation of great writers? Too bad really, it looks like Virtual Reality will take the place of literature in the future? Now cell phones have “Video Cameras” tomorrow 3D Spectral Imagining and Holographic Technologies.

Strephon states: “So I write in many styles to keep fit with language”

Hmm? Well then it seems that EzineArticles is your best compromise then? It has a section for poetry, technology, philosophy, self-help to guide others, just about everything you need?

Strephon states: “In Pro tennis there are a thousand losers in the tennis tournaments to sustain the one winner of each tournament.”

Indeed, I understand and that is fine, but I am not allowed to lose.

Strephon states: “I acknowledge that my style, my thinking and my values are sometimes different from yours and can of course provoke you.”

Yes, I see that often enough, but if this is your style and your goal is team building then would you say that you have a conflicting issue? Or are you able to justify this in another perhaps even more interesting theory of psychology or philosophy.

Strephon states: “Yet if I have caused you suffering, please forgive me. I have some devil in me.”

I’m Okay, You are Okay, is that what you are wishing to say?>

Strephon states: “I think you have asked me to stay out of ‚¬politics’ or larger viewpoints, so I acknowledge this request, though it differs a little from how I usually present ideas, which is to take relevant examples from life that are indeed emotion-producing.”

No not necessarily, but if you wish to debate such topics realize that you will have to back up every word. I do have 1052 articles on politics here. And if we get into a political debate that would take up a lot more space, which would take us off subject. The parallels you elude to would with regards to the US leadership, Presidential Cabinet or administration, appear to be based on media commentary and liberal taking points and left leaning perception from selected reading material, not on what is really going on. Indeed, although the connections look like they fit, it is still an analogy of apples and orange groves, east and westerly winds or individuals VS a beehive of humanity.

Actually Strephon, I think these dialogues are actually worthy of mention and although slightly off topic some of the time, they always wrap back around to the subject. The subject being the debate of quality of articles, status of experts and how on Earth can you build a legitimate system that will grade an authors authority or knowledge in a given subject by reading their articles?

[Reply]

kip winsett writes:

Well, this has been quite an interesting exchange. I always find it interesting when people claim that the ‚¬“collective‚¬ is better or the ‚¬“individual‚¬ is better. Both streams of thought and action (as well as the tribal) are critical to the success and robustness of the human species.

One thought occurred to me with respect to steering readers to article and that would be to divide them between serious and light ‚¬€ allowing viewers to choose which they prefer. Typically I tend to write ‚¬“serious‚¬ articles. I’ve been practicing a little bit with articles I submit here to try to make them a but less intellectual. For me that’s a challenge. I’ve only read a few articles here because the ones I did read were so lightweight (as compared to what I’m accustomed to) that I quickly lost interest. I don’t mean that to sound judgmental as to the inherent quality of the article simply a statement regarding my preference for style. Nah, that’s not true. There are articles here that are just flat out crappy.

They are poorly written with obvious spelling, grammar and syntax errors and really offer nothing of value to a reader. Not to mention the incredible array of endlessly rehashed themes about getting rich, the Secret, and The Law of Attraction.

I sat with this for awhile before posting it as I don’t really want to hurt anyone’s feelings or ruffle anyone’s feathers, but the fact is that this site is not very discriminating.

Now whether or not that is good or bad is something for the members to decide I suppose. I’ll continue to submit articles that I believe at least meet minimal standards of acceptable writing. It is, of course, entirely possible that I am delusional and that the site is very discriminating and my own articles just barely meet the qualifications and are included as an act of grace.

[Reply]

Christina Sponias Chatzidimou writes:

Everyone can write an article, not necessarily a writer. The Ezine has to welcome everyone because it has to be popular. There are many articles written by ghost writers or that are a mere repetition of other articles, with different words.
Perhaps the Ezine should have another level besides the ones it has, in order to indicate the real writers that write their original articles by themselves especially for this Ezine and give them some advantage, like keeping their articles longer in the first page, something like that. However, the Ezine has to encourage everyone to write, even people that are not writers; otherwise it won’t be in the top.

Christina

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Kip,

I too find the debate of Collectivism VS Objectivism or the Collective VS Individual interest, because it seems to me that when the individual is strong and the society or group is made of strength then the civilization, team or whole is better for its parts are all strong, with fewer weak lengths. No one can deny there is strength in numbers look what has been created here as the proof, I see that too.

When a group asks the individual to give up self to join, obviously this concerns “me” and I ask why? What is good for the one is good for the many and it is not an either or and those who say that the individual is dead, I ask they go watch the movie Rocky or listen to what “I” have to say.

The individual is not dead (I am very much alive, never been stronger), but if they ever die then the collective would already be the living dead or the Borg. This EzineArticle.com site has many superstar experts and aspiring experts who of course have to start somewhere. Together, indeed, yes, we can accomplish more, but there is strength in the individual and I can prove it. Just did.

Regarding your comments on the “flat out crappy” and the “serious” article, I totally see it too and understand the dilemma myself since I often write some of both. But if this is a push-pull thing then perhaps there should be two websites? One for “trite” articles and one for serious articles, with a section for full-on “white papers” or borderline “research papers” with serious eBooks available splitting sales with authors?

It seems that those who write the better more serious articles like yours, which BTW- are very good, so please keep writing them, would have a thing or two to say about the garbage articles, I cannot blame you and have complained myself. Of course like most, I have adjusted my content downward slightly to: A.) fit in and; B.) meet the expectations of the Internet Surfers who are shallow often in their thought processes.

Kip states: “They are poorly written with obvious spelling, grammar and syntax errors and really offer nothing of value to a reader. Not to mention the incredible array of endlessly rehashed themes about getting rich, the Secret, and The Law of Attraction.”

Indeed, I myself have worked hard to watch the spelling etc, and make sure to bring one decent point at least to the reader in every article. The endless “get rich quick” or “Get a Date” articles are prolific, but not just hear, all over the Internet, apparently because people like them, that is the average populi or teenager surfer. They are humans and that is what the masses are, happy humans doing their thing, procreating more of the same?

Kip, you know there is a market for your articles of serious and excellent content, I am a reader who likes the good stuff, but realize you are writing to 5-10% of the population and the other 90-95% seems to enjoy at least some of the fluff, BS, articles and 50% just love them? Ha ha ha?

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Dear Christina Sponias Chatzidimou,

Absolutely! Excellent Point. The EzineArticle site is inclusive and they have done a wonderful thing for people who wish to write. They have opened the doors to people who wish to write, but are not writers. I think it is wonderful. Impressive what they have done and the opportunities they have given others. And they too have one, because YES, this is the number one online article submission site on the entire Internet now. WOW.

[Reply]

Christina Sponias Chatzidimou writes:

Hi Lance!

Fortunately this Ezine is in the top! Everyone is welcome here and everyone has a chance to be in the top with the Ezine, even without being a writer. And we that are real writers can write our very good articles only for this Ezine and wait, without having to work more. Other sites copy them from here and spread our words everywhere!

Christina

[Reply]

Cheryl Wright writes:

Kip wrote: There are articles here that are just flat out crappy.

Kip, I totally agree. I’ve been helping a friend put a wedding site together and suggested she search out EzineArticles.com for content.

Some of the articles she sent to me were absolutely terrrible. There was no way I would let her put that sort of rubbish on her site.

To be honest, I was shocked. Simply because I’ve always equated EzineArticles with quality, and here I came face-to-face with what could only be described as cr*p.

When did the site stop being so discriminating when it came to content? I am still flabagasted.

Cheryl

[Reply]

kip winsett writes:

Lance, I am giving some consideration to writing fluff!

All in all, it seems that the people in this blog are, in general, happy with the state of affairs here. I take that as a good sign.

There’s room for everybody and all levels. I suspect that the cost(s) to really “judge” articles and do even a halfway decent job of it in order to rank their “quality” is simply too high because the site is so large.

I suppose that whoever runs the site could create spinoffs for each category and post (according to their preferences) the articles they wanted in the spinoffs.

As I think about that, I can see an “Editor’s Choice” as a possibility. I’m the editor for the International Leadership Forum Digest (ILF DIGESTan ezine with contributors that include former amabaasadors, biospehrians, FCC commissioners, even Michael Crichton) and I typically make judgement calls on content that are based on my own preferences to some extent.

But that is more of a magazine style. I also maintain and edit their blog ILF POST and my role is more limited there.

[Reply]

Strephon Kaplan-Williams writes:

Issue: who said here have two levels of articles: information-simple for the general public and information-intense for depth thinkers in a subject area?

And then comments by some that maybe EzineArticles could somehow make this kind of distinction with software and/or expert advice, or even reader feedback.

Where is Chris on all this, despite his other activities?

Lance also suggested the position: just write your articles at whatever level and they will be sent out on the Web and will find their natural audience.

Let’s refer to Google Search for the moment. The marketers I read in their free newsletters are saying that Google now has its software evaluate expert web sites so that millions of searchers can get on the first page of searches the expert web sites they are looking for.

If Google with its resources can do it, then other information presenting sites such as EzineArticles might be able also to present expert information.

Can Google and EzineArticles now in 2007 discriminate between sites and articles and present to the public expert information selected, rather than have the public do all the work?

The answer most likely is No!

The need by the public is Yes! This is needed!

It’s called information overload.

We just don’t live that long to find the truth anymore . . .

Example: I am developing my website for my product, The Writer’s Interface, a collection of writing tools for writing a novel. I put in Google: ‘writing a novel’ and came up with the ten top sites.

They are crap, not expert at all.

Conclusion: there is no way on heaven or in earth that software search engines can discriminate yet on human expert intelligence output and show the world the expert knowledge available.

I shall see if in three months or however long it is supposed to take if my truly expert site on ‘writing a novel’ does in fact get into the first ten web page sites on Google.

Does anyone here have similar experience that a Google search does not reveal true expert knowledge in the field you know about?

If Google can’t do it, how can Chris and team do it here?

Are we still in ‘the dark ages?’

Dark Ages is defined as when expert knowledge is not made available to decision makers who need it most.

Of all the slants on life, political, sociological, individual, collective, university, religious, esoteric, etc. probably the most important is information processing that leads to usable and effective truths, concerning causing that is effective and results that are predictable.

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Dear Strephon,

It appears to me that there are some professional writers who wish to have the site upgraded and to only list extremely well-written articles or a preference so the articles with more information in them, get displayed in such a way to help the reader find them over all the others.

Of course we know that people come in from the Google, MSN, Yahoo search engines directly to the article and that these search engines spider sites like this constantly. So in reality all articles whether they are marked “Excellent” or Editor’s Choice in the end will be seen fairly equally as the reader clicks into the site.

When you made a comment that better articles might be available for browsing the list or when Kip reiterated the concept of “Editor’s Choice” a concept which has been bantered about for almost a year now, it seems others like this idea? For me personally as a reader and seeker of information, I know when I find a great article with good content, I look up the author and read all their articles on the subjects I am interested in learning about at that time and surf their various websites too, so all that makes sense to “me” personally, although others might disagree.

A software system with AI that might be able to pick out great articles is intriguing because it could go thru all the 580,000 articles on the site already posted and put a “star” or something by them to help readers more easily find them.

Strephon asks; “Where is Chris on all this, despite his other activities?”

Perhaps reviewing all this and considering his options and asking questions of his “Backend” teams to see what is feasible and discussing what makes sense and if it seems like a good idea to implement one, none or several of the ideas or concept floated. Sometimes the best decision might be to do nothing, until which time a combination of ideas bring about a best management practice that will work and make everyone so very happy?

