Judge Recs

If we have few back-up judges, then I am all for it! But the 3 judges must be really, like REALLY committed. :)

Edited: what have I said? lol. I said something so long but it didn't appear! How weird. Anyway, I forgot it, haha, but all I was saying is that judges MUST leave long, kickass comments with explanations, analysis, deep thoughts and all. Here I have

I would hope it'd be easy to find at least three committed judges, when now we expect to find five. lol.

I think expecting them to leave massive analysis of the poem is asking a lot, though. Details and thought put into it is definitely nice, but sometimes people really just... can't/don't/won't. Expecting that seems like a bit much.

Maybe mods can discuss and bring back the info if they agree it's okay: are the judges that are inconsistent the same ones over and over in their term, or is it different judges each time there is an issue? (no names needed, just generalities)

I have no idea why this thread doesn't like what I'm saying, lol. It just keeps deleting some of my words.

I wouldn't love to see my poem/any poem on the front page with a judge comment that says:

'What a piece. Holy cows. I feel speechless, that belongs to the moon, not here. I love the thoughts, the first stanza, the second stanza, the third, the fourth, the ending, the title. Everything. It truly dserves a 10!'

-.-

Well.. yeah, that's a crappy comment in my opinion, too. lol.

Britt, we have had a record amount of judges step down in the beginning, middle, or end of their term. There has also been considerable inconsistency and scrambling last minute. I wish I kept a running tally of how many times we needed new judges or just sub judges in the last 3 months. We also need tie breakers almost every week! Less judges and one reliable sub judge responsible for subbing and tie-breaking could cut down on all of these problems. Someone who thinks they will be around at the end of every week in case we need them. If they can't be around one week, we'd hope they could give us a decent head's up.
Of course if for some reason implementing these changes causes more problems or fails to solve any current ones, we can return to how it's being done now and maybe try a different strategy.
Regardless, I am uncomfortable with the present state of the weekly contest.

I wonder why it's been so inconsistent lately, that seems strange to me. Is it the lack of people accepting the nominations I wonder?

I agree with the idea of a back up judge breaking ties. Especially someone who would be able to be around Sundays easily, and is easy to contact/get a hold of.

"Regardless, I am uncomfortable with the present state of the weekly contest."

I've heard this from a few people (hoping to draw some people out so we can get good discussion going). Sometimes things need a bit of change, sometimes it works, sometimes not. I think it's worth a try if we're stagnant right now.

'Regardless, I am uncomfortable with the present state of the weekly contest'

Me too.

More opinions?

Quick question:

How many judges have accepted at the moment?

4 to my knowledge, and we are hoping for more.
Last rotation we got closer to 10 volunteers, but it didn't seem to make a difference with the drop out and absence rates.

Have you considered making it a requirement that each club with an x number of active members offer 1 judge and 1 back up, each judging season. The shoulder of responsibility would then be shifted to the active clubs (particularly their club leaders), at least in part. this could help dilute any concerns of (inobvious) favoritism, reduction in the judging pool (not such a good idea at all!), and at the same time bring out the one's who have talent but hide/avoid from volunteering (but love free, detailed comments from judges/others on their poems). This could be an easy fix to your broken system. It will also avoid having too many judges belonging to the same club, which is an obvious concern each time. People/Mods who do not belong to a club can always help out with subs/tie-breaking.

I don't think it should be a requirement (penalty if not done?) But I like the idea.

When I chose judges I tried my hardest to not have two people in the same club. It was hard if we didn't get much participation though.

Edit: wouldn't the clubs know who was a judge then..?

Last term we started with a diverse group and it gradually became whatever we could get! It's a nice thought and an ideal, but when it comes down to it, the system is flawed and we never know what's going to happen because people are inherently flawed.
Asking for mandatory participation as judges isn't going to work. People can just say no. They can, they will, there's nothing we can do about it.

David, it really is not a battlefield. I have no problem if the three winners one day are from the same club. But the problem is ...they are NOT worth the win! Here I've said it!

Judges should really not look for satisfying their friends and clubs, they must look for talent, quality and... damn people! lol

Oh and by the way, there are actually a lot of clubs that show recent activity within their walls, yet none of their members have been seen outside their clubs for years! It's like a whole underground PnQ.

