Weekly judging process question ...

At the risk of getting mobbed .... can I ask, why are winners chosen the way they are?

If winners were chosen by a count of 'likes' on each poem, wouldn't that make us all judges in a fair way?

This would make it a popularity win from everyone within the pnq community rather than the personal preferences of one or maybe two judges.

If a reader liked a poem and wanted to comment but didn't think it was worthy of a win, they'd have the option to comment but not 'like' a poem.

I'd be interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this. It's always puzzled me.

Hello Kitty :)

The judging process went through many phases during the past years, and it was last confirmed by a majority of members and ofcourse the Mods, that this process was the fairest for everyone, especially that judges are changing every term, and thus everyone could get the chance to give their opinion on what the perfect poem is for them.

Also, this was seen as fair not only for readers but more importantly for writers who are very good writers yet their work is not highlighted simply because they are not popular.

So to answer your question, from my side, the process was precisely made this way to reverse the idea of "popularity win"..as in even if your not popular but someone came across your work and nominated it, your work will have the chance to be featured.

But ofcourse not claiming that it was/is a %100 unanimous decision, we all see things differently, but seems like this satisfies the majority.

Thanks for explaining Rania, but just to clarify, I didn't mean popular 'people', I meant popular poems. ... like a voting system of everyone on pnq rather than the votes of a few people for 3 or 4 months which is no less biased?

The purpose of the weekly competition is to choose the best poems of the week by means of five anonymous judges choosing from the nominated poems.

However the increasing lack of people volunteering to be judges has left us accepting anyone volunteering regardless of ability, experience or expertise in judging which immediately opens us up to the risk of poor judgement and nepotism. There is nothing more soul destroying than for members to see week after week other peoples excellent poems being over looked and instead poems of much lower standards being voted in.

If instead of five anonymous judges all the senior members were able to judge their top three nominated poems (not the ones that they nominated or their own) then it would be a much truer reflection of which poems were liked best and by whom across the site. In the real world if poetry is liked by the people who read it then it sells and becomes popular and if a new good poet comes along then they soon get noticed and I think it would be the same here. Certainly a more fairer method than the current.

I disagree with the comment about the current method being" fairer to writers who are very good writers but their work is not highlighted simply because they are not popular" because there is nothing to stop the anonymous judges ignoring someone they dislike and voting for who they like either. I think if people able to nominate were all also able to vote in full view each week (for transparency) that would take the stress away from the mods having to find volunteers and would create a more site wide accolade for winning pieces.

We are a community where senior members are trusted to nominate so why not allow those same senior members to do the weekly voting? When they pick their top three and click on the winning buttons they can then add their in depth comment to the persons poem outlining why they felt it deserved the first, second and third place. If someone doesn't want to vote one week it doesn't matter because everyone else is voting. Mods no longer need to chase up votes because it would be based on most votes that week.

I feel judging process is fair and should be anonymous.
And about likes and comments thing.
Well, when my poem 'little bird' won weekly contest, I had only 7 comments and 6 likes, but still judges appreciated my poem (thanks to them and Andrea for nomination)

Same goes with David poem 'mingle fire' something... nominated by moss girl had only one comment or 2 - 3 likes.
And the reason David get less likes and comments because he writes for his passion towards poetry. He does not like commenting on every other poem, just on those he relates to himself.

But sometimes, there are exceptions, like Ben Pickard, sir Michael, and few others. Ben loves to read and leave comments on others work and we all know how outstanding he is as a poet. Michael sir won for three consecutive weeks. So it means that this term of judges panel is poorer. No, they got all those likes and comments because people love and admire their work. And judges chose their poems to show up on front page because they were worth the win. Their poems deserved every bit of it.

So I think judges don't see the likes and comments, they see the connection they feel with that poem, the content of the poem and I believe they always do the fair decision.

And how can one say that panel of judges is poor or not fair as long as their identity is anonymous.

I believe that pnq mods, the judges all should deserve a praise, our admiration for giving their valuable time to read our poems and to run this site and for being fair to everyone.

Judging process would be healthy as long as it is anonymous.

Edit: my intention is not to hurt anyone. I just wrote how I felt about the judging process.

I'm certainly not saying that the mods and judges aren't appreciated Naaz! I fully understand just how much time and effort goes into the process and we're all grateful for that.

"So I think judges don't see the likes and comments, they see the connection they feel with that poem, the content of the poem and I believe they always do the fair decision."