Strephon discusses “information overload”

Yes, there is information overload, data smog or feature fatigue to consider in all of this and any online article submission site must only implement those things which make sense from a user standpoint, profit standpoint because whatever is implemented will need to have a decent ROI, otherwise why do it. And whatever is done must take advantage of the future, but also realize if semantic searching and Web 2.0 comes into the picture soon, Everything changes over night, thus it is best to be ready and be first to market, not be bogged down with all sorts of projects that may never turn a profit.

Strephon states; “We just don’t live that long to find the truth anymore . . .”

Did we ever? I think perhaps it is a fallacy to assume that in past periods there was somehow more integrity, as it seems humans are so deceptive, that they must have always been like that, some just are able to hide out better using technology, but in the end you see that is not so and then notice the truth and think Yuk!

Strephon states; “.. .. ..I put in Google: ‘writing a novel’ and came up with the ten top sites. They are crap, not expert at all.”

Yes I see the same thing too, with many other endeavors and industries, lots of non-solution, solutions available, but none worthy.

Strephon states; “Conclusion: there is no way on heaven or in earth that software search engines can discriminate yet on human expert intelligence output and show the world the expert knowledge available.”

I disagree to say it cannot be done now with current technology and AI theories of our day. I believe no one has thought it out. I am sure I or we could come up with something fairly easy if for instance we studied all my articles or let’s say 10,000. We know what subject I am an expert in and which subject I ain’t and so we could play around with a program until which time it matched that reality, it can be done, I am certain of it. I think giving up or quitting or concluding such is pre-mature, but in looking at the various advice so far in this Blog I would say, based on this, none of these ideas above will work, by themselves although a few might be a component of the total answer to the question.

Strephon asks: “Does anyone here have similar experience that a Google search does not reveal true expert knowledge in the field you know about?”

Yes, and I have had long in depth conversations on the issues of false positives in looking for geniuses on the Internet with some experts in the field who have written 200 research papers on the subject at a major University. They have stories about this.

Strephon asks: “If Google can’t do it, how can Chris and team do it here?”

Because Chris and company have one incredible data base and hands on experience dealing with these issues.

Incidentally, I KNOW, that I could come up with the answer if I choose to take this on as a project, because, I have everything and I need at Chris’s site and I know “me” my abilities, so I could play around with something and WIN, that is to say come up with the solution to the challenge – No Problem, it just takes a little time and availability to the data, it can be done, I know it can.

[Reply]

George Lockett writes:

Regarding Google and ones PageRanking.

I think the discussion should focus more on the tools at our disposal.

1. Select the right Category, which match closest your search words.
2. Title: 1st three words should be your search words
3. You should include the three words or words that mean the same in your “Abstract/Article Summary/Teaser Copy”
4. You should include the three search words about three times in the body of your articles. Also include variations of the words, which mean the same.

What worries me about the above system and what we can do, contrasts with what Google says it does to asses PageRank.
I.e. links to site page, So to me it looks like we can work on the content of the page but do nothing to add links to the page to improve its PageRank? – Under the current structure within EzineArticles.

See these notes from the Google Help desk:

“PageRank Explained
PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page’s value. In essence, Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at considerably more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; for example, it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves “important” weigh more heavily and help to make other pages “important.” Using these and other factors, Google provides its views on pages’ relative importance.
Of course, important pages mean nothing to you if they don’t match your query. So, Google combines PageRank with sophisticated text-matching techniques to find pages that are both important and relevant to your search. Google goes far beyond the number of times a term appears on a page and examines dozens of aspects of the page’s content (and the content of the pages linking to it) to determine if it’s a good match for your query.
Integrity
Google’s complex automated methods make human tampering with our search results extremely difficult. And though we may run relevant ads above and next to our results, Google does not sell placement within the results themselves (i.e., no one can buy a particular or higher placement). A Google search provides an easy and effective way to find high-quality websites that contain information relevant to your search.”
I would be interested in hearing your comments on the above? To be fair when I do searches on Google EzineArticles quite often comes up in about 3rd position in the results.

George

[Reply]

Dina at Wordfeeder.com writes:

Dear George,

I just want to tell you that I was on THAT SAME PAGE, reading the very same lines as you posted here, just last night.

Whoa! Totally cosmic. Suddenly I feel especially kindly toward you due to our online synchronicity. Keep posting- someone’s apt to learn something! :)

Dina

[Reply]

Christopher M. Knight writes:

Strephon;

The blog comment policy has been updated:
http://blog.EzineArticles.com/2007/01/ezinearticlescom-blog-comment-policy.html

See new sections 18 & 19.

If you want to claim fair use doctrine and go against the clarified blog comment policy, I don’t have a problem with that.

The blog comment policy is a defense mechanism.

—

Lance is right, that I’ve been reading and following the comments and considering the issues presented along with internal polling our dev team to see what’s possible.

[Reply]

Christina Sponias Chatzidimou writes:

Nice to see this post going on and on! Looks like a novel! I don’t have time to read what everybody writes because I have more than many things to do, but I’m reading sometimes and learning a lot here!

I’m seeing my articles in Google’s first page with only 2 expensive keywords! It’s very nice to be able to be in the first page through this Ezine. Nobody knows me in the net: I’m a newbie, but here I’m in the top because this Ezine is in the top!
My articles shall be very good of course, because I’m giving real information, free medicine, support, not only a taste of my work, since here I have the opportunity to really help desperate people. Besides, I can write articles and books about depression, craziness, dream interpretation and many other related subjects for all my life! Only now I’m showing everything I learned searching. It’s a wonderful combination!
I only hope I’ll sell my new ebook now. (It’s still being revised!) Only then the combination will be really perfect!

Christina

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

I had an idea? For what it is worth, it may be a dumb idea, but I thought I had better come up with something orginal here today?

Finding the Experts by Reading their Articles — Let’s say we wanted to find all the experts on the Internet by going thru all the text and determining if the writer truly had expertise in the subject – could it be done? I believe it could and there may be more than one way to do this. Obviously, you could read all the 10 Billion Pages on the Internet right and that would take millions of lifetimes. Indeed with artificial intelligence and super computers you might be able to do it in 5.15 seconds or some ridiculously low number, but would it be accurate – would it even be close to accurate?

It is possible to set up human contests where you use lots of humans to do the work in determining who is an expert. Google and some brilliant students are now using human brains to play in games, which result in the labeling of images and pictures on the Internet and having some pretty good success getting millions of pictures labeled very quickly. Could we have a game that asked – Expert or Poser?

Here is how the game would work. Teams of two would read an article and then they would have to say poser or expert. If they both came to the same conclusion then they get a match. If not they go to the next one, the goal of the game being to get matches. Next, another group of two would do the same thing. After five separate groups of two did this – that would be ten people reviewing each article. If there was an 80% rating or 8 in 10 people voted the person was an expert then it would be labeled “Expert” and if under 40% it would be labeled non-expert.

Next, if an author had written 30 and 100 articles on a subject in that category and 80% of them came back expert, he or she would be labeled an expert in that category. If not then that author could appeal to a review board of 10 people to look over their credentials, resume and work experience to determine if the humans participating in the group made a mistake somehow?

To qualify to play in the game they have to be an expert in their field and the panel would read their resume and qualifications to see if they met the criteria. If you were a faker or poser it would not matter, maybe a good thing in fact because it would be easier for them to spot the fakes or poser articles. Think on this.

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Do we use human (panels), computer game contestants or Artificial Intelligence to pick out the experts? Or do we use both and match them against each other and give the humans a handicap of 60% – 40% and allow each to come up with their expert lists and then take the two data sets and compare them? I bet we could get an accurate reading on it. Meanwhile here is how we might approach the Artificial Intelligent expert author recognition concept?

If we are to build an artificial intelligent computer program to recognize experts by the words that they write there are a few things we must do. First, we must consider how a human being comes to the conclusion if someone is an expert and determine if we can apply these same procedures. How does one determine by reading someone’s work if they are an expert or a poser?

Most humans can readily tell if someone is an expert or not by reading their articles, summaries, books, blogs, emails or research papers. What is it that triggers an individual into that moment when the light-bulb goes off and the human says, Wow, this person really knows their stuff?

Just because someone knows their stuff, do we consider them an expert? If this is the case then we could say that the encyclopedia is an expert? Is it? No, but it could be considered an authority on a subject, we call such; Reference Books. How can we therefore tell if someone is an expert or merely a book-smart, rote memorizing authority?

It turns out that most humans can tell when someone is an actual expert and not just an authority on the subject, but that takes a little more time than to say that they are or are not knowledgeable in a subject matter. Can we therefore design a computer that can do all three judging someone’s written words?

1.) Writer is knowledgeable in subject matter Yes or No

2.) Writer is an Authority Yes or No

3.) Writer is an Expert Yes or No

You see with computers we must do this sequentially. First the person has to be knowledgeable in the subject matter, if not, they do not qualify. If they are knowledgeable then we need to know if they are an authority. Once we determine that they are an authority, we can then determine if they are an expert.

Why is this important? Well, because in any given field there are lots of people contributing to that industry. Some will tell us of the 80/20 rule, where 20% of the people are really the good at what they do. But being good at what they do not necessarily mean that they are an expert. Many people realize that the top dogs in any industry are only about 5%.

So, how do we design a computer to find the top 5% and how can we be sure that folks are not playing the system or using deception to make the grade? Well in my estimation it might be smart to simply not tell anyone you are grading them, therefore they will not work to game your artificial intelligent system. After all a deceptive human can lead another human to believe they are an expert, when in fact they are not.

Currently, there are artificially intelligent resume readers which use key words in resumes to pick out what they are looking for and thus they can go online and read resumes or sort through huge stacks of resumes by scanning them in and reading the words and picking out the words by searching for specific words. Unfortunately in reading what someone has written it is doubtful that they will have on the article that they are a 25 year veteran of the industry with a PhD right?

Nevertheless if a human can read an article and feel that the writer is an authority then surely we can design a computer program to do the same thing. So we are back to the “ah ha” moment where something in the human’s brain triggers a memory of an experience or observation and says; hmm, this person really knows what they are talking about.

[Reply]

Mark writes:

Many of the posts point toward an authority as one who is confident in having “the answers” on a particular topic. Thus, they might say something like, “In my experience…”

Frankly, that phrase nearly always turns me off. It sounds like the person’s experience is past and he or she is not open to learning more.

For me, a true authority is one who has enough confidence to ask sometimes difficult and sometimes simple, but always important, questions.

Authority informs inquiry as much, or more, that it informs advocacy.

[Reply]

kip winsett writes:

Well, you’re thinking and that’s good. Let’s take “color” as an example. How do we determine if someone is an expert on color? Color in the context of what? Landscape painting? Interior design? House Painting? Mixing paint?

I think, Lance, that in the example you’ve provided the ROI would be too low.

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Indeed, not everything in such a strategy to find experts would be black and white. But, if we could determine an author knew their stuff on color determining if they were an authority on color could be fairly easy. And if an artificially intelligent computer could make that a One or Zero, then that particular question could be answered. If the primary colors make all the rest of the colors, then three questions ought to get us to our pot of gold at the end of the process?

[Reply]

Christina Sponias Chatzidimou writes:

Dear Mark,

There is no real authority in any field without many years of experience and without constant research.