Wouldn't the clubs know who was a judge then..?

^ May not matter, as the Mods choose from the final list. Aren't there like 2 dozen or more clubs, so the pool could be as big as 20-30 or more people. Make the clubs offer 2-3 names each season (make the team leaders aware by PM even if they hide from the main forums), then let the mods run a lotto (just kidding)after the acceptance/suitability has been verified.

^ Noura, I would love to agree with you on your point, but the scientific reality is very different, as the subconcious in us does not ever completely suppress our friendship/envy/enmity, however hard we may try to be honest. We always have a soft corner for our friends and not so soft for those who have crossed us in the past...nothing bad about it, these subconcious feelings are only human.

Interesting statistics! only members from 4 clubs have put their nominations so far, the most being from Kite runners and LTFR. Most site members probably have yet to visit the forum....perhaps as the general site-wide call for help, unlike the last time, did not go out this time.

But Lonely, the ultimate fact is that people may not be able to commit themselves as judges. It's as simple as that. People are busy. My club has a very small number of people in it. Out of those people, even less are active at all, and only some are active enough to be able to judge. Those couple people with enough time to judge may not want to, and would therefore... refuse. Nothing we can do about it.

Your idea is reminding me a bit of Hunger Games, lol.

^ No harm at least trying the strategy informally by PM to club leaders, if it is not too late. Use mods/subs until then.
I did not watch Hunger games yet (so don't know how to respond), my son did watch it yesterday on our 11 hour flight. But, I did enjoy the "Wrath of the Titans" (...an excellent one), and part of "Immortals"...both wonderful Greek mythological films for those who are interested. The films complimented what I learnt from the Greek Isles trip.

I love Greek Mythology and those types of movies in general, but was not impressed with "Wrath of the Titans" or "Immortals" unfortunately. NO WAIT, I'm thinking of "Clash of the Titans" (the new one). I haven't seen the other. It's good? I'll watch it soon. Love Liam Neeson!

Lonely, you're right there is no harm in trying almost any strategy that we think might work. If enough people like your idea, we can give it a go. It intrigues me, though I don't think I would make it my first pick as a fix to our current weekly contest issue(s). Whoever is available already volunteers to be a judge, and we already try to pick one judge from every club with members interested in the position.
See Hunger Games. I bet you will like it.

I'm on the same page as Jane with this.

I've already stated my opinions. I've suggested 3 judges instead of 5. It means more people in the rotation pool each semester, less drop outs, less people to track down and a smoother contest overall. The idea of a back up judge used for when issues arise (1 of the 3 can't judge, or to break ties) is something I fully support too. These ideas' are worth trying in my opinion and as previously stated we are always able to go back to how things are done now. It's all about getting the contest to run at its full potential and sadly at the moment it is not.

From my memory we've had at least 7 or 8 different judges drop out or have had to be replaced before the end of term. Some with good reasons don't get me wrong; it has just been a scramble trying to find more replacements. We had a great nomination list but we went through it in no time. I don't think we've had many weeks if any without needing to replace a judge or find a sub judge and a lot of the time it has been very last minute.

We now have 5 people who have accepted nominations and as we need 5 we don't have much to choose from. Hopefully we can have a few more people to accept as we will be needing subs too, as you can see, the pool is quite small at the moment.

As for mythology, please don't get me started on the topic. We will be here for hours. Wrath of the titans is the 2012 movie and sequel to the 2010 Clash of the titans. I haven't had a chance to see Wrath on the titans yet, you can imagine how much it's bothering me.

3 judges?

I don't think it would be any fairer than it is now.

5 judges are great, may not be super fair, but it's better than 3.

And I am not into the idea of choosing judges from different clubs. Mods should choose judges who are really capable of being somehow honest and unbiased.

Mods, I suggest that you track the comments of those who accepted their nominations. Do they only comment on their club members' poems? Are their comments praised often? ..etc..

^SO true!

'Mods should choose judges who are really capable of being somehow honest and unbiased.'

Honestly? That is NOT happening.

LP its not about fairness, its about consistency.

But still.

Consistency is fairness, Britt.

