Weekly Contest Discussion

Last thread was mega long, so we can continue the discussion here. The original question was:

"As it stands now, the only thing that makes a poem ineligible to win is if it has won before. Do you feel like this new method has been effective? Is there enough variety in the wins? Would you like to keep it this way? It's been a few months, so we're now reopening this for discussion."

Basically, do people still believe that wins should be based on the poem itself, without any other restrictions?

Most people seem to agree on this^. Having this common philosophy will help tweak how the contest is run.

Everyone has also seemed to like the idea that judges be switched out more regularly, though the exact minimum length has not been clearly established. Maybe I will wait for more mods on that one.

Please keep comments related to the contest. "This person was mean to me" or "this person is whining" doesn't really help us come to a conclusion.

Let me say this. The new system on a whole is leaps and bounds better then 4 years ago even 2 years ago (before this was all really started). I won more as a new member way back when and my poetry was utter crap. While it was a huge ego boost back then to see that, realistically it didn't match up to some of the poets on here.

Poetry should always be considered on the basis of it's quality and if the judges like it overall. I don't feel anyone's poems should automatically have restrictions placed on it for 1. being nominated previously or 2. they have too many nominated poems for that week. I feel that front page showcases the best of the best. So regardless of poet, how many times they've won if it's the best then it should be on the front page.

The only problem I've ever had is yes with getting variety in the nominations. Sometimes it's easier to read our friends poems and nominate then sift through 10 pages of bad poetry to find a good one. I can understand that completely, but I have seen some great poems passed up (In the sense that they're never read), even great poets on this site who have 0 maybe 1 comment on their poems who do outstanding work. But that comes with this site as well. So my only problem is that not so much with the 'variety' in winners but more or less seeing truly amazing poems never even read (after their chance for a weekly contest has come and gone). But there's really nothing that can be done to correct that. Other then notifying someone with senior status to consider voting for the poem.

Idea: Mods is there any way for you to have unlimited votes? Meaning you'd vote for members who don't have senior status yet? I think this could be possibly beneficial. I know we can message senior members now but the problem then comes with what if they've already got their 3 votes lined up? Being able to say "___ (mod) I've read this poem and I really think it deserves to be considered in the weekly contest." Then the mod can read the poem and decide for themselves if it's vote worthy? Just an idea I can understand where it would get to be a pain in the butt though.

We are here to write poetry and to get better. I feel only the best poems regardless of poets should be on the front page. I'm not one of the best poets on the site I don't even think I'm amateur.. lets say 'beginner' with that I couldn't match up to some of the poets on here. And with saying that I would never expect to see my work on the front page. To be honest I'd be embarrassed if the rules were changed and my poem won. I'd feel cheated as if I was only chosen because Britt couldn't win again or Nana's 3 nominated poems all couldn't win for that week.

I like the notion of switching up the judges but in reality I feel that some judges are just naturals and far better suited for the job. I was flattered to get a nomination but could I honestly feel comfortable with judging others work and be in charge of putting up quality work? No not really. I don't feel I have the proper qualifications to say yes to that. It's not even about the 'commitment' to doing it weekly but the pressure of being a good judge. Some are good at it because of their own developed skill sets while others are still learning about poetry on a whole.

Going off of Larry's suggestion I'd like to offer an alternative. Why not have 'shift' judges. As it has been noted judges are unable to vote some times. Why not have a panel that comprises of enough to each have one 'week' of the month? This way you get the variation, judges get the much needed break and it just remains a bit more 'fresh' while keeping the judging rather consistent with judges who belong there and really in the long run are best suited for the position. Think of it as an extension of being a mod. If you agree to it then you're bound to it. Type of thing.

On the other hand you could have a back up panel if the current way of doing judging continues. The back up panel is called upon if a current judge is unable to do it that week because of real life commitments or plain and simple just need a weeks break from it.

Those are two good ideas, Amanda.

For the first, are you picturing it as in, say, there are 20 judges, and five would always do week one, another five would always do week 2, etc? I think if we could organize it, that might be another good option to consider. My initial thought was "well, ok, but I like when we can mix in totally new people," but we would probably be hardpressed to find more than 20, in either case, so it might not matter : )

For your second idea, yes, definitely. We kind of have a system like that now.... if someone can't judge at the last minute, a mod will jump in. If someone has to drop out of judging entirely, we call on either an ex judge or someone else who has been nominated and is willing to take over. It seems like you are proposing a similar idea, but perhaps more organized and "official."