Christina

[Reply]

kip winsett writes:

well, I see you’re not an expert on color (:

In the printing process printers need to use black, cyan, magenta and yellow. Is black a color? In physics it’s not. There it’s the absence of color. White is the presence of all colors. This shows us there are different contexts in which color exists. A house painter doesn’t have to know the same info as a physicist or a printer in order to be an “expert” on color. The painter has to have a different knowledge scope.

[Reply]

kip winsett writes:

Christina, suppose you know a little bit about some new phenomenon and nobody else knows anything. Perhaps you discovered a new species of microbe a year ago and you haven’t shared that info. In such a case aren’t you an “expert”.

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Christina,

I tend to agree that it takes time for someone to become an authority on a subject and I believe an expert would require some hands on experience. And I also believe that a human can tell if someone is an expert in something or not quite easily. For instance Kip, duly noted that I am no expert in “Color” which is a great example of the ability of humans to judge on this subject.

Kip,

Indeed there are experts in industries, sub-sectors and niche focuses. Someone who is into a very narrow niche focus probably knows something about the whole and yet someone can be an authority on an entire industry and often be clueless on various niches. I often find that if I stay up on industry news that I can talk to an expert of 30 years in the industry and actually tell them something they do not know. Of course they could perhaps school me for hours in stories, experiences, observations, as well to the point of nausea.

But in determining if someone is an expert in the field they wrote a given article then we have to match the actual article against that niche right? If we look at individual articles, we have a much better chance of a realistic probability. Indeed, I am sure I could study tonight and tomorrow make a great article on color and be able to appear to be an expert on color to some of the people, but not all the people all the time, no matter what color they were.

Kip in item “97” not only would you be an expert, you would be the Expert, even if you never wrote an article. Example I just read was in Ben Bova’s new book of a tiny species living in the ice on the moon “Titan” where a scientist discovered this, but others chose to ignore it when that ice was mined. In the book “Gravity” by Tess Gerritsen there was a microbe that only a couple of people new about and a secret experiment, one or two experts on the whole planet. The one lady who did know about it was needed to save the entire Space Station and Shuttle crew when the microbe grew really fast in zero-gravity.

Finding an expert, a real expert can be a matter of life and death sometimes. So, although we are merely talking about articles, we must consider how important such a searching feature or Expert Checking system really is? I am liking your discussion here Kip.

[Reply]

Ann Bradley writes:

Former experts should have the last word.

“The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives.” – – Admiral William Leahy, US Atomic Bomb Project

“There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom.” — Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923

“I think there is a world market for maybe five computers .” — Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

“Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?”
H.M. Warner, Warner Brothers, 1927.

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

One thing I think is important is to be your own expert. In other words do your own work in your articles if you Claim to be an Expert in a certain Industry, sub-sector or domain. I think the Internet Leaders are getting tired of it all;

http://slashdot.org/articles/07/05/23/0155252.shtml

I would like to note that EzineArticles.com Founder and CEO Chris Knight was well ahead of this trend. So, I see a bright future for those companies who can predict it in advance. Perhaps that is the ultimate expert, one who can see changes and predict futures in their realm?

[Reply]

Strephon Kaplan-Williams writes:

Hello Everybody!

Just make this comment of thanks to everyone for this wonderful stream.

And for me to be the 100th Comment!!!

[Reply]

Strephon Kaplan-Williams writes:

My Working Definition Of An Expert Authority

– One who produces intended results

– One who solves problems and thus knows how to solve problems in more than one area of life

– One who uses the resources available to create greater productivity and enhanced resource making

An expert is not:

– Someone who gets a degree or recognition from society or a group within it. Not titles, designations or achievement awards can designate an expert to the rest of society. All these markers are simply symbolic objects used in the game-playing of life, whose purpose is to get for oneself adequate allocation of resources

– An expert is not someone who plays a numbers game, doing more of something than anyone else as in sports or capitalism

– An expert is not self-proclaimed. This is hype that is part of playing the game of getting resources coming ones way, whether recognition, effectiveness in life or money

– An expert is not someone full of random knowledge that can be displayed in media output in any form

– An expert is someone who produces things of value to humanity in making a positive contribution to the quality of how life is lived

– An expert is someone who effectively creates in real experience what his or her stated intention is. Listen to nobody who talks the walk. Walk only with those who walk the walk themselves!

I have, and still do, try to live by the above. Whatever I say or think about myself matters little. What others say about me positive and negative matters little. Can you walk the walk with me? Can I walk the walk with you? Can we produce something of value together for humanity? Otherwise why do it?

Let’s see your results and evaluate together what their true value is to humanity. You can see mine as well that way.

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

I agree with your summation of course, but you have just labeled me an expert by your definition so can we modify that definition? I have always been the anti-expert type. You have thus destroyed my identity by calling me an expert, why did you do that?

I think the walk is a run and actually, I believe man can fly and go to the stars too. Walking is so 2006

[Reply]

Strephon Kaplan-Williams writes:

Lance,

In reply to ‘why did you do that?’ labeling you indirectly an expert, I will tell a story.

A hen I once knew laid three eggs? How did I know that? There was only one hen in the coop when I looked and got my eggs.

Appearances are sometimes deceiving . . .

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Dear Strephon Kaplan-Williams,

I hereby reject your definition on the following grounds. First you state that an expert is one who produces results. I do not believe that is necessarily true. It may be true sometimes, but not necessarily. A non-expert may produce intended results thru training, practice, shear will or the almighty perseverance.

Next, one who solves problems may not be an expert in the field for instance the little boy who told the truck driver who wedged his truck on a low bridge to let some air out of the tires. He was not an expert; he was a little boy, albeit a “Brilliant” one with barriers.

Finally one who utilizes or leverages the resources available to produce results is not necessarily an expert, although they may be, they are simply smart enough to understand the power of lining up ducks in a row. Observation in life will help one with the thinking ahead of the game or planning ahead. A planner might be an expert although they also may be simply an observant type.

Therefore, I hereby reject your working definition. Although I made your summary into a really nice (.pdf) document, you see I am forced to defend myself. I suppose that your points are indeed part of what an expert really is. I prefer just to be me.

http://www.carwashguys.com/history/beginning.html

http://www.lancewinslow.org

http://www.worldthinktank.net/pdfs/Nairobi.pdf

http://www.worldthinktank.net/pdfs/Honduras.pdf

http://www.carwashguys.com/fundexp.html

http://www.carwashguys.com/fundraisers/LAschools.html

[Reply]

Christina Sponias writes:

Hi Kip! If you discovered a microbe a year ago you are an expert, but not an authority because you may have discovered it by chance, while you were looking for something else; you are not an authority in this subject. Only time makes an authority through many real experiences solving real problems day by day and facing all the difficulties and impossibilities of objective reality. An expert is not an authority. It’s like comparing knowledge with wisdom. You can have knowledge easily right now, but wisdom only after many years of research, thoughts, studies and many real experiences.

Christina

[Reply]

kip winsett writes:

It was interesting to see you equate authority with wisdom. I’m going to offer a quote from Harlan Cleveland – diplomat, educator, author (google his name for his impressive credentials)

“Wisdom is integrated knowledge, information made super-useful by theory, which relates bits and fields of knowledge to each other, which in turn enables me to use the knowledge to do something. That’s why wisdom is bound to cross the disciplinary barriers we set up to make the fields of knowledge manageable by the use of scientific method.”

If you need surgery do you want a highly skilled surgeon or a wise one?

[Reply]

Christina Sponias writes:

Hi Kip!

I don’t know which surgeon I would prefer! It depends on many things.
I don’t like generalizations!
Back to the subject, I only think that an authority is more than just an expert, but of course this authority can be very far from wisdom. I was just giving you an example earlier.
I have a better definition of wisdom: the ability to discern or judge what is true, right or lasting.
Don’t think I disagree with you though. I was just saying previously that a real authority has to have many years of experience because Mark said he didn’t like to hear an authority saying: ‚¬“according to my experience‚¬! etc
There is no authority without many years of experience and without constant research but many experts are very good on what they do, even though they are not authorities.
Besides, we have to talk also about who is really an authority and who is considered as being an authority but is not . We can talk about many things! Opinions and opinions!

Christina

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Christina and Kip,

Your dialogue is interesting and definitions usually get drowned in debate. I think that is why lawyers like them so much. You can spend hours discussing them and lawyers bill by the hour?

My question is can we separate out the authors abililites into these categories:

Genius

Enlightened

Brilliant

Expert

Authority

Creative

Student of Subject

Computer Generated

Key Wording Bandit

Poser (BS’er)

Plagiarizer

It seems there are various levels and simply labeling someone a BS’er or Authority. Or perhaps one with wisdom (enlightened) or Expert now seems too shallow? Your thoughts?

[Reply]

Christina Sponias writes:

Hi Lance! I guess you are right, but I can’t concentrate in this matter now. I didn’t like my ebook’s revision and I’m looking for another reviser!
Wish I knew English as well as I know Portuguese and Greek!

Christina

[Reply]

Donna Sanders writes:

Lance, I think your final list is right on the money. We all fit in their somewhere. Hopefully, more toward the top. You may have gotten a few new articles out of just your replies on this topic!

[Reply]

Donna Sanders writes:

Sorry about the typo, (their for there)obviously I am brain dead at this point as well. Lots of good arguments invoking thought.

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Christina,

Three languages that you can write and speak is impressive and you are doing fine in English here so you must be proficeint in all. That is impressive in itself. Yes get back to work, I know how difficult editing eBooks can be. It is somewhat frustrating and each time you do revisions you must re-do the rest. Formatting, page breaks, TOC, etc. Keep up the good work there. What are you writing about today?

[Reply]

Christina Sponias writes:

Thank you for your encouraging words, Lance! Today I’m only reading!

Christina

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Donna,

Actually, I am considering making a series of about 10 short and sweat articles, describing the differences of the “Type of Writers” out there. I was thinking of adding the “Knowledge Distributor” as an add-on sub-type to many of those types of writers listed. Also the “Ego Writer” or “Pure Opinion” or “Blog” writer. And I also realize that there a many cross-over types. Where a writer might be a combination of some or more types, even sometimes in the same article.

Thus if we could design a program to “Catch Mood” and have sub-type designation, similar to the Voice Recognition software which catches “voice inflection” or emotion, no matter what dialect, I think we might have a very good search tool for the reader. Of course this might cost some money, but there are some VC companies in San Jose that I am SURE would like such a tool.

I mean this could be used for searching thru research papers, intelligence, Blogs, threats, opinions to find information that is relevant and it might also help us find the geniuses, experts, authorites and enlightened individuals who can help with the forward progression of mankind. I believe, as perhaps Plato did, as he seem to elude to the concept that everyone in a society should do what they are best at and be alleviated from as much of the trivial-ness activities as possible to concentrate on those endeavors.

So the searching tool would not only be hyper-value added for the reader of this site or to add to a semantic search feature on Web 2.0 or 3.0, but might benefit all aspects of sifting thru the 10 plus billion web pages to find what you are truly looking for. Of course in building any AI system we must remember that software programs of this type work on definitions and not like an actual human brain. But if we can better understand how the human brain does all this and how best to classify the types and sub-types and combinations and anomalies of combos, we might serve us all to a huge degree. So, those are my thoughts.

To answer your question yes, I think I will write up some defintions or plausible deniable connections, associations and differentiations between these types of writers, styles and realities? If you have any thoughts on this, that would be interest indeed.

[Reply]

kip winsett writes:

Hi christina,

Yes, indeed , many opinions. I mean only to suggest that wisdom, authority and expert are not superficial subjects. Glib answers, while satisfying don’t yield substantial results.

