Take-off from Winter's complaint re votes

  • Larry Chamberlin
    3 years ago

    I posted this at the end of her thread but now I'm interested in developing this idea if Janis ever returns.

    First, what do you think of it?
    Second, if you like it, what would you put for the follow-up selections for each of the votes 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5?

    I think a two part vote might be an improvement.
    First you vote 1 through 5,
    Then depending on your vote you are given the option to select a choice that gives feedback.

    Say you hit 5.
    You are asked to choose (for example)
    __ poem is original
    __ poem is emotional
    __ poem is thought provoking
    __ poem is (etcetera)

    Or you hit 3
    __ poem needs grammatical help
    __ poem needs structure
    __ poem needs continuity
    And so forth

    A necessary change is the ability to change your vote if the author changes the poem. That is, if you vote "3" & select that the poem needs structure, and the author then revises the poem correcting that issue, you should be able to change your vote to a "5" if you wish.

  • Larry Chamberlin
    3 years ago

    Any suggestions?

  • Poet on the Piano
    3 years ago

    I really like this idea, Larry. I think we could still keep the voting system but simply make edits as I know there may be some who don't want to abolish it.

    As mentioned before, a 2-step process would give the voting more meaning. So whenever you vote, you are required to give more additional feedback before moving on from that poem. Whether this person wants to leave a detailed comment or not is up to them, but they could easily check or click on which applies more "needs work on grammar", etc.

  • BlueJay
    1 year ago

    Personally, I am half and half about this idea.
    It could be helpful to some poets or people, but to the ones who think similarly to me it would just be annoying. And I rarely edit my pieces once they are down (on paper or here - or really anywhere!) So that would just give me a nagging feeling in the back of my head that my piece should be reworked - and ugh it'd give me a yucky feeling. HOWEVER, it could also be extremely useful, because I could see what needed to be improved for future writes.

    I don't know, but since everything here was all for this idea, I figured some insight to the negative, might be nice - or at least interesting.

  • Milly Hayward
    9 months ago

    I think that judges should be chosen carefully and only for a month at a time because being stuck with a judge with limited literary skills for a three month session makes the weekly judging a joke and causes much unrest and disgust with the more literary minded poets.

  • Milly Hayward replied to Larry Chamberlin
    9 months ago

    Larry I agree wholeheartedly that there needs to be more structure and guidance on the weekly judging and this format is a great idea. The sooner it could be put into place the better.

    It's a competition and the judges should have guidance otherwise there is no benchmark for what is good or bad poetry.

    Also it might be nice to have some sort of award for poems with the most likes because if 20 people like a poem and it doesn't even get an honorary mention and one with just 1 like wins it does raise eyebrows.
    Best wishes Milly

  • Larry Chamberlin replied to Milly Hayward
    9 months ago

    Actually, Milly, this thread was dealing with the old voting system by regular members which Janis has now replaced with the “like – dislike” system.

  • Darren
    7 months ago

    I forgot all about the 1-5 system

    bloody hell

    didn't matter after all hey