^^
This is contradictory to your argument Naaz. That's exactly my point. Rather than poems that the majority of the site feel are good by a show of likes, winners are chosen by the current judges personal connection to a poem, regardless of whether it was enjoyed by a single other person on the entire site. I can't think of any other situation in life where winners would be chosen in this way?

After little bird, none of my poem showed up on front page.
Few poems got HM's but it's OK.

Instead of accusing mods or questioning about judges decisions, I diverted my mind towards learning. I read poems, I started observing why a particular poem won, especially Michael sir poems, and when they wrote creative madness I had this feeling that this poem was going to win and it did happen.

So I believe we should improve ourselves.

Mods and judges are already giving their best, I believe it's time for us to do the same.

Sounds fair to me Milly x

So what's wrong with that?

See KCL, every week, around 200 poems or even more than that post on pnq by its members. Do you comment on every single of that poem?

No, you only comment on those you relate yourself or find any sort of connection.

So what's wrong if a particular judge or majority of judges feel the same emotions towards a single poem?

They are selected from us. They are humans too, they feel certain connections, emotions towards a certain poem and if that poem is not your or mine that doesn't mean that they are unfair.

ooh careful Naaz, sounds like you're making it personal. I will reiterate once more ... I am not knocking what the mods and judges give to this site.

I think it's great that you want to improve yourself, I fully support that. But sometimes, people (like myself) just want to write how they feel, in the style of poetry that they like, and read stuff they enjoy. I think PnQ offers something for everyone.

I think Naaz that you misinterpreted the meaning of my post.

It is admirable that judges take the time out to judge poems each week but the point I was trying to make is that the act of volunteering to be a judge doesn't automatically mean that a person necessarily has the qualities, experience or ability to be a fair or good judge.

With regards to the comment about visible judges being more likely to judge for popular people I would like to point out that being an anonymous volunteer judge wont make a person any less likely to vote for a popular person if it is in their nature to do so.

If you are out in the real world looking to purchase a book you don't spend money on a book just because you like the man who wrote it You buy the book you want to read and in the case of poetry if it touches you in some way. (as you said David will only comment on the poems that relate to himself and he is no different from everyone else. People like what they like. If someone gets only a few likes then that is because their poetry isn't liked as much as someone else's.

Imagine if Shakespeare joined P&Q and submitted one of his poems, its not only nominated but receives 200 likes but for some reason the judges decide to vote a poem in that has only one like. What message does that send out to the world, to all the people who loved the poem and thought it would win? What message does that send to Shakespeare himself? The question in everyone's mind would be "What happened how could a poem so liked be cast aside for something hardly anyone liked?" It would cause disillusionment with the system which is what is happening on p&q at the moment.

*Good poetry like a good story is only as good as how many people reach out and want to read it. The more people who like and can relate to a poem the better that poem is. If you write a poem and it doesn't speak or touch people in some way then it is nothing more than a stack of words - meaningless.

Also by opening up the judging to the people making the nominations means that that helps take some of the weight from the backs of the moderators who continually have to step up at the last minute when judges don't fulfil their obligations.

My Dear KCL, I am not making it personal.

Same thing happened to me.
I write in my particular style and even after getting nominations my poems did n't get even HM.

I never questioned judges decisions. I have complete faith in them.

I started learning different styles, but I found that it was not that easy. Still learning process is going on.

Hope, someday, I will be able to write as good as Michael sir, Ben, David, Milly, Brenda or hellon. But right now I stand nowhere between them.

Dear Milly, you were the first person with whom I interacted in this site.
Replying to you in this thread will consider disrespectful in my belief and I can't disrespect you by any means.

It's better that I should quit from this thread.

Thank you for all your love and support!

Hmm, for some reason I think if we did what you guys are suggesting, we would see the same poets on the front page week after week (even more so than we are now). There are a handful of very popular poets on PnQ -- rightfully so -- who receive a buttload of likes any time they submit a poem. In my opinion, this strategy would mean we never see a new poet on the front page ever again. A limited number of people deciding winners each week creates a sense of personal accountability/responsibility to diversify the front page. I guess what do we care more about? Quantity of poets featured or quality of poems? Ideally both, but when we generally agree that certain people always produce beautiful poetry, is it right that they make front page week after week? I'm not sure to be honest. Therein lies the conflict.

Also... this idea would not be possible for us to implement without Janis around. Unless! We promoted every single senior member on PnQ to judge status.

This thread isn't personal for me either. I love sharing my poems and enjoy reading the comments. That's true for everyone or they wouldn't post them. Being nominated is a huge honour but I don't think anyone ever expects a win or HM and I certainly wouldn't change what or how I write to try and be more like another poet.

