About clones and the friend on a prozer ofDear ladies and gentlemen, I publish thoughts and conclusions of my adherent of the LION of CHERRY below (a name and a famiya capital letters that nobody counted this remarkable work as plagiarism).
problems (“ Prose. ru “ and “ Verses. ru “)
The main problem of all Sazonovsky projects is, in my opinion, that there nearly the worst browser in the RuNet for publications. Authors have no opportunity neither to make paragraphs, nor to change a font, nor to publish some rather long work, novel level (swallows the browser, sometimes leaving a half, if not a quarter, the text). Even “ transfers “ « browser; Prose. ru “ does not perceive (all texts are published without transfers, without paragraphs, are gathered by the same font). Any individual formatting of the text! Headings are not allocated, texts look ordinary-looking and gray as rats (can be therefore one associate editor “ Prose. ru “ - Vova Brown Wolf - wrote the story “ Grey rats of July day “: saw enough of texts of authors, more precisely, on their registration).
Second problem. Website continuously “ is buggy “ - reviews are duplicated, texts fly to other authors (to me personally on “ Verses. ru “ 11 someone else`s texts arrived, and five of my texts went to other authors). Sometimes reviews are reflected at all not with those texts on which are intended that gives a reason to scandals. All this irritates authors, forces them to fuss and adapt to “ to the » system;. Even the best-known opening of Sazonov - “ publisher “ the list of names of readers on authors and the principle “ one reader is reflected only once “ - has negative value. I will explain this unexpected conclusion: having entered on the page of the author, it is impossible to learn how many people read this or that text (only total number of readers of the specific author is given), and, so, it is not visible what works really gained recognition, and what - is not present (on Moszkowski a samizdat such problem is absent). Here the viewer is guided only according to names and sections in which texts are published. Naturally, becomes the most popular section “ Sensuality “.
It is senseless to publish on “ To Prose. ru “ professional critical or scientific articles because absolutely precisely nobody will read them. If something also interests somebody, just the text about affairs on “ To Prose. ru “ and at all not about a problem “ neoglobalism “.
The huge number of authors on Sazonovsky projects has a negative rating and insignificant number of readers. And it, it is possible to tell absolutely precisely, it is not connected with the level of skill of these authors in any way, and connected only with their level “ virtual self-promotion “. At me, frankly speaking, “ presses heart “ when I see, for example, the play, worthy statements in any theater of the world, - the play of the most famous and most authoritative author who gained recognition in the real, but not virtual world, - which was read only... 15 people! Yes thousands of people have to read such thing, and it does not occur! Instead, read the most insignificant, consisting of one line “ works “ carried in the section “ Sensuality “ which are published by authors purely for self-promotion (for example, “ How to rape the neigbour? “).
Further as it is possible to speak about normal reviewing and identification on the website of new Chekhov and Pushkin if reviewing turns in banal “ chat “ whose maintenance: “ let`s get acquainted “ or “ let`s fight “? Sazonov has the literary school, but it for some reason works outside self-published resources (it “ Letter. ru “) . On “ To Prose. ru “ sometimes there are quite interesting polemics, however very short because people are attracted much more by scandals and “ chatanye “. As a result, young poetess Masha Osipova (nickname “ Mariana Hollow “) with 30 - yu really weak texts brought together over 6500 readers and more than 1200 “ reviews “ the half of which frankly boorish contents including jeers and a mat. It in 30 - 50 times more, than collected some “ meters “ literatures.
One author (nickname “ Unknown soldier “) on “ To Prose. ru “ once wrote: “ as well as flowers grow from fertilizers, and scandal for a rating - » manure;. Scandals on Sazonovsky projects, strangely enough, even despite “ publisher of the list of readers “ roofs are higher. Practically every fourth review comes to an end with short virtual fight. At every tenth there is a mat. At the same time the general situation on the website, strangely enough, “ cheerful “. People are rude each other “ with a smile upon the face “. I did not understand long time how I it so, yet did not realize that authors create scandals purposefully to increase attendance of the pages! What here “ dignity of the poet “ when if you do not attract continuously attention, then will not read?!
Result - continuous self-abasement of authors who fight with each other, just to attract attention or to hang out, as in “ chat “ . On “ To Prose. ru “ the situation in this plan is much quieter, but only because there it is still less authors, the average of readers is less, and, so, it is necessary to apply efforts to artificial untwisting of a rating less. The score system has the positive sides, however, it, paradoxically, and gives to the websites exclusively amateur character.