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Kip,

That seemed to be some common sense wisdom in and of itself. Can you expand on that topic and illuminate your point so I can understand the full impact of your statements?

[Reply]

kip winsett writes:

Lance,

OK a big WOW! Great list. Definitely on the money with that. I participate in some very “serious” private online forums and I know all of these writers (and as you say the same writer, even on the same topic, can embody various levels).
About 40 years ago I learned to apply the Bates method while listening to a group of people interact in war games environment to study the feasibility of mobile nuclear strike platforms as an effective deterrent to nuclear war. That method was designed to assist people in parsing conversation to get down to some bare bones understanding. A great deal of talking and writing is fluff. It sure seems to me that it will be possible for AI to undertake this task. I proposed something similar some years ago to WBSI, but it wasn’t feasible then. It’s still probably some years away, but I think you’re right that someone out there might pony up research funds for this.

The potential applications are pretty amazing.

[Reply]

kip winsett writes:

Well, there is a tendency, especially in today’s culture, to assume that everything can be improved or fixed easily and quickly. I’m often guilty of such myself. But, in this case we are (I assume) seriously considering the possibility of being able, cost effectively (and I assume while generating a profit), to actually determine the qualitative value of something written.

So, sure experience is wonderful, but genius can sometimes trump it. Genius is wonderful but sometimes it’s completely wrong. The bottom feeders probably are easiest to discern (plagiarizers, Computer Generated, Key Wording Bandit). Wisdom is a tough call, because in many ways the full results of a decision may not appear for many years. Authority semantically presupposes status. The first problem with that lies in the cost of verification.

There are plenty of people with a great deal of experience in various fields (which ‚¬“gives‚¬ them some authority) but when push comes to shove it turns out they really aren’t very good at what they do. So it’s easy to talk (say the words) about wisdom, expertise, authority, but the subjects are deep. I could write an awful lot on it but I have other things to attend to.

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Indeed Kip, I too have some very intensive offline email and forum conversations on similar things and have discussed this issue of searching for individuals such as searching for the Imminent Achiever Creative Geniuses with Vint Cerf (father of the Internet) and Dean Simonton, leading expert on the Psychology of Genius (200 plus research papers).

Now then, I do not doubt that the NSA, In-Q-Tel, TSA, FBI, Military Intel, CIA, State Department, etc would be interested in this. I am certain one or more of them would pony up research monies. But then on the Private Sector Side, I guarantee that Private Industry would be interested. Yahoo, Google or Microsoft Research would be interested in this. I bet half the Fortune 500 would like this type of software to integrate as Enterprise Software meaning Sun, Oracle, HP, IBM, SAP, Microsoft, etc, would see the value in this.

The applications are endless, and when you need an expert whether it is a simple request for an “Expert Witness” for a court proceeding or a complex need for an Aerospace, Chemical, Big Pharma, Environmental, Energy or an Agriculture Corporation, they need talent, they need to find that talent and simply going thru all the resumes does not work, because the resume writers are already writing for the AI resume reader programs, as well as the HR Directors.

The applications for “Negotiations” are obvious and would help in prediction software or mind-mapping of the parties on the other side of the table, preventing them from pounding their fists on the table and keeping them in the talks. It could save millions of lives in the case of Nuclear Proliferation, by analyzing the writings of the various parties on both sides. As you want to send your best people and you want to know what the reality is of the other members of the negotiation teams.

Of course that is only one application, I see 100s just considering this.

[Reply]

Christina Sponias writes:

Hi Kip, Lance and everybody!

Humanity is very far from wisdom and my ebook is very far from being sold the way it is! I need to send it for another revision!
But I have to be an authority, so my ebook has to be perfect! I’m starting from this point, after waiting too long in order to be here. I have to start being an authority; otherwise nobody will respect my work.
It’s a big irony for me to have that kind of problem! I write perfectly in my own language! But English is the language that most people know. It’s better than ‚¬“Esperanto‚¬, the supposed universal language that we would all learn so that we would be able to talk with people from everywhere without any problem!
I have to be an authority because I deal with craziness. This is a very serious matter!

Goodnight!

Christina

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Kip,

I totally concur that this is not necessarily a quick fix and like the “Gender Software” system that Chris Knight found, it is not full proof, sometimes it gets it wrong. The error rate is too high to be viable and such a system can be gamed too easily. I am a firm believer of careful consideration of the problems associated with the law of unintended consequences.

I do not doubt that the project would be difficult. Yet, I also know it is a lot less difficult once you start and play around with the data a bit, right? And we know it is possible and after working with it for a while, I bet we could improve accuracy, because “We are Writers” with significant attributes, so we are already well within the domain and therefore our ideas and expertise is very much needed if we are to achieve success in this project.

I agree that pure genius, with experience and wisdom is omnipotent and genius can trump most other attributes on its own accord. Regarding the “bottom feeders” ha ha ha, yes, well I agree that we can catch most all of the Plagiarizers now with a little extra work, with very few false positives, although it might happen occasionally. Computer generated articles, we can catch now, but someday that will be much harder. The Carnegie Mellon crowd already uses there little AI programs to go onto forums and have conversations and can fool most people for a short time period, some people for longer. Key wording bandits, yes they become very obvious very quickly.

Kip states: “Wisdom is a tough call, because in many ways the full results of a decision may not appear for many years. Authority semantically presupposes status. The first problem with that lies in the cost of verification.”

Yes, exactly. Verification is tough, as even if you have their resumes? Humans are deceptive and anyone can lie about their credentials. “Trust but Verify” costs lots of time and in intelligence if 95% is complete BS, 4% is a piece of the puzzle and 1% is legit, it takes 99% of the work to verify the 1%. The similarities to intelligence gathering and categorizing the value of the information and source in article writing is indeed close.

Kip states: “There are plenty of people with a great deal of experience in various fields (which ‚¬“gives‚¬ them some authority) but when push comes to shove it turns out they really aren’t very good at what they do. So it’s easy to talk (say the words) about wisdom, expertise, authority, but the subjects are deep”

Absolutely, I agree and like to use the 95-5% rule. Only 5% are even excellent at what they do. If we can design a system that uses “Buzz Word” counts as a non-issue unless they are over used, we may quickly dismiss many posers who are in the field but certainly not experts. My belief is if you are really good in your field you can explain it to a novice or talk with an expert straight across the board and neither of you will need Buzz Word Bonanza Baffling BS to state your ideas, concepts or conclusions.

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Dear Christina,

I have come to realize that English, which is the business language of the world (currently) and the computer language too, is one botched mix-match of a language. It is difficult to master due to its many rules and exceptions. As a Futurist, I hope some day that we can all communicate using the same system and I hope that system is communicating by thought and visious, using a scheme of photons and personal mind-mapping using fMRI neuron sequence firing schemes, which once formatted can read the thoughts of the individual using an VLF stereo wave system and then transfer that into 1’s and Zero’s and then sent via wirless device to a World Internet System to the other party who would also have been mapped and therefore their system could create the corresponding sequences. Yes, I know 30 to 50 years out, but it would surely help the human race in the end.

[Reply]

kip winsett writes:

Christina, Are you looking for a competent editor? If so I might be of assistance. I’m no longer truly multilingual but was, for a few years, quite capable in Spanish.

Perhaps that experience would make some of your phrasing more meaningful to me, and thus be of assistance to you in correct phrasing and syntax in English?

[Reply]

Strephon Kaplan-Williams writes:

Lance, I just looked at your Action Plan for the Nairobe Slums. I am quite moved by it. Your compassion is manifest in using good, clear and practical thinking to organize a plan that could work if people were behind it. Those with decision-making power would have to implement it, always a difficult job.

But there it is! How many can think well enough and be realistic enough to design and implement an action plan for something important in their lives?

I must say, looking at some of the websites by people commenting here, they may not have done the committed work necessary to get their true talents and experience into reality.

There has clearly been a wildness of thinking in some of the comments here that shows the person is just reacting and not commenting with a commitment to action or a overall plan for what they are commenting about.

Yet also there is a thrust here in this thread to try and organize all this free thinking into something useful as a project.

I have consulted to some organizations with high-powered leaders. They have built organizations that are overwhelming to them because, while they are innovative and charismatic, they are not organized.

So I consult with them and always write out an Organizational Prospectus worth thousands of dollars in additional income because, if they implement the plan and have their whole operation organized, they will be successful.

I tell them, and it is true by the numbers, that they will make far more money from the organizing of their operation than they will ever pay me in expensive fees.

Organization works. Getting people to organize themselves well is the harder job, as I well know from experience.

Since you have this ability, Lance, to think well and organize experience I wondered if it would be a value idea to you to put out a prototype Organizing Plan. This is generic and people buy it from you for your labor. Then they research, discuss, fill in the blanks and come up with a plan that is organized for them to implement.

I’m not sure that there are that many people who have the trained intelligence to actually organize anything on a comprehensive scale, including most people commenting in this blog.

If you want to try and define what is an expert authority, I would say finally, a true expert is one who can organize a whole field of endeaver successfully to produce end product that is valuable to members and to society.

Wild, impulsive, loose commentary on issues and things that is mostly reactive simply will not be effective in life and is a time-waste.

Good intelligence is wasted here and elsewhere, and certainly on the Internet.

Is the Internet itself at this stage mostly a slum of wasted ideas and practices without effective order that could lead people to somewhere of significance in well-defined purpose and order?

Did the problem of the Nairobe slums get solved?

No it didn’t, probably? I read about it in the news.

What is lacking?

Most humans simply lack the ability to create a highly organized plan and carry through on it, including probably many people commenting on this thread.

Why do I include all of us? To ground things of course. Wild and reactive thinking is useless and just feeds the ego, but the person with good intelligence remains ineffective and isolated.

Needs are not being met, people . . . Organize! Organize your thoughts! Be effective!

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Dear Strephon Kaplan-Williams,

The Nairobi “Kibera” Slum is a humanitarian disaster, one of the worst in the world 800,000 people living in 2.8 square miles surrounded by raw human sewage canals. The action plan was sent to those who met in Nairobi on the committees, members of the Bush Administration Task Force, World Bank, UN, African Leaders and several non-profit groups. The local government does not wish to fix the problem, others say who is paying for it, even though the United States sends 1.6 Billion to the Kenyan Government. All the decision makers that are interested have a copy, it definitely made some waves with the Davos Crowd and some of the NGO leaders who met the following month there in Nairobi; those two eBooks are part of a series. The bigger problem is why are people flocking to the city and leaving rural agriculture – lots of issues with hardly enough space here.

Strephon states; “I must say, looking at some of the websites by people commenting here, they may not have done the committed work necessary to get their true talents and experience into reality.”

Everyone has their own priorities, comfort level, dreams and goals. This is a choice thing, not anyone else can make that choice. Some people live with limits, I simply choose not to, actually “I Refuse” to live with limits, pretty adamant about that in my personal belief system.

Strephon states: “There has clearly been a wildness of thinking in some of the comments here that shows the person is just reacting and not commenting with a commitment to action or a overall plan for what they are commenting about.”

Indeed, but sometimes the ideas in brainstorming are of value and in this case, I believe some of the thoughts are worthy to consider.

Strephon states: “Yet also there is a thrust here in this thread to try and organize all this free thinking into something useful as a project.”

Hey, I have already started designing plans and it is not as if I had not considered this the prior, I have some 2 dozen articles on similar topics of finding all the geniuses on the internet, of course this is for our Online Think Tank, but I have been doing personal experiments to weed out false positives, with some relevant success. If some of the smartest people in the world can use computer systems to find terrorists, certainly we can locate and identify the experts. In fact, I have some contacts in Florida, who have huge databases of experts and have read some very interesting research papers done by the University of Florida on this subject and located a huge source of funding already allotted for a very similar mission. Predicting what experts will do in various situations based on training and various scenarios.

