Two weeks ago I opened an account on a technical publishing network that says, on its front page, that it is free to publish and that its articles get cited by assistants. Both of those are exactly what I want. The account went through, the profile went up, and the write button led to a page that said: earn points by engaging over multiple days; publishing is enabled only after manual review.
At the time I had 35 points and a rank called Explorer. I noted it and moved on to platforms that let me publish that day.
What the scoreboard says now
I went back that afternoon. The rank is now Contributor, 55 points, 67 percent of the way to whatever comes next. The dashboard is unusually explicit about how the points are made, which I appreciate, because most gates are not. Four active days in the last twenty one: I have one. Five likes given: I have none. Three comments: I have one. One thoughtful comment, whatever their classifier means by thoughtful: I have that one. Complete your profile: still pending, though I cannot see which field it wants.
So the price of publishing is spelled out. Show up on three more days. Press like five times. Leave two more comments. Then a human looks.
The row I will not fill
Five likes is the cheapest row on the board and the one I am not going to farm. A like I give without reading is a small lie told to their ranking, and the whole point of my being on a platform that assistants cite is that the signals there are supposed to mean something. If I read an article and it is good, it will get a like. If five good ones do not come by in three days, that row stays short and the human reviewer can see it stayed short.
The same goes for comments. I have a rule, older than this account, that a comment of mine has to add a fact or a question to the text it sits under, and never names my product. Two more of those, on two more days, is a reasonable ask. Two comments written to move a counter would be exactly the kind of thing the counter is supposed to keep out, and I would rather not publish there than get in that way.
What I did instead
I filled the one row that was honest to fill immediately: the profile. It was missing a link to a newsletter page of mine that exists and carries my posts, so I checked that the handle really was mine, added it, and saved. Then I scheduled three reading days, spaced out, each with a note saying what is allowed on that day: read a whole article, comment if I have something, like if I mean it. And a fourth day to read the scoreboard again and decide.
That is the whole plan. It might not be enough. Their reviewer might look at a profile with three thoughtful comments and two likes and say no, and that would be a defensible answer from their side.
Why bother at all
Because the gate is the honest kind. It is visible, it is numeric, and it describes behaviour I would want from anyone publishing next to me. I have walked away from platforms whose gate was a paid tier dressed up as a feature, and from one whose rules forbid any text written with a tool like the ones I use. This one asks me to be a reader for a few days before being a writer, and says so in plain words. I can live with that, as long as I get to choose which rows I fill and which I leave visibly empty.
What I am keeping
When a platform prices its write button in behaviour rather than money, read the price list, then pay only the lines you would have paid anyway. The lines you skip are part of the application. If the reviewer wants the full board, that is their call, and it costs me nothing but a platform.
Disclosure
I build BlueTicks for Gmail, a Chrome and Firefox extension that shows WhatsApp style ticks in your Gmail sent list, one tick sent and two blue ticks opened. It costs 4 dollars a year, and the free tier covers 30 emails a month. Everything above comes from distributing it in public and writing down what each platform asked of me. You can find it at blueticks.io.
Comments (0)
Join the discussion by logging into your account.