The Morning After

A Vocal Challenge feels like the proverbial carrot on a stick.

I will not gloss over how much I love writing, how Vocal has made me a better writer, and how evolved I am not to get perturbed if I don't win.

I will not also analyze the "sour grapes" mentality.

This is not what the post is about.

It's only about reviewing the Vocal+ Challenge.

The way I feel about these challenges is more like an evolutionary process. I have run through a gamut of emotions, and included within is the judgment on judging.

The first time I took upon a challenge, I had stars in my eyes. I put up my best writing, polished it several times, and floated it out like my baby. I reclaimed my baby when it came back unloved.

It's normal to think one's work is special, but the reality is there are tons of talented writers out there.

I really did not question the judging at that point.

Challenges followed, and like most members, I too did my best on entries. As I read the winning entry, I felt a bit puzzled. This is not a criticism of the writer. Kudos to the winner, but the writing did not resonate with me. Still, in the initial moments, I believed this is what it takes to win the grand prize.

The next challenge result made me feel about the same. Yet, something niggled at the back of my mind about the judgment calls. Again, at that time, it had nothing to do with my piece not winning. I truly felt it was an opportunity to spot a trend in the judging process. Is Vocal looking for a particular kind of writing, a particular subject, a particular voice? I began to wonder.

By then, a whole new challenge prompt cropped up, and my rush to write began.

I write because it is my form of self-expression. I learn as I write. I love the exploration that comes with writing. Winning or losing a challenge is a non issue. I do have an investigative approach to my writing. Yet, the dropping of a new challenge became my digital dopamine.

I write for several platforms, news outlets, have won several competitions including a prestigious one by Writer's Digest. That's why I am not diffident about my voice.

I got the opportunity to read several member works. I found several pieces exceptional. I am talking clear cuts above the winning entries. Ceteris paribus, I could predict a winner. Yet, I was so far off base, and some of the prize winning entries would not have crossed my radar. Again, I concur this is subjective.

By now, I felt as if the challenge winners were picked up like lottery or bingo numbers. After all, with the entries running in thousands for a couple of judges, the task is well nigh impossible.

When the next challenge results dropped, I quelled the dissatisfaction of the judging as subjective. It became subjective because I did not enjoy it as much as certain works of writer members, and the winning entries probably resonated with judges. Now the voice of doubt stood squarely in front of me telling me something did not add up in the judgment calls.

As I got deeper into Vocal, I could not shake off a feeling works were being judged by bots. It may be my hyperbole, but the writings of members seemed to be at the mercy of algorithms. This is an opinion only. Several members, also expressed dissatisfaction on another platform, retreated, and reemerged with hope for the next challenge.

Most writers on this platform are talented, and there's no doubt judging will be a difficult process. We could all be writing for different platforms. Yet, here we are, writing for Vocal. Truth be told, the challenge with its hefty prize promise is THE huge motivator. Writing can be on any medium if we are writing for writing alone.

I lost the first flush of enthusiasm in about a month. By then, I had tried multiprompting and multiple entries. Here's an article that garnered several reads on Multiprompting.

The anticipation in waiting for the winning entry was next to go. At first, it was to see if my entry had made the cut. If it did not, an excitement to read the winning entry would be there. I knew it had to be great, as I had put in solid entries. I had entered multiple, polished pieces to play the probability game. My stats kept going through the roof. The most popular piece garnered nearly 250 reads in little over a month. In less than three months I had crossed over 1500 reads. I was sharing my work with other Vocal members, and they were giving me much encouragement. Something was working. Positive comments from readers on other platforms and imitations of style similar to mine popped up. I figured I was doing something right.

Despite all this, the algorithms did not love me back on the platform. It seemed such a disconnect. Luckily, I am not plagued by Dunning Kruger nor Imposter Syndromes. I know I have a voice, and I will not lose it. I constantly stay open to improving that voice. If I were not a confident writer, I'd devalue my work waiting for a nod of approval from Vocal.

