is the work on here starting to feel a little stale?  It's provocative and I expect to be hit hard but coming back to PC after a break, I could almost have predicted who would be recently added to picks, who would be on pg 1 of submissions.  And I was bang on. There's a few new faces/voices too which is heartening.

I'm back at the vexed issue of judging.  I wish deeply we could have anonymous submissions.  That way the work would be valued on its merits pure and simple.  Once picked work could be attributed.   I'm sure it's technically possible to come up with a system which uses randomly generated numbers for the submission process.

And so I step away from the podium my modest proposal delivered and wait for the voices in the thunder.

:)

k

Kevin,

is the work being submitted predictable or the behavior on the site?

i think one thing that contributes is the new writers don't say around long.  if anything adverse is said about their poems, they bolt! (i remember i wanted to bolt because my first submission was rejected, and looking back, it should have been :) ).  in addition, i think the people who have been here a while are writing the best stuff (you among them), which contributes to the predictability, if you will.  and, i believe that's because they've worked hard at improving.

it's a good question (one i've thought about as well); unfortunately, i don't have an answer.  

thanks,

tiko

i stayed away for a while because i felt stale and predictable. but i'll be back when i've found a voice i'm happy with.

dear Kevin

an interesting point your raise for discussion
as the Tibetan painters/creators of Thangka
never sign their work

they feel it is a knowing that flows through them
and do not attach their own personality
to a quest for recognition

miles of smiles
silent lotus

Thank you, Kevin.

I take your point, such moments pass
inspiring insolvency, experimental convention
at least we're free, to come and go — fusion
there is no right lingo for this, Kevin, speak up
— hang in there!

Best wishes


D






.

I'm OK with anonymous submissions, but I'm pretty sure it would contribute to plagiarism.  Lots of people think that if you don't put your name with your work that it's public domain and they can grab it.   According to the last time I looked at the copyright convention, ownership inheres in production, signed or no, but there are lots of sticky fingers out there, and I'd hate to lose my work just because somebody didn't know better.  And, given the nature of the Web, once it's out there, it's OUT there. Can't be called back.  And the catchier it is, the more likely this is to happen.

Rick

Thanks all, enjoying and learning from the discussion.

Valuable point you make Rick about anonymous submissions and plagiarism's sticky fingers.  I hadn't considered that angle.

k

It isn't just you.....I don't know about having anonymous submissions.....I think I could pick out Tom or Milner's voice without any name attachment. I've been reading them too long.

Truth is, familiarity breeds contempt.....after a while......we grow tired of what once enchanted us. Probably the best thing to do is what you did...take a break and try to come back with a new perspective.  If you're looking for others to change, you will be dissapointed. We cling to what little we know with squid tenticles.

If you are determined to fuel change, you might try submitting exercises that challenge writers to go in a new
direction. Tom's "word of the day" is an example of what I mean.

d

Lynn's, originally.
But yes, challenges are just that, prods to change.

I think it's easy to get clubby, especially if you build up a relationship with particular writers.  We like them, know their backgrounds, know their struggles, and it's hard not to give them a pass on minor difficulties in a poem.   When I do this (on those *very rare* occasions when I do ;)) the person I'm really going easy on is myself -- not wanting to damage the relationship by being too much of a hardass.

Rick

Not sure Kevin's proposition is clear. It seems the issue is in the "judging." The "judging" is evidenced by the movement of a work to the Editor's Pick and the Front Page. These acts are not the consensus of a contested prize, but the reflection of the taste of the editor making the pick. So the conclusion drawn from the proposition is that the picks are by the same editors and the editors are reflecting little change in their taste. I've been thinking about stepping back from the role and giving room for some new blood.

larry

Larry, what you wrote above has made me want to re-visit the idea of one-editor-picks-a-poem.  What would it hurt to have to have two or three of us agree on a poem?  I would much rather have you active in picking than bowing out to make things more fair.  I may disagree with individual calls, but I think all of us editors are good readers and have something to contribute to our colleagues' development.

Rick

I would love and support the idea of requiring a few editors to agree before a poem is moved to editors pick - I agree and have seen many poems there and wondered why/how/who would put this there - I think having 2 or even 3 editors support and select a poem would make the system much stronger.