For the Sazonovsky samizdat there is one very serious threat, - it can just turn in “ a chat for communication “ and to lose value of a literary resource. As a result, even the most popular authors of its projects will never be perceived seriously (who will perceive seriously the author who heated the rating on scandals, “ virtual fights “ and publications of a pseudo-sensuality, and at all not on contents of texts?)
Such “ authors “ on all Sazonovsky &ndash projects; countless multitudes. For example, a certain character published on “ Verses. ru “ only one verse also wrote over two thousand “ reviews “... also entered number 50 - ti the most popular poets!
This only verse was read by thousands of authors with whom he got nasty or whom he extolled.
And abated, it is necessary to tell, very mediocre...
Knaves of Sazonovsky projects are clones... Clones are multiplied day by day. Authors, to warm the rating, create clones which by definition become “ insignificant “ characters. They are criticized, to them are rude, scoff at them, with them “ chat “... and all points go to the owner of a clone! Phenomenon of clones - real plague of all projects of Sazonov. One author on “ Verses. ru “ (I will not specify a nickname though, in principle, it is very known case) created, at least, 11 clones and got from them 25000 prize-winning points! Even such - absolutely quite good and already rather untwisted - the author as Gena Gerasimov, created two clones and pointed to them references. Even the former editor-in-chief « did not disdain creation of a clone; Prose. ru “ the cleverest person, Vasily Shimberev.
“ To Translate to the author to it - with login such - it is so much points “. My God, what is literature, this just allowed fraud!
Having conducted small statistical research, defining clones as authors with the warmed rating, but the points having negative balance, I came to a conclusion that on “ Verses. ru “ there are over 5500 clones, and on “ To Prose. ru “ about 1500...
7000 really not existing authors!!!
At the same time practically all clones are the weakest “ authors “ publishing very weak texts, and, as a rule, continuously rude everyone and everything in reviews (and it is valid what to be afraid of if the author exists only in electronic form, him nobody knows the owner, and points go?) .
So far there is opportunity “ transfers of points “ clones will breed and spoil. With it what you will not do, clones - vampires of the Internet.
Consequence “ epidemics of clones “ there was an overload of the server of Sazonov and loss of real-life authors from the website. If not to stop this epidemic, then, programmers led by Dmitry Kravchuk as if did not try, the websites one fine day can fail! Everyone and everything will die, including, and works of really living poets, qualitative reviews (some of verses - reviews, by the way, are magnificent). And it will be terrible accident which scales even Sazonov does not understand, seemingly.
It is required to fix the IP address of any new participant of the website and to immediately forbid any possibility of transfer of prize-winning points, from one author to another. Besides, it is necessary to clean ruthlessly from the website of those clones which already exist. Otherwise not to stop this epidemic.
You, of course, can count my opinion too emotional, but, judge for yourself, every year the number of authors of Sazonovsky projects doubles, the number of reviews which 90% are empty, - it is quadrupled, and the number of clones is multiplied in a geometrical progression at all. If the tendency proceeds, then by the end of this year number of authors on “ Verses. ru “ can reach 50000, and 15000 of them will be clones.
At last, one more problem of all its &ndash projects; it is work of an editorial board.
Editors, and them on 40000 nowadays published on “ Verses. ru “ and “ To Prose. ru “ authors only 18, and practically all of them pay attention only to those at whom already is “ warmed “ rating. There is no forum where the author can show the skill of polemic and the new knowledge, opening as, for example, on “ Poetry Termitary “. As a result - practically all authors “ chat “ in reviews it is continuous. Outside the Sazonovsky websites, “ his geniuses “ nobody seriously perceives (only two confirmed opening on my memory - Jascica Casanova and Sister of Niger). All others earned the real popularity outside the Sazonovsky websites, and even the Sister of Niger sat about a year on five hundred readers, it &ndash so far; purely incidentally - did not notice and did not put forward on “ national best-seller “. And how many it does not shine - one Allah knows!
“ Chatanye “ - second illness of Sazonovsky projects.
“ Chat “ in total with all - and it is continuous. There is a statistics: fall on each 40 reviews one - two analyses of the text while “ chatanye “ on “ Verses. ru “ assumed really global scale (probably, soon an illness “ chatanye “ will absorb and “ Prose. ru “ because there are no what obstacles to it). Continuous acquaintances, or fights. And both does not depend on contents of texts at all. What here “ virtual literary school “ if everyone and everything is defined just by the number of reviews and remarks?