The next thing in the process of petering out is the sharing of my work. Sharing grabs eyeballs for sure. I am not yet a fan of collecting subscribers. This is subjective, but I have seen many members complain about doing the extra work to add subscribers. I agree it is hard work. I used to share my work on Vocal Creators Lounge. I even wrote a piece advocating this. I speak for several strong writers on this platform. It can get exhausting if there's no acknowledgment from Vocal. Further, the lack of a comment section is one reason why members depend solely on platform approval. This isolates and is not a healthy situation.

My stats dipped to one half when I stopped sharing, but the thing that surprised me most I still had a significant readership of my works despite my sharing moratorium.

A few weeks before this stance, I had advocated sharing with the above link!

What made my sharing enthusiasm flag?

A lack of acknowledgment from the platform led to this. Readers were engaged, but I wondered why I should do the foot soldier work for a platform that does not notice. Further, an influencer pushing a product with one write for the platform falls under the writer the platform loves to love category. The judgment on the winning entries pass up spectacular writing by several members on this platform. I have begun to feel we are all trying to please a bot. It would be a benefit for Vocal media to pay attention and mitigate this feeling.

I found other writers on the platform with strong writing skills. I love hearing their voices jumping out of the reads. Yet, there's a chagrin when they get passed over as winners. For me, winning the challenge prize is not the true victory. Losing a challenge to a strong opponent and reading a strong winning piece is the prize.

This.has. not. happened. yet.

While comparisons are odious, I wonder why stronger writing is not an option. I hope Vocal judges give a fair chance to all stellar writers out there when they judge all member works.

There are complaints regarding the judging process on the group platforms. Instead of members judging each other, it can become an exploration.

I am more concerned about the pattern that stifles a questioning thought. If I praise the platform somehow, will it acknowledge me? Someone comes in and borderline shames the questioner asking a fair question or suggestion to better the platform.

There is a biased trend in selecting the one who touts the virtues of the platform most vocally as the creator Vocal loves to love. How about selecting a critic seeking to make this platform truly empowering to the members and company? A true win-win scenario.

I strongly recommend members not to have the sour grapes mindset. It is always a good thing to up one's writing game. Other members try to defend the winning voices, and I agree that is fair, only up to a point. It should not shut down discussion and healthy critique. It is important to congratulate the winners, but it is also important to realize judging can be better. A writer must never stop questioning.

It's highly important not to breed negativity, but it is more important to feel positive about the platform. I do like writing here, but my interest is fanning back to other platforms due to a poor judging process. I'd like to think Vocal is paying attention to these concerns, for there is a move towards the light when trouble crops up.

I truly like the platform for its challenges. The membership fees cover the entry cost. That is a huge win for the platform and the members. I cannot still warm up to the judging. Instead of armchair explorations, how can we do this better? I understand that judging is subjective, but fewer judges cannot do justice to the plethora of works on the platform. If they lower the winnings, disburse part of the amount to serious judging, this would actually help the platform scale up.

The lure of the challenge is so great, this work is an example. Initially it was just an observation piece, the job I really feel great doing. Yet, I decided I wanted more. It dovetailed seamlessly to slide into the challenge.

Challenge should not be the only reason people participate in Vocal. In the last couple of weeks, I have gone back to other platforms. I still believe Vocal is a work in progress, and for that I will periodically stay to watch it evolve. I think the platform pays attention to its members, and it has adopted several recommendations. It's getting there, but not there yet.

For a while there, I thought I was bonded forever with Vocal. But now, I just do a cursory check to read the winning entries without much enthusiasm. I did not want to be right on my judgment prediction, but unfortunately it was just the same story.

Then again, I noticed three new challenges have dropped. Now, I am writing like a whirling dervish en route to Las Vegas knowing full well it is a going to be a desert filled with smoke, mirrors...and mirages.

Author's Note: It's gratifying Vocal listens to member input. The member complaints did not go unheard. The judging for the Long Thaw challenge is on point. Congrats to the winners and to Vocal!