I nominate:

Mera Luna
Britt
Lu
Courageous Dreamer
Ingrid
The Prince
Ronel
Karla
Colm
Novalyn
Jordan
Abracadabra
Sylvia (I dont see her on here, what happened to her?)
TJ
Meena Krish
Blissful
Yaki
Beautiful Chaos
Lady Aureus Argentum
dollwithafrown
Kiko
Lostlove1
Lioness
Chelsey
Nicko
Maple Tree

I agree that something needs to change with the contest. We've been talking it over in the mod room recently.

Ideally, I would love to have 5 (or more!) judges. In practice, something doesn't seem to be working. If you remember back when we went to 5 judges, it was viewed as a total experiment, and subject to change. Right now, we have 5 judges, but others are constantly subbing, and mods are consistently breaking ties, etc. We'd rather not be involved in choosing wins at all, but that's what it's been coming down to, when we can't get subs.

I'm not sure if the judge number has anything to do with our current issues, but it sure could. I think if there are 3, there is still a chance that those people will miss weeks or drop out. However, if they do, it's easier to fill a maximum of 3 spots than a maximum of 5. Additionally, we'd be going through the accepted nominations list slower, which would maybe lead to less burn-out. It could be what we need to get things back on track.

I'd be all for trying a 3-person team. We can always change back to 5, if it doesn't work. Nothing's set in stone here. However, if the majority of people wanted to keep it at 5, I would understand that as well... we'd just have to be prepared to make other sacrifices.

Oh lol. Well I just think, like Sib said, its easier to fill 3 than 5. Right now only five people have said okay.... That's just enough to fill the spots. What if they need a back up or a tie breaker?

I'm totally WITH having 3 rather than 5 judges, I think one major problem we have over here, those who are volunteering are not fully aware of the real commitment judging requires.

The number of the judges who dropped out, was insane, but also, the way some of the judges couldn't commit to the pace needed and accuracy, drove me mad personally.

Some small details really do make a difference, like if comments and votes should be sent by Saturday P and q time, then seriously they should be, especially due to the time zone difference, between one country and another, we need to avoid ties, and break ties incase we have them, but the more judges we have in the team, the harder it will get, to be able to coordinate with them, anddd for an easier communication.

Also the organization part, it's not just enough to vote and comment, I need to know your votes, and the name of the author, it wouldn't take much time from you, but it would mess things up if I had to go check everything out over and over again, this is something I suffered from, at a certain point. Being sent the comments without the votes, or votes without the authors, bla bla ...not acceptable :(

And if something is up, it is really really not hard, and really really important to notify me or the mods, ahead of time, to be able to fix the situation, these little details weren't taken into consideration by some, and led to whatever it led to. Whether 5 or 10 or 3, before you volunteer and before you are accepted, I believe every person should be aware and sureeee of their ability to commit to this. To realize that you cant leave it all to the last day, read through the week, to be able to vote on Friday night (Example) and send the votes and comments by Saturday, to be aware that you will have to do this, every week, till it's over. Every week guys...

That although it's a voluntary job, but it is also a commitment and you can't neglect or underestimate it by any means.

IF judges are aware of what I wrote up there, and are fully ready to commit, things would be somehow MUCH better.

on a side note, and as a reminder, yes I am with having 3 judges rather than 5, much better.

I am still around, lol, life has gotten really busy lately. I am for going back to 3 judges to see if things smooth out.

3 judges.

I like both suggestions,

I think a lonely soul's option is a good one, but also that it will take a bit more time to put into practice.

and having 3 judges might help... or at least giving it a try won't hurt.

So I like both, I don't mind any. Which ever people agree the most with, I'm all for it.

I know some people must be against the idea besides LP. Anyone want to come forward with their thoughts before we make a decision?

Thank you very much for the opinions so far.

The only problem I see is what if the three judges favour a certain style, or are not the most knowledgeable or if two judges did happen to know who each other were and voted together or something. Its leaving the judging in the hands of one or two people. Obviously this may happen with five judges anyway but with five judges tastes, opinions etc. it probably balances out a little more.

How about having 5 judges, but only 3 vote each week, based on a 5 week rotation? Say you have judge A, B, C, D and E.

