AustCarr:
Perhaps a bit of an overreaction there. CS's original question was based on observable metrics, and that seems to be how many are responding. Little to do with our own individual feelings of accomplishment, or lack of same.
My comments weren't directed at CS or any particular individual. And the comment/views obsession has been a factor here for many years, not just recently.
AustCarr:
There is also a difference between singing in the shower for your own enjoyment and singing in public. The former requires no validation to continue whereas the latter doesn't continue long if met with stony silence.
Not a valid analogy as the majority of authors have multiple submissions, a great many of which have received a healthy number of comments. It would be more understandable if they were making their first ever submission. And the stony silence you refer to isn't accurate either - the discussion hasn't been about getting
no comments or views but more along the lines of what the algorithm is to maximise comments and views.
AustCarr:
I shouldn't even comment on the irony of bringing up this argument for purity on the eve of a story challenge; you know, those things where authors compete, get judged, winners (and losers) are published and awards handed out
Of course one is quite entitled to view the Challenges in the way you describe but as we have pointed out repeatedly, almost each time we have a challenge in fact, they are designed to be a bit of fun, to stimulate the creative impulse in authors and to give the readers some involvement. That's why we introduced anyway.