For the first, are you picturing it as in, say, there are 20 judges, and five would always do week one, another five would always do week 2, etc? I think if we could organize it, at might be another good option to consider. My initial thought was "well, ok, but I like when we can mix in totally new people," but we would probably be hardpressed to find more than 20, in either case, so it might not matter : )

^^^

this is a very fresh idea in my opinion, in case it's what Amanda meant! I like..

I just noticed I went totally comma-nuts in that paragraph. Three sentences, twelve commas. SHEESH.

LOl sib!

For the first idea yes. " hardpressed to find more than 20, in either case, so it might not matter : " This was another reason why I suggested it. Because while everyone wants 'fresh' judges as we've seen with the nominations thread not a lot of people are actually able to do it. Which leaves me to believe it may become harder to find 'new' judges as time goes on.

You could have these 20 judges on rotation for say a year. Which means each judge would have had 12 (staggered) weeks of voting. Which to me realistically is a lot better then 26 (a 6 month stretch) and again just from what I've read over the past months the problem is with having the judges actually judge. I can understand where some just can get tired of doing something every single week. It's a lot of time to devote to it only to turn around and have another week to do the same thing. (or even one full day of reading). I could see where judges may end up getting burned out quicker with the every week set up now. Which in turn causes judges to miss. With the other rotation you always have a back up judge. If one person can't do their week they'll know in advance and like 'shift' work can switch with someone for their week. It just leaves room for the contest to always have all judges voting.

Idea 2. Yes that was something to what I was suggesting. But as you said a bit more organize. These back ups would know that they could be called upon at any time. Instead of having to throw an ex judge back into it or a nominated individual. Again just an idea but it runs along the same lines as what's happening now.

Mmmm if all the mods agree on this, I think it's perfect!
(Idea one) makes so much sense...

I rather like both of those ideas. Good thinking! Let's wait for more people to sound off on it!

The one drawback I would see with the "shift" judging is that people might not know so far in advance if they are free. However, judging for one week is much more manageable than having to commit to several weeks in a row, plus with the back up judging idea I think we could deal with substitutes as needed.

I only see one issue, and that would be people forgetting they are or aren't supposed to vote. It would require some organization from either the mods taking people down and putting them up every week to judge, or the contest holder would need to PM each judge and remind them this is their week. Also watching carefully who has judged and if there are any extra points added that aren't accounted for.. in case a judge from an off week votes when they aren't supposed to?

Otherwise I really love the idea and think it gives all judges a break if they have to judge once a month. Not to mention the variety we would get!

And if a judge last minute can't vote, then a mod can still easily jump in this way. Most of the mods have been nominated as it is, I think you have the creds ;)

Wow, I just spent close to an hour reading through the two threads.

Organization and volunteers is the heart of the matter.

Remember that all these suggestions require someone to implement them on a regular basis. Currently Joe is handling the weekly process while Jane is running with the judge nomination/selection process.

I think we can calendar rotations (including slots for alternative judges) and provide a link for volunteers to see where they can offer time. Obviously the link would be off site (admin issue) but I do not see that as a problem. As a given person volunteers for a rotation, that can be marked out on the calendar. We would not show the judges, just open and closed slots.

Joe & the mods would have access to a different calendar with the judges shown. That way, if Joe needs a substitute, he can pull from the alternatives for that rotation. Also, mods can PM judges to remind them their rotation is approaching.

Look at the list of 'Best Critiques' and you find ideal candidates to recruit for judges. That's how I found judges for a contest I ran awhile back and one, who had never been asked before, was thrilled.

Also, I am willing to PM the managers of each club to ask them to start threads about senior members volunteering. I've been looking through these clubs and observe that most of us posting regularly only belong to a half dozen clubs. Admittedly, many clubs are dormant, but many are simply iconoclastic. We need to pull some of them out more.

The vast majority of members are not in any club. We need a way to reach more of them.

Finally, we already have a forum for seeking comments. Simply start a thread in that forum for specific requests to review & nominate, if deemed worthy.

Larry, leave it to you to take all of our ideas and say "ok, now here's how we can actually implement it." Have I mention lately that I love your mod skills?

Alright, enough ass-kissing from me. You might have to walk me through how we do the calendar system, but it sounds like you have the idea laid out pretty clearly. I think it might all be a bit messy just to get started, but once we get things rolling I think this will be very doable.