Week 1 - A, B, C vote
Week 2 - A, B, D vote
Week 3 - A, D, E vote
Week 4 - C, D, E vote
Week 5 - B, C, E vote
Then cycle starts again.

Its a compromise in a way if people are wanting 3 judges. There might be more variety than having the same three judges each week and it would mean judges were only on 3 out of 5 weeks (2 weeks rest) which might be less demanding. Judges would still have to be available for the full term and do the weeks assigned them (within reason.)

Colm that takes a lot of thought and a LOT of organization. Not to mention you'll for sure have people who vote when they're not supposed to, unless a mod takes away their voting powers and puts it back for their term. I like the idea but I see a lot of room for mess ups.

^
True

Colm's idea may allow other to-be-judges, sitting on the fence because of the painful commitment required (essentially sacrificing your weekends and personal life), reconsider jumping back in to the judging pool. Judge FATIGUE is the biggest factor, so a large pool may be necessary to be practical. The judge's job is much harder than Ms. Sunshine's or mods (not to undermine their efforts), so providing breathing space to them, will likely double/triple your existing judging pool. Also, I agree it will give more choices and individual tastes.

I do not think it is difficult for mods at all to "demote" all judges each week and promote a new panel on a rotation basis, as suggested...like to hear from them.

Hello to all.
As the mods know, I've had limited access to the internet this past week, moving my daughter to San Diego from Phoenix. For all you apartment hunting, my sympathies!

First of all, the causes of problems in the contest have been the result of changes we made.
1. We made it so that the site should not do tie breaking, so the mods step in, finding a tie breaker or, if timing is not enough, doing it ourselves. During the past 8 times needed we used 5 members and 3 different mods.
2. We made it so that judges cannot see other judges'
votes. While this change made it so that no single judge could manipulate the winners, it also tended to spread out votes, since later judges in the past may have been influenced by other votes.
3. we made it so that the ranking of poems no longer reflected popularity. In the past, poems at the top may have been given greater weight by the judges due to their ranking. Now, not only does the random order result in more spread out votes, but as Mel & Jane have figured out, may also cause careless mis-votes. If a judges reads a poem, decides on a vote for it, hits backspace & votes, the wrong poem will be voted for because of the reordering.
4. The judging has become more of a commitment because all poems are ranked equally, forcing the judge to read all of them instead of the top ranked or previously voted-on. Certainly we'd hope that was always the case but people are human.
5. We made it so votes are due Saturday and mods & Nana are more focused due to the need to avoid tie breakers. In other words, much of the process is the same as before, but because we no longer accept site made tie breakers, the perception is stressed greater.

Having 3 judges will relieve the problem with getting volunteers and may decrease the number of ties.
For example, this past weekend, the 5 way tie occurred because all 5 judges voted for entirely different poems. If we'd had three judges, the same result would have produced only 3 ten votes, giving the 3 winners without a tie breaker.
Of course, the trade off is that you never require any two judges to agree that a given poem is worthy of the front page.

I was also out of town Monday through Friday in the country and had to type up these long a** posts on my phone. Very dizzying haha.

Larry has done an excellent job summing up the changes that have been made over the past [year] and the problems/successes that have arisen with the amendments installed.

Colm has come up with an intricate, well thought out idea for the weekly contest. I think we should try going down to 3 judges with one main sub judge, and if that doesn't fix the problem and members feel there isn't enough diversity, we can definitely try Colm or Lonely's suggestions and see how they pan out. It's probably wise to start with the most basic alteration (3 judges) and go from there.

Jane which one are you, on the right or left? (in the pic I mean)

Curious, how many judges have accepted so far? if it is less than 5, and they are not the experienced fast readers like Abby, Britt, LP, I foresee a failure. From a practical point of view the JUDGE FATIGUE is a real isssue, when donating 12 consequetive of your weekends to this volunteer mammoth task of reading, voting and commenting on 30-50 poems in 24 hrs (Friday-Sat).

I would suggest at this point opening a voting/opinion thread on trying a rotation schedule between 3-5 judges as suggested above, to see what is the opinion of those who have judged in the recent past (1 yr). Past judges please comment here if you wish on your experiences on this FATIGUE issue.