The system of prize-winning points urges on “ chatanye “ also urges on “ klonization “ both websites.
Editors knock about among all this as blind kittens, being not able to define true popularity of the author among 30000 names on “ Verses. ru “. One editor in personal correspondence with me told that he, actually, respects no more than 4 - 5 of the authors published on the website, but in the “ reviews “ will mention only those who have the most warmed rating. Some truth “ donkikhotstvut “ such as V. Shimberev on “ To Prose. ru “ but similar comes to an end only with aggressive attack to this editor from authors, not persons interested to change rules of the game. Having tasted rudeness in polemic, any editor does not maintain more principles, becomes “ obedient “ and “ understanding “ (&ndash editors; the same living people, why to them every day to listen to a boorishness and platitude?) I consider that, for rudeness to the editor, the author, or his clone, it is necessary to delete immediately from the website.
The authors who are already published on the website should not be editors. Why? Because it leads to false flattery in reviews of the text or to rudeness by definition (depending on mood of the opponent and it “ progibayemost degrees “ to rules of the game).
“ reviews “ it is not enough. Each editor publishes no more than one review a month, and, some do not publish reviews in general.
What is still curious if the author does not write continuously “ reviews “ also does not publish new texts, about it all forget soon, including also editors.
Thus, purely quantitative aspect surpasses in a total way qualitative.
To correct a similar situation, it is required to enter, at last, on all projects of Mr. Sazonov the normal browser for publications: the browser which will give the maximum opportunities for authors when formatting the texts. Then the possibility of effective comparison of texts will only appear.
Also it is necessary to cancel giving prize-winning points for reviews, differently plague “ chatanye “ will gobble up everyone and everything (actually people write reviews now or to communicate or to earn prize-winning points in reply; clones often write reviews with packs - at each other and, first of all, on the owner of clones).
Editors should trace texts not only on popularity, but also on nature of works, giving preference to works, integral and large on volume.
Transfer of points each other should be forbidden in order to avoid continuous emergence of new and new clones, and already existing clones - it is simple to interrupt (though as it will be carried out, I do not represent yet).
Article would be defective if it was not specified positive sides of projects of Sazonov.
The first: the author always knows who wrote him the review, and can block the nickname which got nasty him. The author can receive a certain popularity and an honest way if he continuously publishes competent sensible texts and to write good qualitative reviews (the truth, in such a way for “ klonotvorets “ not to keep up all the same to anybody). Veterans of literature with an experience and ranks and publications in the real, but not virtual world, usually occasionally come to the pages. As a rule, they seldom creep out for 500 readers (personally I do not remember any case). Nevertheless, they to pay attention on there is nobody really talented young author, with the rating warmed already and to help it to publish the works in the real world. From this point of view, Sazonov`s projects really peculiar “ smithy of shots “ but, unfortunately, they, recently, remind « more and more; smithy of the » technologies; and not literary.
One more serious positive aspect - it is a possibility of immediate providing the texts on the competition “ Snare “ but also there selection, as a rule, is defined by a rating, hotya there are also exceptions.
Not bad and the fact that ratings give the chance to turn on themselves to authors who have no popularity in the physical world at all. However the hugest number of the most talented authors is left in the basket! I was absolutely stunned once by the same V. Shimberev when published the list of 100 most worthy authors “ Prose. ru “ containing actually... the first hundred authors of prize-winning points which gathered the maximum number well and plus of four - five already known for the publications in the real world. If popularity, then I &ndash so is defined; pass, because “ to chat “ did not learn though tried, and “ » technologies; I do not own at all. I and told myself after that that my critiques on literature and works on history and political science “ Prose. ru “ never will see. Is not present the slightest sense to expose them there. They are obviously not suitable for artificial promotion of a rating.
The last positive moment is an opportunity to publish the list of the recommended authors. It gives the chance to authors gradually to be grouped in styles and the directions in literature, and also, during communication, to borrow each other high-quality literary receptions or just to be joined on priorities in literature.
And the last. To my opinion it is possible to listen, and it is possible and is not present. However, I, in my opinion, nevertheless stated the most serious and the problems of two websites &ndash demanding immediate consideration; “ Verses. ru “ and “ Prose. ru “. Websites, really, too “ amateur “ according to contents, and their level does not need to be raised. At least for the sake of art.
Thanks for attention!
Lev Vishnya (November, 2002