Anyway .... off on a tangent there ....

Hi Jane :-)

The same poets would be winners because they're writing the best poems? Yes that sounds right and fair to me.

Who is this mysterious Janis? I've been here since the summer and have never seen her here.

It wouldn't take too long to count which few poets have the most 'likes' from the nominated poems? If you had say, the top six each week, if the top three were always the same people, others would still be able to take places 4, 5 & 6, it would still mean something.

Janis is the site admin/owner who can make changes to the site. He disappeared again. He disappears for years at a time... very frustrating.

Kitty, this was happening at one time. The same poets were on the front page every week, and it made the majority of members upset. It's why we opened a public forum on how the weekly contest should be managed and ended up with the system we have now. Maybe we should open a public forum again (this thread counts I think?) and take a majority vote again. As the site and its members change, we should adapt.

Edit: Hi to you too! :)

That sounds fair Jane.

I think if people felt that it was the same people each week winning and that was upsetting, they have the option of leaving a nice comment, but not clicking 'like' ... and then it won't be counted. If it was still the same people each week winning, this would tell you that the majority of people were happy for the best poems to win.

Janis is a man? Oops, sorry. Yes that must be very frustrating for you mods is you can't make changes without him! x

Jane I understand what you are saying I suppose (and this is just me I like to see the best poems of the site picked because the front page is our sites showcase showing the world that this is our best work. It is something to aspire to and quite often when I have received a HM or Win and seen much better poems over looked I have felt that my win has lost a little of its lustre.

I understand that it is a difficult choice because as you say certain people always produce beautiful poetry but isn't that just a little bit like the old computer games where the winners used to have their initials showing and everyone tried ever harder to beat the high score?

Maybe the solution is to have two means of recognition for example

a) a badge for each time you get a nomination (or a N appearing against a poem that's been nominated)
b) The top three nominated poems with the most likes counted as winners as well as the judged winners.

That would be an easy one to add to the email that goes out to the world not sure about the ease of adding that to the winning front page? If difficult what about a weekly post where the most liked nominated poems for the previous are mentioned as winners? Maybe even add the highest liked new comer to the site that week?

best wishes Milly x

Great ideas for solutions Milly, and both of those ideas alongside the system that already exists would potentially please everyone?

Also a very good point about what the front page shows the rest of the world.

I think computer games still do that too ... not to mention pop charts etc. Number one each week is number one because that's the tune the most people liked. We could have a top ten! Lol x

I have a suggestion for the posters:
Volunteer for the current term as so many others have done before you
Put the time in to read each and every nominated poem
Select the best

Wow Larry. Most people call me Kitty, but you can call me 'posters' if you like ... it's kinda cute!

Given that I have yet to jump through the initiation 'critique and praise' game, I'm not a senior member, so I can't put myself forward to be a judge.

You're clearly upset that I've dared to question the current process. I was genuinely interested about why it was done in the the way that it is. The question has been answered and there was no need for your barbed comment.

I think that Kitty had a legitimate question which many people have been asking. "Why are winners chosen the way the way that they are"

Everyone has made interesting and valid points in their own ways and the truth is that which ever judging method is used it will always have advocates and opponents and be full of pros and cons. The point is here that you can never please everyone particularly when dealing with so many creative minds and perceptions.

Something that came out of this thread is the fact that this question has been raised many times before and that this was the most widely accepted solution.
Jane also reminded us that the Mods are always open for discussion and willing to move the site forward according to popular choice. Which is what makes this such a wonderful community - you can debate, open up discussions and put forward ideas without judgement and through such tools comes clarity.

Part of my belief that the" like" method would be fairer was also to alleviate some of the pressure and time that Mods face in trying to find enough people to volunteer as judges and then chasing them up sometimes on a weekly basis to do the judging so I can see the validity and frustration behind Larry's suggestion and don't believe there was any personal malicious feelings behind them.

I think that this thread has now pretty much come to its close. Its one of those methods that will always raise questions and perhaps in the future someone will come up with a solution that work better for everyone. Until such time that a more universally accepted method for judging is brought forward I think that we each need to be the change that we want and we need to actively encourage ourselves and others to come forward and commit to judging to offer the moderators some relief and a bigger pool from which to choose there judges.

I meant no animosity believe me. I’m suggesting that the choice of poems, for now at least, relies on individuals to come forward and assert their best critical talents.

Plato suggested that the perfect leader is the person who does not wish to suffer the poor choices made by others when he or she can do better.