I will set up calendars tomorrow or Sunday & send the mods & Joe a link to them. We can put in those who accepted already. I think all who declined or who have not yet accepted might be PMed to respond whether they could accept future terms or shorter ones.

EDIT:
I have created a new thread in the comment request forum:
[Sticky] Suggestions for Nominations

Don't be shy

Thanks, Larry!

He's perfect!

Agreee :D ^^

Edited....

Great idea Amanda....

Yes, Larry has a good head on his shoulders:)

I have an idea too, but am afraid it cannot be implemented, because we would need Janis: I would like if it were impossible to see who nominates what poem. It would end the younger poets being upset about friends favoring others above them, while every poet should feel free to use his three weekly votes. If you feel obliged to vote for a friend, then the contest will no longer have any real artistic value...unless you coincidently are friends with the cream of the crop:0)

That would be nice. Have it so it just says how many times the poem was nominated. Oh the mystery.

Or even if it just said "the poem is nominated," without displaying how many times.

Yes, that should be on the Janis list

Definitely an awesome idea.
I mean, a nomination, only, is a win!

You got this, Larry. God bless your organizational skills.

Thanks guys:)

I agree, a nomination by itself is indeed a sort of win!

So, just quickly- the change is we're switching around judges more often now?

Are you meaning my suggestion Abby?

If so yes and no. There would be a set number of judges (say 15 or more) and they would take 1 week out of the month. This ensures 1. the judges don't get burnt out and also gives a bit more variety to the front page as you have differing tastes depending on the week.

So it's not like you'll be switching out say 4 judges for complete new ones. Sorry if that's not what you meant by your question.

Oh, wow. So the mods will send out PMs to the next lot of five judges from the pool every week to remind them it's their turn coming up?

The way I suggested it was that everyone would have a set week. (so first week, second, third etc.) Then if someone has to miss the mods and judges would work together to switch the week for one judge and another. It's a tiny bit more leg work in the beginning but will offer the judges a much needed break from having to do it every week. As mentioned before there was a notable trend of judges missing. While I don't want to speak for them, I can imagine it gets hard doing it for x amount of months every single week.

In the long run this would actually cut down on having to switch out the judges and worrying about nominating new ones. Realistically I don't know how many 'new' judges they'll be able to get every time. I mean just take a look at the nominations thread. Plus I think you'd find more would consider being a judge if it was less of an 'every week' commitment. Which also seemed to be the common comment for those who were nominated but declined.

Good points. It isn't fair if not all five judges are voting every week. And a six-month period is certainly a long time to dedicate to judging (though it used to be much longer). However, there is a lot to be said for consistency in a judging panel. The judges over the last six months have subconsciously been involved in setting their standards upon the site- and though their opinions are individual, their overall standard is uniform as the same heads are voting every week. This gives members an idea of what is expected from the judges, and allows for comparisons from week to week. If the judges were different every week, this would not occur. (Of course, in the end, poetry should not be written for winning contests, but in any contest, there should ideally be a uniform standard.)

Also, there is a lot to be said for routine. True, six months is very long, but does allow a judge to get into the rhythm of reading and voting every Sunday evening. Otherwise, unless a judge is super-organised, it may be hard for them to remember which Sunday is theirs- and this means mods have to do the reminding for all. Mods would have to switch the individual judge voting tools on and off every week anyway- ooof.

I suggest that 6 months is dropped to 2 months so more people are willing to be judges. Someone extra with voting powers should be coordinating the contest so they can step in and vote if a judge has missed the boat, or has already voted on a poem from the previous week that they would like to vote on again. I like the idea of having a pool of judges to swap over every couple of months. I also think the nomination process should remain at every six months- the pool should be updated regularly as many members tend to become inactive and new poets rise to the scene.

Maybe we should take a vote? We can vote whether or not to shorten the amount of time people are judges or keep the 6 month duration. If the majority want to shorten it, we can take another vote with different duration options (2 months, 3 months, 4...).

I vote for the shifts.

All ideas are great though. Personally whatever will be in the judges best interest is great.

Even dropping down to 2-5 months may be too long of a commitment as right now people who work or those who go to school have to 'predict' if they'll be free for all those months.But In the same light with my suggestion, they'll have to predict if they'll be available for one week out of the month. In terms of scheduling (I'm just thinking about how I'd feel) I'd be far more comfortable with committing once a month then for a full 5 months. I can literally pencil it in and ensure I'm available to do all the reading, giving constructive comments and vote.