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Strephon,

I am developing a “Part II” to the Nairobi Action Plan, actually it involves a modularized set of systems, “a la carte” so to speak, where all the various strategies are available for such things as making brick, cargo container businesses, self-policing, educational training, solar power, sewer treatment, etc. The plan is still in progress and it is designed like a “Franchise” type system which would be hooked to funding, aid and grants. The entire system since it is modularized could also be used for future space colonies too. The modularized system can be used anywhere. In other nations the problems are much different, although in a way they are the same. One size does not fit all.

If I created an Organizational Prototype plan for regional variation to fix the urban slum conditions were nearly a billion people currently live in these situations around the globe, I surely would not sell it, I would give it away. I have written an article on some of what you describe and pretty much agree, my article has to do with 1-week plan turn-around and a mixing of components or modules, along with funding.

Regarding making templates or organizational plans for companies, there are plenty of such around and quite a few at Microsoft Corp for companies to download free and use for business purposes.

Strephon states: “I’m not sure that there are that many people who have the trained intelligence to actually organize anything on a comprehensive scale, including most people commenting in this blog.”

It really is unwise to attack people’s intelligence or fellow authors or bloggers, I just cannot go there, don’t care too.

Strephon states: “A true expert is one who can organize a whole field of endeavor successfully to produce end product that is valuable to members and to society.”

Having changed entire industries in my life and sending in innovations to so many others that create change, it almost seems like that is a step above expert.

Strephon states: “Wild, impulsive, loose commentary on issues and things that is mostly reactive simply will not be effective in life and is a time-waste.”

Sure, one could make that statement without being taken to task too much although in itself that statement is almost hypocritically whole.

Strephon states: “Good intelligence is wasted here and elsewhere, and certainly on the Internet.”

They are humans, what did you expect and how much is really good intelligence on the Internet these days anyway?

Strephon states: “Is the Internet itself at this stage mostly a slum of wasted ideas and practices without effective order that could lead people to somewhere of significance in well-defined purpose and order?”

Indeed, but remember the types of uses for the Internet. We have teens with Blogs, we have people surfing for porn, we have people putting up pictures of their pets, we have people reading the news, we have people promoting politics, selling trinkets, ego surfing and serious people learning, doing research and such. It is a big game, a collective if you will and realize that the average human is doing what they do, if it were not on the Internet they might be watching 7 hours a day of TV or gossiping about nothing-ness to no where.

Strephon states: “Did the problem of the Nairobi slums get solved? What is lacking?”

The Nairobi Government after I sent my report out to everyone then made a new policy; now they will not allow “Whites” to visit the slums anymore. Apparently, I rattled some cages and some good is being done in the surrounding slum areas, I get emails often telling me of the happenings there. What is lacking? Humanity, caring, the usual and come on these are humans we are talking about. And as the Ambassador to Kenya from the US stated; corruption, it’s pretty bad there.

[Reply]

Strephon Kaplan-Williams writes:

Lance,

Thanks for further info on what you are doing. I wish I was out in the world again doing what I can to organized people who want to stand for a certain value. But I’m not at age 73, so my heart goes with you in your efforts, and I certainly would support you in these efforts if I had the money to do so. Maybe your economic base is well organized, as well, to support yourself in your own efforts?

Here is a remark of yours, and thank you for it, but I did of course consider the effects ahead of time.

So it was a conscious challenge to people on this blog to take their remarks seriously, but without naming names. I find this effective when putting out challenges that I feel are right to do from my experience. Don’t name names but address the group as a whole.

Your remark: “It really is unwise to attack people’s intelligence or fellow authors or bloggers, I just cannot go there, don’t care too.”

Some people here will take my general challenge as a specific attack while others, more balanced and objective, will simply look at their own sharing here for what their real motives are. Maybe the shoe does not fit or maybe part of the issue does.

I feel free to challenge in general so as not to avoid real issues. How people use their words does affect others. As a long time public speaker I am usually quite aware of how my words affect others. I do challenge my audiences and get much more positive response than negative.

For what it’s worth . . .

[Reply]

Christina Sponias writes:

Hi Kip!

Thank you for your offer! Perhaps you can really help me. I had a very good reviser for my two first ebooks but he was too expensive, then I found a very cheap one on Elance for my articles, but she was not good enough. I shouldn’t give her my new ebook that has 121 pages! I sent it again for revision on Elance, to another provider. He sent me his job with many mistakes in the beginning. He was supposed to correct all the existing mistakes! I don’t think I’m expecting too much. If you wish you can contact me. Go to my site and contact me from there, giving me your email. Then you can tell me how much I would have to pay you, etc! (I don’t know if I’m allowed to give you my email here, in other sites it’s forbidden.) I don’t know if my English looks like Portuguese or Greek, perhaps it looks like Chinese sometimes, but thanks to the Internet I have two wonderful dictionaries that help me a lot when I write in English or when I read something I don’t understand. In the old days we had to open the dictionary, find the page with the letter we wanted, etc and etc in order to find the translation! Now it’s so easy that my English improved a lot! But it’s far from being ‚¬“ok‚¬ for a writer. I need many English lessons!

Christina

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Dear Strephon Kaplan-Williams,

I wish to thank you for your honest opinions. Now allow me to be “point blank” with mine. I think it is appalling when one might gives advice to others on how to make money (selling project management templates on the Internet) then we learn how broke they are? This is the exact problem we are talking about and why we need to weed the mess to find the experts.

Next the Nairobi Plan was a “3-day project” to come up with a plan and it already has made a difference, albeit a small one so far and the plan is a 10-year plan, which was done a couple of months ago. Demanding results is ridiculous considering the mess that the committees have made thus far and the politics involved. It was an excellent project plan.

Additionally, the ideas that are thrown out “wildly” are done so in the spirit of brain-storming, there is nothing wrong with that. The ideas are not wild, in fact speaking for myself, I back every one of mine and many of the others with research papers if I cared to or if someone challenged me on it, I can back up every word I have ever said or article I have ever written, can you? I would say not, I see hypocrisy instead in the words uttered in your post. Indeed the others on this Blog, seem to be able to back-up their comment, what gives.

Is Sir Arthur C. Clarke a wild man for his ideas that he throws out? I see today a modern satellite networks providing communication to all mankind, wild idea huh? Would you say that Albert Einstein was in error when he told us of the value of imagination or how about Walt Disney? Well, what say you, back up your comments please, I hereby challenge you to intellectual debate at the highest level of the human spectrum of thought. I will request that you back up, without hypocrisy all your comments.

Strephon, when you state that your attacking and condemning comments are “general challenges” I disagree, as they are nothing more than clear revengeful attacks on others, because you felt slighted or disrespected. These are unacceptable and before one attacks another’s website or business models one ought not live in a glass house made of mirrors not windows unless they try to look out. When one makes comments on this Blog that are mean-spirited and attacking to others without provocation, I am completely appalled by that person’s behavior, no matter what age one claims or level of wisdom one purports to have attained.

One who claims to be a public speaker hopefully is worthy of payment to prove their value, if so that person would have money. One who tells others to build a team, then attacks each potential candidate systematically is not a team builder. One whose thoughts are in a “disarray” or borderline senile is not one to tell others to organize. One who criticizes others ideas and then cannot provide a better plan degrades the ability of the group.

One who uses age as an excuse or in justification of failure does so to their own demise – nothing could be further from the truth. (Read; “The Golden Years” by Getty). One who will not walk their talk yet compliments others does so in vane, as their words are worthless. One who chastises and condemns but will not walk their talk has another motive. One who practices psychology and then uses those skills to manipulate others in dialogue or in person is not a man of integrity. One who agrees to put up credentials after demanding credentials from another, yet fails to do so is a fraud. One who does not care about victory cannot consistently win in their endeavors.

So perhaps one might take their compliments and their anger and shout it at the top of their lungs in their house of mirrors and leave those who have accomplished alone. Standing in front of a hyper-sonic steam roller will only produce more Flat Stanley’s stuck in 2D linear thought. That is my summation. So, I thank you for your opinion and duly reciprocate and there will be no fee due to one’s inability to pay for such wisdom.

Do not tread on me and Do Not mistake my acts of kindness as a sign of weakness.

Serious, Sincerely and Truly Yours,

Lance Winslow
NFP

[Reply]

Christina Sponias writes:

Hi again Kip!

Now that I came home (I have a laptop I carry with me everywhere) after receiving Lance’s comment I noticed I didn’t write you my site’s address in my last message!
It’s http://www.booksirecommend.com
I’m on a hurry to solve this problem because I already delayed too much with 2 bad revisions!… I already contacted some providers that had offered me their service. I’d like to work with someone outside Elance though, for many reasons! Anyhow, if you have time and you can help me, please, act fast! Thank you!

Christina

[Reply]

Strephon Kaplan-Williams writes:

Lance,

I guess in the excitement you did not see that I did not make a personal attack on you or anyone else by quoting anyone or naming names.

I will say it again as clearly as I can. My challenge to all of us, including you, is to be aware of wild thinking, or insignificant thinking that is not well-considered, respectful of others’ time, and not purposeful.

Don’t waste yours or anyone else’s time in reactive thinking or comments. Stay cool, don’t project, be aware of your own issues in communicating, be purposeful and focused.

Don’t let yourself get touchy, learn as much from challenge and criticism as you might like to learn from supportive and praising people.

Develop self-analysis and self-awareness. Don’t project, and you can tell if you are projecting by the over-intensity of a reaction or emotion.

And above all, don’t try and win. Don’t try and be better than anyone else in anything. Give what is truly yours, receive what you can and makes sense from others.

Don’t engage in battles, but do try and be compassionate and truthful. Stand for values. Challenge as much as you affirm, work on yourself as much as your work with others, teach only what you know from direct experience.

Above all, come into reality. Reality is yours for the asking, but if you insist on projecting your own content into what is directly there, how then can you be effective and purposeful in this life?

I have developed a philosophy of effectiveness for myself. I have been under the gun with some great teachers and been both inspired and challenged by them. I don’t have to be perfect, but in my book I have to be real.

The second great principle to live by is from American pragmatism. It is by the results that a person creates of themselves and their life that you can evaluate them and their values, and choose to join with them or not.

So, some outer accomplishments from me that indicate to me that I have found the above guidelines successful in how I am living my life. You asked me to back up my words so I back them up with successful actions, a rare feat for anyone to accomplish at significant levels.

– creating the first dreamwork institute in the world
– originated the founding of the first international association for the study of dreams with three other founders
– originated and published the first dream cards ever published in the world
– originated and published the first ever dreamwork manual ever published in the world
– originated new dreamwork techniques never seen before
– originated the first interactive expert interface for using software at its highest level of effectiveness, The Writer’s Interface, at least as far as I know in the big, big world of information
– wrote several other books that have been or are being used in universities and institutes around the world.
– I have another original coming up, but that is quiet until accomplished

These are results that I say come from many creative interactions with people who have worked with me and trusted me in the past. Believe me, it is extremely difficult to succeed in reality and create something original and of lasting value to others. You have to be cooperative and not a fighter. Fighters kill. They do not create.

You have to reign in your mind. You have to take challenge. You have to not fall in love with your own ego.

Why am I saying these things? You are not my student. Usually I only speak the truth as I know it with students committed to working with me until they get the message of reality into their own thinking and acting.