This has become an interesting discussion
so i would like to add few thoughts to freely toss around.
silent lotus

There is a certain amount of beauty in diversity

Is there something wrong with each editor having the freedom to express their personal taste ?

Why not list which editor made the pick ?

And the Anthology from last year which we are still awaiting
was supposedly created by only front page selections
but i do not believe there is a registration in the front page
archive as to who made each individual selection.

Also as there has been discussion about how to keep newcomers from leaving PC
after having their work placed in the reject basket .....
i then pose this question to everyone at PC

Does judging by a secrete society build a community spirit ?

There are here also some members that submit poems
and very very seldom offer a response to anyone else's poems
as well as a hundred or so guests each day who just visit.

There are also editor's who have not posted a profile
so that leaves members not knowing at all who is
judging them.

nice idea

I gave the multiple editor concept some brain cells yesterday. The problem that
arose was that any need for a consensus would require more time. I would be
fine with showcasing the front page poem for a month, which would give considered works time to circulate from judge to judge, but I have brought this
issue up before, and others felt that they liked the current weekly pace of
changing the front page.

One thing we might consider is to establish a "Nominations" or "Reviews" board. ANY reader could post a comment on a poem that they felt merited attention. Then, the editor who was slated to pick the poem that particular week or month, could examine the requests. For me, it would be helpful because I can't be here around the clock.  In fact, as some of you know, I am not currently on the rotation to select front page entries for that very reason.  A helpful review could prevent me ( or whoever is selecting ) from ignoring something special.

I like the idea of knowing which poet has selected the front page entry.  I often wonder about it myself.

I wish there was a way to make the calendar more prominent.  The editor choosing the poem for the week is on the calendar but who clicks on the calendar?  Nothing interesting there!  Year before last I tried noting the birthdays of famous poets on the calendar but never got any reaction there!

A quick temporary fix would be that each editor can make sure to post on the thread that it was their pick - I try to do that already, but I guess that I could be more clear about it - M

*Meant to quote Desiree's reply here -- that's what I'm referring to**


I'm not an editor but I'd like to give feedback.

I think posting a poem for a month would be good in the sense that it seems choice of the poem would be refined.  12 vs 52 poems -- a poem chosen for a month would really have to be a killer.  Or should be.

Yet, for those whose view is a pop in and a pop out, and the front page is what they judge the site by, or something they have interest in, and visit PoetryCircle often, I think variety is something you should offer readers like that.  I know if I visited a site now and then (which I often do, other sites) and kept seeing the same poem on the front page, I would begin to wonder if that poem is the signature of the site.  Know what I mean?

Maybe 2 weeks?  That would break it down to 26 poems a year rather than 52, and narrow the chances of not having a killer poem on the front page.

cheryl

i like the weekly rotation because it
highlights more writers and offers
 a greater opportunity to reward
those who are doing good work,
as well as the variety and diversity
of the site.  

Cheryl it is good that you mentioned the many who visit the site, because I think it probable they far outnumber members. Many will be of that forgotten breed - those who just like to read poetry. For their sakes, I'd suggest we keep to a weekly change for the front page.

I believe Jay's intention in having a number of editors, was to ensure variety. Surely any move for consensus on choice among the editors would work against that. This isn't a club, or a magazine, it is a forum. Is it so hard to remember that each pick is an editor's personal preference, not the decision of a board, and view it in that light?

In reference to the opening theme of this thread that Kevin posted, may I say that over the 5 years I was an active editor I had the same feelings a number of times. But then things seemed to spark again, and all became pretty well with this world once more. I also have noted writers that changed their style of work, and those that have altered it little or not at all. But if the quality is there, does it matter?

Cheers

milner

Dear all, thanks for a fascinating and candid discussion.  As the one starting it, I thought I'd attempt a summary.  We can then test that, refine it and see if there's agreement to any changes. Whilst appreciating this whole topic is nuanced with many sensitivities, I'm going to be deliberately pithy.  I'm going to say right from the get go, please don't step back Larry.