Again whatever everyone feels would be in the best interest of the judges but also the competition itself I'm all for :D

I wish we could, as submitting poets, decide to submit a poem for the weekly contest and have it be anonymous (until after the week has passed and then you'd be free to either post it, or decide not to) and all members being able to see it and vote for it, without knowing who wrote what. I bet we would have a slightly different outcome if we did, lol.

We could do this in a weekly thread, if we could find a very reliable person to host it...we could send our work to them and they'd post it in this weelky thread and then we could vote for it. I think Larry would be perfect for such a job, if he were willing?

Off course we would have to keep silent about our submission to each other, that goes without saying.

Call it the "" Weekly Anonymous Contest round" ?

What say you, folks mmmmhhhh??????????

I see Larry did start a thread, but I'm not sure it's taken the direction you intended, Ingrid. You were suggesting that members PM their poems to Larry, not post them in the thread, correct? Then Larry could copy-paste the poems into the thread without the authors' names attached?

Ah but anyway, I think most of us are leaning toward having a shorter judge term. Why don't we cut the current term in half, make it 3 months? Everyone cool with that?

That system would only work for people who read these forums. I think the current system is more far-reaching and fair.

With the current nominees who have accepted, I think 3 months is good. It would be worthwhile to see how many more people would accept the position if the term was reduced to 2 months- hopefully then there would be a much larger pool to rotate from. I know I'd be happy to be a part of that pool, especially in my orange bikini.

My suggestion (if we didn't do the rotating, weeklong thing) would be to start with 3 months, and see if that's manageable. If it's a piece o' cake, maybe we can mosey our way down to 2 and get a wider pool. With a deck so I can lay under an umbrella and admire Abby in her orange bikini.

If Abbys bringing out her bikini I think judges will hang around longer than a few months.

I like the three month idea. That'll open people up next time who are usually in school, they have long breaks for summer/winter (dependent on location).

Lol^^!!!!

sounds good however :]

I'm going to say... 3 months it is! Hope that's ok.
This rotation of new judges will begin this week, serving September 2011 through November 2011.
By December 2011, they will be swapped out.

I just don't see it, Orange on a Roo is not fitting.
Unless you throw in a Orangutan with a banana.
Who'll be the judge of that?

Oh ok so we're not doing the weekly rotation thing? I thought it'd be talked about a bit more before throwing the idea out the window. Especially given just how many people actually agreed with it over just moving the commitment to 3 months. That was a bit disappointing to see. (more or less that a discussion wasn't really held only a quick decision.) I didn't see it get ruled out so I'm a bit confused why the quick decision was made. If anything I'd do a month long stint so that this can get sorted out and implemented, since it seems many are on board all but from what I see one or two people. Abby being the most vocal against it. Which is fine but that's the only person I've seen who doesn't feel it would be a good thing to do.

"Ah but anyway, I think most of us are leaning toward having a shorter judge term. Why don't we cut the current term in half, make it 3 months? Everyone cool with that?"
But why? Why not consider the idea I threw out there instead of saying "lets go with 3 months.." It rubs me the wrong way not that I suggested something else but I guess how it was handled in the end. I saw 2 moderators for it and a few members...

Yes people are leaning towards a shorter stay as a judge but why is it Jane you didn't mention or care to perhaps give input or expand on my idea. Personally speaking this isn't to sound pompous but that idea was a pretty good one. One that out of all of them makes the most sense given the past judging problems. Also given just how little people want to step up to the plate. Making them only have one week out of the month relieves them of this weekly duty. NOt everyone has the time to spend 3 or even 6 months doing judging and on a consistent basis. Again it's not like I'm saying this just for the heck of it but because it's what the trend has been like. Again take a look at the nominations... Just how many people said they can't commit to that kind of time. People are more apt to be ok with giving 1 week out of the month. It's less pressure and correct me if I'm wrong but also gives the variety that others have commented on when 'judging' is talked about. Again not being a wench but it pretty much speaks to every issue that has been spoken about in regards to this weekly contest.

I will say I greatly appreciate Larry offering up suggestions to show how this idea could work. Perhaps next time more thought and consideration can be put in before quick decisions are made. Especially given just how many people including mods were for it only to see it no where in sight when the 'decision' is made.

It makes a person wonder just how much their opinions matter over others.....