– Just as valuable has been a generous number of people whose lives have been transformed for the better in working with me

I hold with Kierkegaard that the greatest fear people have is the fear of being able, of succeeding, of thinking positively and overcoming negativity so as to produce something of value in this life.

Why am I telling you all this?

Guess that’s for you to figure out!

[Reply]

Christina Sponias writes:

Here I was, sad with the second bad revision of my ebook, when I thought I could forget a little bit this matter and think about something else. I started to read what Lance said and then what Strephon said.
It seems that you are disagreeing in a few points of view. I didn’t read what you said before and I don’t have time to do that now. I only wanted to tell you that you both write very well and you both present very interesting conclusions.
It would be better though if you had another spirit, because you seem to dispute something!
We have no reason to dispute anything here. We are like the old Greek philosophers; we are artists, intellectuals! The atmosphere of our conversations must be warm and pleasant.
Don’t you agree?

Christina

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Dear Strephon Kaplan-Williams (SKW),

Regarding the comment on personal attacks that you have made, you defense is quite irrelevant, as even if you pretend to have not made them in the last few posts you have in the past thus one can only infer you meant your words as an attack, so we cannot accept that excuse of course. I defend my fellow article authors and there is no excitement just a steadfast immovable strength of character behind my words. Sorry if this offends you.

You assure us that your challenge is to all of us across the board to stop wild thinking as it does not add value. Unfortunately for you this is a falsehood you purport. I hereby challenge to a true intellectual debate on any thoughts I have posted here on this subject matter of “expert status” or designing a computer or human system to weed out non-expert article writers and challenge you to bring up 5-specific points of wild thinking. I can back up my comments by way of proof, research and current trends not out of context antidotes of spin like “some on this thread.”

Issues of “respect for another’s time” are not statements you will be able to make here unfortunately, since that is a hypocritical notion on your part. Anything I have stated which is off subject is directly attributed to your attacks on my personal character. In fact, you have asked me to put up or shut up and I did, now you say it is off subject? That will not work with me, I call cards; additionally I ask you to put up all your credentials for scrutiny, not simply a statement that you sold plans and strategies to Corporations for thousands of dollars. Show us the plans; tell us the names of the companies, Show Me.

Strephon has stated a laundry list of advice: “Don’t waste yours or anyone else’s time in reactive thinking or comments. Stay cool, don’t project, be aware of your own issues in communicating, be purposeful and focused. Etc. etc.”

Not one of these pieces of advice you have followed yourself. You tell people not to try to win, yet you admit you have never won anything in your life? You say to be compassionate, truthful and not to engage in battles. Yet you constantly engage in personal attacks and purport hokum. As far as the “Developed Philosophy Effectiveness for Yourself” I submit to you that after reviewing your behavior it is a problematic philosophy and needs work.

Strephon states: “You asked me to back up my words so I back them up with successful actions, a rare feat for anyone to accomplish at significant levels.”

Absolutely, show me, certainly if you want us to judge you from your threads here and previously on this website, your statement shows us nothing there, pony up. Show us, I hereby challenge you to make good on your commitment to show us you promised. You tell us that you have created the first “dreamwork institute” but alas, no one has ever heard of it, you cannot classify yourself as a Walt Disney type after to completely disregard imagination and what you call “wild ideas” that is hypocrisy. As far as your dream cards are concerned “Show us results, prove them” we must prevent you from false or misleading advertising. This is not the week of the super paranormal; you cannot call ideas wild, attack the thoughts of others and then purport wisdom thru dreams. No way. Not buying it.

About all you have done that you can prove is written several books? I see that is one good thing. Thus I am willing to challenge you on intellectual thoughts on the subject of expert. As far as having a new original idea coming up, well that is definitely a Blue Sky comment, forward looking projection, irrelevant, basically your own comments back at you? Actually so does my dog, I am sure he will be thinking about being fed again here in about another hour. You tell us to work together, not fight, because that prevents creating, but we all know that you have to often tear down the old or status quo to bring in the new. Wish to opine on that?

Regarding Kierkegaard and philosophy, well here is what I think of Western and Eastern Philosophical mixing and matching:

http://www.worldthinktank.net/pdfs/unlimitedthought.pdf

I await your reply and your mind to debate which notions you feel are wild ideas on an intellectual level at the highest level of thought.

[Reply]

kip winsett writes:

Hi Christina,

I don’t see your email address on the site to which you directed me. You can find mine at the bottom of the page http://www.hdspro.com/

[Reply]

Strephon Kaplan-Williams writes:

Dear Lance,

I will try and keep this brief with points:

1. I don’t enter into your American style of debate, argumentum ad hominem and all that: you make statements about me that ‘I entered into a personal attack’ and then you deduct from your statement, not mine, that I am such and such.
2. Attacking the person is fake debating, designed to throw the opponent off. But of course it is used all the time in American political debating. It does not work as a tactic in American corporations that are effective in their projects where they need teams of experts working together.
3. My success as a consultant to organizations is a confidential one. As a consultant I write the final agreement for my people in which they do not disclose to anyone anything about me, and I likewise do not disclose to anyone anything about them. As a consultant I must have revealed to me the private doings of a company so I may help them problem-solve their reality. It would undermine my effectiveness to disclose even one tiny thing about the people I have consulted for. You need to understand this. You do not make fights public!!! But you do have to fight sometimes.
4. The Law of Effectiveness prevails. People work with me because they want to be effective. I teach them effectiveness in their own personality and arena. If they don’t want this I don’t work with them and they don’t work with me.
5. You cannot challenge me as an expert in my field or my thought because to do so you would have to write a superior book to mine, actually several books to become an expert in the field in which I am an expert: dreamwork psychology, writing novels and philosophy. So it would be erroneous to think that you can simply challenge me with your ideas to mine. It is erroneously thought that someone can write a critical review of a movie or book and get away with trying to be an expert. The only person worth comparing with is a proven expert who also writes books in the same field that sell and teaches there also. I have been a university professor. I have taught hundreds.
6. Ideas count for little. Projects completed count for much.
7. Debating idea to idea is high school stuff in my estimation, good for young people just starting out in adult life who have not accomplished anything yet. Adults don’t debate. They do matching accomplishment with counter accomplishment in the real world. In business: can you make a better product, not do you have a better idea. Who can judge ideas?
8. Saying you speak for other commentators here is also a debate trick. The reality is that you and I and anyone only speak for ourselves.
9. It is good to learn, as I am always learning, that comments on a free-flow forum like this, don’t mean anything. Why? Because they are uncommitted comments. People need self-expression. Certainly I do. I don’t go to the cafe and find someone to have a friendly debate with on some terribly binding issues about life. Right now I go to this forum. Yet we have no commitment to each other, either to change our views or to create something useful together.
10. Has this thread accomplished anything? Clear away the ego-posturing and do you have anything left from anyone’s comments here? What have I learned? What have you or anyone else learned about yourself or what an expert is?
11. Here is my big conclusion. An expert is not someone who writes articles, does research and gives opinions. An expert is someone who has produced a project of significance being used by others. Ideas are practically useless unless you use the right ideas at the right time to produce something of value. Thus authors of books listen only to other authors of books. They don’t listen to critics who do not do the work they have done in a given field.
12. Lastly, I would caution your thinking that ideas of genius are at all a measure of anything in this life. Genius is an artificial term from university professors. They rely for their income and personal recognition in life on such ideas and artificial tests of IQ. They hope to define genius. It is from my limited life span, point of view a waste of time. At Berkeley, California, the university there, they had an institute for the study of the human personality. Gee, some smart people with degrees are going to figure out what the human personality is? We were excited. However, I decided and did go out and work with real people, including professors and students and helped the well-motivated ones turn their lives around. Which one knew more about the human personality? Those psychotherapists like myself, or the university professors and their students who might humble themselves and seek effective help with us who served them and their community? Berkeley had one of the highest ratios of therapists to population of anywhere in the country. Draw your own conclusions.
13. Don’t waste your life or your gifts. Stop all non-productive behavior immediately!

[Reply]

Chinmay Chakravarty writes:

William Shakespeare, Sir Walter Scott, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, RL Stevenson, Charles Dickens, Alexandre Dumas, Albert Kamus, Arthur Koestler, Cervantes, Fydor Dostoevsky, Maxim Gorky, Karl Marx and many many greats of all times did not have the advantage of ezine sites and did not have a blog platform to debate who could be a better expert.

Who made them all all-time genius experts in their field?

[Reply]

Strephon Kaplan-Williams writes:

To Chinmay Chakravarty: What I know of most of the writers you mentioned, they engaged in heavy interactions in their time, the equivalent of what a forum such as this could be. Actually, forums are rather weak that don’t engage in controversy.

Dostoevsky went to prison in Siberia for being a member of a group that wanted to change society.

Shakespeare left his family to work in London as an actor and not just a playwright and therefore being in the midst of play-writing development in that day.

His fellow playwright, Christopher Marlow was killed in a knife-fight, right through the eye. He was conceded to have as great a talent as Shakespeare’s.

Albert Camus spoke out regularly against totalitarianism.

Debates about Scott’s novels went on during his lifetime and after. Mark Twain, an American writer, criticized Scott for romanticizing war and thus giving the South the romantic motivation to fight the civil war. We could go into the lives of these other writers and probably find they all engaged in heavy debate in the forming of their styles of writing.

Each of these men took the debates of their times and produced books dramatizing those issues. Thus their actually producing significant work made them experts.

I do hope everyone here gets the point. If you can’t produce significant work, at least help those who are doing so.

To Christina Sponias: They killed Socrates by poisoning. His own people did this because he debated the issues and sought to develop ways of asserting the truth. Before Jesus Socrates was killed for the cause. Are you sure you are not romanticizing here?

Do you really want pleasant exchange of ideas and issues? Read Report to Greco, if you want to go with a modern Greek author and fighter. It is Kazantzakis at work battling in the world. The local orthodox nuns have been reported to sh-t on his grave.

Strange how we seem to get different impressions of the same thing?

[Reply]

Christopher M. Knight writes:

Strephon and Lance,

//putting on moderator hat//

A challenge to both of you:

BE BRIEF

:-)

…So us mere mortals can keep up with the conversation.

[Reply]

Chinmay Chakravarty writes:

To SKW, Sir

Thanks a lot. Point taken. But those times their forums were very localised. That couldn’t have worked for them like the way today’s marketing works.

I want due emphasis given on the readers or viewers. Those writers’ works have been accepted universally with huge readership the world over. Their books have been translated into countless languages. The original books were marketed by the publishers, of course. But the point is their works have been accepted. The readers thus come in as the decisive factor.

Now readers have many options to make or break a writer. They can do it at home without even spending a penny.

Aren’t the readers the most important factor to define an expert?

[Reply]

Christina Sponias writes:

Hi Strephon!

Thank you for your explanation! Yes, reality has many sides! You are right, but there was also the beautiful part of Greek’s philosophy.
We can both be right, even though we have different opinions, because each one of us examines the same reality from different points of view.
I personally never fight with anyone because of a different opinion. Opinions are only opinions! Perhaps tomorrow I’m going to change my mind after learning something I don’t know today and will agree completely with you, while today I have a different opinion because I’m based in different information.
It would be nice if we could always have a friendly spirit in our discussions, even though each one of us has a totally different opinion about the same thing.

Hi Kip!

Thank you for your message! My contact is the left side of my site, but never mind, I found easily your contact and I already sent you a message. You’ll be able to see my work and perhaps understand why I had so many problems with this revision.