There is a recoginised issue of sameness/staleness, manifest principally in the poems picked.  Beautifully summarised by Larry this is due to picks being by the same editors "reflecting little change in their taste". This is not a criticism, it's a reality and one likely to be reinforced by one-editor-selects.

Individual writers going away to renew their voices is a solution to individual staleness and we own that.  It will not alter the poems that are picked.

From the many contributions it seems there's a willingness to experiment.  So I would propose we do experiment, gently and with good humour, and see what emerges.

1) Keep the weekly front page rotation it serves writers and readers (excellent point, Cheryl)
2) Try 2-3 editors agree picks and front page for period of ???
3) Picking editors are identified and include a short "why this one" in the poem's threads
 
Or more radically -

4) Set up a nominations or review board to make picks
5) All readers encouraged to identify poems they consider merit selection (special merit tab?)
6) Consider using guest editors from membership to bring in new perspectives.

I hope this summary and proposal is respectful and helps. Apologies for the length but felt the topic and richness of feedback merited detail.  Look forward to further responses.

k

A few thoughts. The idea that consensus picks will increase diversity seems wrong. When we see someone's pick and shake our heads "what were they thinking?", that's good, that's what diversity is. Usually there is a Reply trail to show why a poem was picked, written by editors and other members, and also an indication of who picked it, and that's good.

Must agree with Tom, Kevin, in that I can't see that a consensus would produce greater variety.

Having just looked through the front page selections on Archive 2010, I fail to notice 'sameness/staleness' there.

Guest editors is of interest, but who'd select them, and by what process?

Editors have different and changing commitments, so that more organisation involving new and coordinated commitments wouldn't be easy.

Being different for the sake of being different holds perils.

milner

So, no experiments, no changes?  All is well in the hen-house - for those pecked and not so pecked?

k

I welcome and encourage more experiments in the writing itself.

This prompted me this morning to go take a read through the first page of picks as it stands this morning.....

it was a fascinating journey through many different poets and poems.....

I don't often read picks in that way (just one poem after the other how they happen to stack)

so thanks for the nudge Kevin - intended or not lol & thanks for the continued reminder for us to expand our tastes and reading to encompass more and continue to expand ourselves.

Tom's comment about more experiments in the writing itself is a good note too -

Thanks for the discussion.

M

Kevin -- I arrive to this topic late, but it's all well worth the read.  I am often at fault for not leaving reasons as to why I may move a poem to Editor's Picks.  Time is often the factor; also, I may not totally know why a particular poem appeals in such a way that I want to honor it by making the move.  

What I regret the most about my position as a floating editor here at PC is the number of poems I fail to read.  And I find your suggestion "5) All readers encouraged to identify poems they consider merit selection (special merit tab?)" very appealing.  It could serve as a prompt to send me (by way of a link, perhaps) to read, or even reread, work I may have missed, or missed the quality (again, I blame Time and my availability to read).

I'm in agreement with the reasoning of Tom and Milner re: consensus among editors, even a few, as regards selection of picks.  And Desiree is right on when she mentions the additional time required.

Since I am no longer an active editor, I feel comfortable in sounding off a bit. I think it would be unfortunate for this site to get wrapped up in the picking, selecting, awarding process as if our participation on the site was some kind of entry into a competetive process. I came here to dialogue with other writers about what works and what doesn't work in the constructiuon of poems. Frankly, if I post something and nobody responds with a suggestion, or worse, everyone says they like it, then I know I screwed up and should have sent that poem off to someplace for publication.

The whole point is the discussion. If we're looking for adulation, this should not be the place. Now the reality is that sometimes stuff is simply good and I will be the first to say just that, but for the most part we need to be looking at the hard stuff, the grammar, the syntax, subject, style, voice. When we see a poem that is pretty much the same old stuff, we need to say so. The internet will never compete with the journals by making everybody feel good. So, if you don't like the poem, don't think it works, think it's mediocre, then say so. The comment is always about the poem, never about the writer.

larry

I'm right with you, Larry.

i have fallen into the very trap you describe, Larry, writing for glory. 

it's easy to lose focus on the real point of the site, the process of becoming a better writer.  i appreciate this reminder.

thanks,

tiko