Christina

[Reply]

Strephon Kaplan-Williams writes:

Chris,
My challenge to you and everyone is: be committed, be deep, be focused and be relevant to life as it is lived today. Brief to me means superficial. I dance the tango! Not the fox trot!

To Chinmay Chakravarty: I believe we are congruent. I have cited my 350,000 books in circulation. This is letting the reader decide.

I am now working on finishing up a non-Christian, Jesus novel that could go into the millions. I write my best I can as a member of my epoch, and if what I write for others is bought and read, that is the final verdict.

Of the people I have known intimately in my life, hardly a one has any mention in a Google search. Relevancy to the lives of others, not self-expression, is the final criterion. Thanks!

Dear Christina,
I try to operate with core principles: one is that people can have different valid approaches to the same problem or issue. Here we adopt the same value.

Two: for decisive action one must take one position and carry it through to completion, or nothing significant gets done. Here we may differ.

Three: conflict and fighting are essential to the creative process. Here we probably certainly differ.

And four: Americans go fight battles abroad but they don’t know how to fight creatively at home so as to contribute positively to themselves and humanity.

Americans don’t face very well conflict at home, so make a mess of it abroad as well. Americans don’t handle conflict at all well because they tend to avoid or try to control it. I don’t say that you are American, but this is an American-based forum.

There are cultural differences! I’ve lived and taught abroad now for fifteen years in Scotland, England, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Netherlands and Romania.

Who has the most police per capita in the world?

[Reply]

Christopher M. Knight writes:

All,

Fair notice that I intend to close this thread because it is no longer productive.

I will leave it open with hopes that future comments will stay ON TOPIC.

That means, leave the politics and sweeping generalizations out.

Thanks,
-Chris

[Reply]

Christina Sponias writes:

Hi Chris!

This post was very nice though! We learned a lot!

Strephon, you are a great personality!

Lance is another great personality we have in this blog!

Thank you both for your lessons! You both are excellent writers!

Christina

[Reply]

Strephon Kaplan-Williams writes:

Yes, Christina, Chris, and to Everybody here. I have read all your comments and followed the thread closely at its various levels of human concern. I have given my best. Good luck to everybody in what they are intending to do with their lives and projects.

Thanks for sharing!!!

“It is finished . . ..”

–Strephon Kaplan-Williams

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Strephon writes: “An expert is not someone who writes articles, does research and gives opinions. An expert is someone who has produced a project of significance being used by others.”

Okay if we use this working definition then finding the experts can be done only by way of personal resume and verification. For instance we must ask each online article author here:

1.) What have you done or produced that made a significant change to an industry, domain or society? Then we have to ask them to prove it.

2.) Then all we have to do is verify and we have separated the experts from the non-experts.

Strephon writes: “Ideas are practically useless unless you use the right ideas at the right time to produce something of value.”

I concur that generally this is the case, and yet often enough I find that carefully placing ideas or concepts in the write place can bring about significant changes which will be used by people. And I recall that Leonardo da Vinci, never completed all his projects, but we have hang-gliders, helicopters and bicycles now? So, I wonder how we can justify “ideas” as generally fruitless? Maybe we might say that;

“Experts have ideas, but having ideas alone would not make them an expert”

Without the light-bulb going off, without the thought, then you cannot even begin the project right? Chicken and Egg. Any Ideas or Thoughts on narrowing in on a relevant definition?

[Reply]

Strephon Kaplan-Williams writes:

Lance,

My response to your last issues here is the statement that ‘there is no true knowledge without commitment.’

We commit first to a given area or project and then our striving for solutions to problems there will have a focus that has a chance to get what we discover through idea generation into reality.

I think you hope as a ‘non-expert’ that your ideas will somehow enlighten people enough to inspire them to change.

My work as a consultant is to get the people who hire me to commit first to my direction based on a goal they commit to actualizing with me. If their commitment fails then I quit the project.

Your Nairobi Slums plan is a classic example of this dilemma. Ideas first but nobody implements.

Better commitment first and then a plan that is relevant to that commitment. Working with real people is your most effective method.

Leonardo carried his painting, the Mona Lisa, around in a cart as he moved to find a job. His notebook kept some ideas, but he committed to certain ideas that were realizable and produced end product of value.

It’s committed to ideas we are talking about here.

[Reply]

Strephon Kaplan-Williams writes:

Chris,

The GENERAL hopes that he wins the battle and all his division commanders act efficiently and at the right time, carrying out their narrowly defined tasks to the full.

But in real life winning and losing battles does not work that way. The GENERAL’S DIVISION COMMANDERS will win the battle for him, but the brilliant commanders in the field may expend a lot of soldiers doing so, in the midst of it all, devising brilliant tactics, that are of benefit to all.

The GENERAL will have his VICTORY, but not in the way HE wants IT . . .

Generals must be patient. Battles are in progress . . .!

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Strephon, To insure that the project is feasible we must agree on a workable definition of both “Expert” and “Authority” as per the original topic.

I am concerned that the definition we pick might be conveniently crafted to include those who wish to attain the label. Thus, I prefer not to be called an “expert” keeping me on stable footing; neutral. Do we agree on the goals of the project to find:

“an efficient method of determining if an online posted article was written by an expert or authority”

Not interested in enlightening anyone this time around only desire to find the most efficient method to find the experts. Then go thru all the authors here as a test case, next the entire Internet and then the Terabytes of other information that is also of need.

Re: Nairobi Kenya Slums, comments invalid due limited data on the issue.

[Reply]

Strephon Kaplan-Williams writes:

Lance,

I am not sure what you are asking for here in your last comment. Let’s speak, expert to expert, as ones believing in the value of ideas as having positive impact on at least some.

My definition of my role here is as a participant sharing ideas, like around a good expresso or cafe latte at a wonderful little coffee shop. It is a social need.

My other definition of my role here is as an expert writer testing ideas that are useful to me in my projects, mainly right now in writing my Jesus novel, which is full of great dialogue, since the historical Jesus’ non-Christian teachings show him dealing with the key issues of life that his students are asking him about. This novel will be enough of a splash in the culture.

As a writer my self-defined role here is to sharpen my skills of expression and discourse in my use of ideas, values and words.

What is your self-defined role here? Self-definition gives us needed focus in life.

What is Chris’s role here? I’m not sure he always knows. What happened in this blog was that you and I expressed values and concepts using sometimes passion and many words, which he felt he had to come down on because of his value-system.

I think he missed the point that if he wants new ideas he will have to let some of his best article writers express themselves as they have developed their own art of expression, and not as he wants.

Article writers sometimes need more words, just as in article writing, and passion to back up those words.

You asked: Do we agree on the goals of the project to find: ‚¬“an efficient method of determining if an online posted article was written by an expert or authority‚¬

No, we don’t agree. I tried to convey the point that I don’t work for free. No one has hired me to help produce the best of my ideas for such a project as this.

In fact Chris has come down on us both, maintaining that he and others could not follow us. That is a clear rejection of our dialogue. We are not hired, Lance. We have no authority to proceed. Without authority and respect, don’t waste your time.

This is my point about committed knowledge. Believe in the ideas that come to you but don’t try to actualize them unless you have a committed team with which to work.

I had to realize that people don’t necessarily want even my good ideas just because I have them. Maybe you need to realize this also? Reality is reality.

Okay with this? I love your spirit, Lance. You have been real with me. I treasure that. I appreciate your gifts and your struggles!

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Strephon,

Yes, I concur with the “Coffee Shop” dialogue scenario and do that every day while traveling. Speaking of Experts we can call Chris an “expert” and consider what makes him an expert for our definition? He fits your earlier definition actually, we know enough about Chris to use him as our test subject when applying the definition.

You have stated with regards to the goals of such a potential project that you do not agree and that you’ve; “Tried to convey the point that I don’t work for free. No one has hired me to help produce the best of my ideas for such a project as this.”

That is irrelevant, as I was asking a direct question. Are you saying that previously you have been holding back your thoughts? Why would you do that? Do you do this in coffee shop dialogues too? And with regard to authority, why do you need anyone else’s authority, the articles are on the Internet here and elsewhere? Wouldn’t you personally like a “BS-Filter” as an Internet User and reader? I would and so I do not see it as a waste of time at all.

Strephon if you are looking for “respect from your fellow man” [Maslow] then would you say that your need for respect trumps your need to know? And that your need for respect could cloud your judgment in designing a definition of expert? Unless you are paid? How does that work? Interesting, I do not see how one has much to do with the other. Oh and no struggles here, and no I would never title a book, “My Struggles” either.

Strephon, you state that “I had to realize that people don’t necessarily want even my good ideas just because I have them.”

That’s a given of course, but I do not believe that is the case here now. Writing articles and having them available makes sense to assist those looking for answers when they are ready to receive the information. Meanwhile, here are some thoughts on searching for Geniuses on the Internet I previously considered and perhaps might be of value to find “experts” who write online articles.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Finding-Geniuses-on-the-Street&id=550117

http://ezinearticles.com/?Finding-Geniuses-at-Universities&id=550107

http://ezinearticles.com/?How-Do-We-Find-Geniuses-in-Our-Society-Both-Young-and-Old?&id=406899

http://ezinearticles.com/?Collecting-Geniuses-to-Fix-The-World&id=553614

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Imminent-Achiever-Creative-Genius-as-an-Online-Article-Author&id=579138

http://ezinearticles.com/?Difficult-to-Find-the-Geniuses-of-the-World—They-Blend-into-Society&id=467907

http://ezinearticles.com/?2007-The-Search-for-Geniuses-Gets-Underway-via-Internet-Search-Engines&id=406786

http://ezinearticles.com/?2007-The-Year-We-Find-the-Geniuses-Living-Amongst-Us&id=406779

http://ezinearticles.com/?Super-Computers-to-Scan-Data-and-Find-Anomalies-in-Society-and-Discover-Creative-Geniuses&id=471143

http://ezinearticles.com/?Mensa-has-Rounded-Up-Lots-of-High-IQ-People;-But-How-Do-We-Find-the-Geniuses?&id=417683

[Reply]

Chinmay Chakravarty writes:

My Dear Watson, you are so wrong! This case is not settled as yet. We are dealing here with gentlemen of very high intelligence and integrity. This is only the beginning. At the moment I cannot tell you anything more. Have patience, Watson.

[Reply]

Strephon Kaplan-Williams writes:

My Dear Chakravarty! Will you please pass me our Edinburgh Times when you have sufficiently marked our curious story for additional clues?

[Reply]

Chinmay Chakravarty writes:

Did I say anything, Sir?

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Strephon,

No struggles, you can rest assured “My Struggles” would never be a title of any book I would write. After your long posts, this comment; “I do not think unless I am paid” seems insincere. Are you saying the thoughts giving freely are not as good as the ones you get paid for? How does that work? How does one justify that? If you put out information for free here (articles or posts) are you saying such information is lesser than your true abilities, if so I agree. Being the expert that you have defined, it seems we need to make this point in our definition?

“experts may hold back in their online articles”

This was discussed previously in this thread. We may find experts of articles, but should we agree it would be difficult using Forum Posts, due to the manipulation, Machiavellian and primate politics or level of BS? Would you agree that finding experts via forums is much more difficult than thru articles? If so this is problematic, because there are 100s of millions of Blogs and a million forums and only 50,000 article writers here with only 1/2 a million articles. The need to find the valid articles or words written by experts or authorities is paramount.

I agree with the “coffee shop” scenario, social need, but if those dialogues mimic this thread, one could say that information here is fake? If so what is its value, even if coming from an expert, they would only be coming from an Expert BS’er in that case. Is this the type of thread you wish to spend your valuable thoughts on? If so why, if not would a re-positioning of your displacement be wise? This poses a problem for designing our expert perimeters to our definition. Maybe we should do the opposite, make a “BS” definition to first eliminate the BS and then what is left will be mostly truth. Then from the truth we can determine, which was written by an expert.

Certainly every web-surfer on the planet could benefit from such a tool “BS Filter,” not only here thus there is no need for authority to launch the project. In fact, hasn’t it already started?

[Reply]

Christina Sponias writes:

Hi Lance!

You are a great writer! And I noticed by chance that you are the best article writer of this Ezine, with 11.111 articles! (I was looking for the best one on Depression, my subject) Congratulations!
I think each expert writer must have knowledge enough to give and to sell, without keeping his/her best ideas for when he/her gets paid. An expert can have a type of knowledge he is going to present to the public entirely free of charge and another kind of knowledge he/she is only going to sell, because it’s specific, detailed knowledge.
A real authority has knowledge without end!

Christina

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Christina,

Interesting compliment, but Christina, I do not feel like a great writer more like a non-writer writer, but I am great student and read a lot, a belief that a lifetime of learning is best. I see the writing talents of others and I have only been writing seriously for about 2 years, so I have a long way to go of course. So, I am unable to accept your compliment at this time.

I think I might have a few articles in the “depression” category, as I have had some fellow athletes, employees and franchisees in the past with such issues and it has piqued my curiosity. Depression is a bummer for those with it and those around them too. A large percentage of writers appear to suffer from depression; that is too bad. I wonder if this somehow helps them put emotion onto paper, maybe one of those curses and blessings all in one. Thankfully I do not get depressed, but have been labeled a Hypo-mania? Not into labels, whatever it is am equally thankful for it, good to be me.

Christina, I wonder if when trying to find the expert writers, we might read their articles to find “mild depression” or words that are often used most by depressed people. We might be able to find the “Expert Writers” who are good at writing, but not necessarily experts in the field they are writing about? Have you considered that?

Your comment of writers giving in some areas and selling in others makes a lot of sense to me. I like that and of course this brings up another subject on the topic of experts and authorities namely:

A.) Should we be searching both “Free-Articles” and “For Sale Articles or Paid Works” to find the experts, perhaps giving more credence to the paid works?

B.) Should we understand that non-paid works of passion or non-profit philanthropy, be rated along with the elevated “For Sale Works.”

C.) If so, then how much more credence or credit advantage should they be given? Paid works 40% higher probability of being an expert than free-works?

D.) Non-Fiction works might only count as “expert writer” unless the work goes into extensive details such as in Historical Fiction, Sci Fi or some other aspect, while non-fiction works are given the full 40% up-grade advantage on the scale?

With regards to an authority having literally unlimited information to depart, this makes sense to me because everything is so inter-related and one who does not turn off their mind might indeed, become “over-time” an authority on the life-experience being fully immersed in all aspects of it? Which is a whole other thought entirely?

[Reply]

Christina Sponias writes:

I think an expert writer may not be an expert in the subject he is writing, but if he is good at what he is doing he is going to give the best information he can, as if he was an expert in the matter, but it can’t last too long, he can’t write too many articles about this subject without real knowledge.
On the other hand, if someone is an authority, he doesn’t have this problem because his knowledge is always increasing as he is always learning more, searching and studying all the time!
Besides, we have to consider who is going to read what he writes. An article is written for common people, not for experts in the matter. So, for experts and authorities it’s very easy to give information to people that ignore a lot about the subject they know so well.

Christina

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Christina,

When you stated; “I think an expert writer may not be an expert in the subject he is writing, but if he is good at what he is doing he is going to give the best information he can, as if he was an expert in the matter, but it can’t last too long, he can’t write too many articles about this subject without real knowledge.”

I really agree with this.

Your comments; “On the other hand, if someone is an authority, he doesn’t have this problem because his knowledge is always increasing as he is always learning more, searching and studying all the time!”

Yes, I see that point of contention also, I think that is why I was trying to call that type of individual a “student of the subject” but really, students as they gain knowledge mimic if not become authorities over time. If someone is constantly studying a subject then they will become an authority on those subjects as their observational input, research, reading and experience brings them into the fold.

Thus a “Student of the Subject” is a blurred line with an authority if that student puts pen to paper on his learnings or observations. Meanwhile, this individual is on their way to becoming an “expert” in the field, as well. Would you say that there might also be a blurred line between authority and expert and degrees of expertise too then?

So, I guess another point you have made is that an expert or authority may shine bright due to the level of the audience receiving the information. Therefore a baseline needs to be established based on the readership reviewing the information. Kind of like this toy is for children over 8 years old? Or this research paper level is post-graduate?

[Reply]

Strephon Kaplan-Williams writes:

Lance, to respond to your issue as I understand it, I refer to Chris’ setting up this blog thread. He is the boss. He has us working for free making this a quality site which benefits him.

Our ‘pay’ is getting excellent distribution for our articles on the Web that are supposed to draw visitors to our own sites where we try to sell them our own products, mine being The Writer’s Interface, which for the first time had three product sales within 24 hours.

I consider my ‘pay’ as also participation here with practical minds on good issues.

I participate here to learn new aspects of an issue, including how blog behavior works, including the behavior and attitude of the blog moderator. But also my own behavior and attitudes in working for a ‘boss’ here.

I don’t use my best time, which is concentration time for writing my own books. Rather than passive entertainment I prefer to be active where there are ‘mirrors’ to my own thought processes and values.

I have learned significant things here from others, and so some others have been significant mirrors for me.

But I’m not stupid, hopefully not, anyway. I know I am not directly paid. I know that my boss here is getting free information from me sometimes worth thousands of dollars to others because they have paid me in the past for my best ideas.

I know the difference between committed and uncommitted entrepreneurs. I know the best managers are those who pay for my attention and insights. For they respect what they can learn from an expert who succeeds significantly in life. They are grateful and willing to pay for what they receive, and not simply take.

But the recent reality here is that I and you were fired, not hired. Our exploring issues in depth of a rather tricky question asked of all of us was taken finally as negative, negative to what I am not sure.

One must respect being hired and fired in this life. Oneself? That does not count. This is business. Managers with all their stress and responsibility need to do what they see best to do. They have their own perspective.

So do I have my own perspective. Sometimes what I do fits with others and is perceived as a real enhancement. If it is not then I am fired. I am not needed or respected for what I contribute.

This is what I mean by don’t give your best for long to someone who has not hired you. Because hiring you is a matter of showing respect and commitment to cooperate with you to solve an issue.

Here on this blog there is no commitment to anybody. It’s boxing without ropes with no good referee, mixed with a few nurses who keep coming in to bandage up the wounded.

So my practice is to know whom I am dealing with and from what core motivation they get me involved with them. To know this about someone else I must keep learning about myself and my real motivations in interaction with another in a situation.

But learn from the process, I must, or I truly have wasted my time and gifts and experience.

Please, please listen carefully to what I am saying. I can’t keep saying the message: know yourself. Don’t blame others. Don’t be naive about others and how they get you involved with them. Bring choice, action and consequences to all your encounters.

Don’t be skinny when you are fat. Don’t be fat when you are skinny!

[Reply]

Christina Sponias writes:

Lance,

If you write for experts in the matter things are very hard because you have to give detailed information, many tiring explanations and proofs. If you write for people that ignore a lot about your subject you can give them general information, what is very easy for an expert or an authority and what is very helpful for their readers, since they only want to solve their problems; they don’t want to learn everything they can about this matter.

Christina

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Strephon,

If your goal is to learn how blog or forum behavior works or wish to psycho-analyze here is a good place to start;

http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=Lance_Winslow&ecat=Internet-and-Businesses-Online:Forums

http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=Lance_Winslow&ecat=Internet-and-Businesses-Online:Blogging

EzineArticles is a Win/Win, relevant venue, I predict continued success and growth and what a wonderful place to study human nature and this current question at hand; what makes an expert or how can we tell if an article was written by an expert.

You state: “Here on this blog there is no commitment to anybody. It’s boxing without ropes with no good referee, mixed with a few nurses who keep coming in to bandage up the wounded.”

This is a choice of those participating, if one gives no commitment, they certainly should not expect any. If one jabs they should probably expect a right hook, a few combinations or even a KO and thus one might wish to defend themselves as the other goes in for the intellectual kill. But remember one made choice and that is what life is all about isn’t it? Would you say that an expert tactician might do that? Would it be an expert in debate? You have made an excellent point, I am so grateful to have learned something from your brilliant brain and elegant words. You are a great writer.

You have stated that it is your practice to know who you are getting involved with, but you have systematically mis-categorized that which you do not know? Do you mean rather who you are going to war with on the forum here because if so, don’t you feel Sun Tzu also had to say a thing or two, would you say he is an expert? Or how about Maltz, which you practically quoted here and his psycho-cybernetics theories? You have an incredible gift to plant relevant hidden meaning your words, you are a gift to humanity.

It has been an interesting observation of your behavior, are you wishing to become an “expert” in behavior on the Internet too? Might be a great idea for your psychotherapy expertise to study such things in pop-culture? How much studying will you have to do on this subject to consider yourself an expert? How many articles would that be? I have no doubt you will add this to your long list of expertise, which will deliver enlightenment to the world and riches to your person.

These are questions we need to help us in defining the what an “Expert” really is you see? It is so great of you to share your many gifts and incredible mind and talent with us. What an honor to be in dialogue with such a genius, gentleman and scholar. I am truly humbled by your magnificent thoughts and wisdom. Thank you so much, I love your mind, energy and spirit.

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Computer, if you are talking to an “expert” or equal, often you can do so without all the footnotes, end notes or proofs, because you already share all that as common knowledge, thus you can often by-pass that in conversation, emails or simple non-research paper writings. Don’t you prefer talking to those types of folks over the average non-industry or domain individual? It is my contention that an expert can do either, they can talk in laymen’s terms or expert terms of the industry or scientific field. If they cannot do both, I cannot believe that they are true experts, more like organic robots.

[Reply]

Christina Sponias writes:

You can’t expect too much from an article, Lance. It’s too short!

Christina

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Christina, okay I agree. But how about this. Even a short article you might be able to find glimpse that indicate “expertise” and you might be able to say:

A.) there is a 56% chance this was written by an expert.

B.) there is insuffient data in this article to tell if it were written by an expert.

So even if we cannot design a system to guarantee the results we could perhaps get a relative approximation statistic probability?

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Strephon,

I had the wonderful opportunity of going thru all your websites and information today; WOW. You have done so much and I am so impressed with all you have done. I was able to also read all your articles here too and I must say you certainly are a superstar expert in you many areas of expertise, science and fields. It is amazing all you have accomplished and achieved and how many people you have helped. Yes, you are one of the top experts here indeed. You deserve an award and are certainly worthy of my praise and I bow down to your strong character, integrity and wisdom. I love your spirit, Strephon. You have been real treat and inspiration for me. I treasure that. You talents and gifts are absolutely wonderful! Your many books on dream and spirituality is absolutely fascinating. Of all the people I have met in my entire life, you surely stand out on top. It is incredible how little I knew about all your wonderful work, certainly a life well lived and I hope that you are well rewarded in the next life. Thank you so much for your enlightenment and wisdom. I wish to go on the permanent record on this matter, you are one of a kind. :)

[Reply]