May I just point out to disgruntled members, that the front page is not a weekly poetry competition. Editors are merely asked to pick a poem that they think worthy to represent the site for visitors, for a week. It doesn't even have to be a poem submitted that week. Patently members will have differing opinions on the suitability of a particular poem. There's so much good poetry put up that choice is difficult, but it would be gracious if members bore the above in mind, and kept their comments to the poem rather than attacking another's opinion of its worth. At times the editor whose turn it is to select will not have had the time to read everything, and must just chose a poem they think to be good, and each editor will have differing tastes. That we have such a number of editors is an advantage here.. I repeat - the front page featured poem is not a competition for 'Poem of the Week'.

milner

Surely the poetry which is chosen to represent the site to the world at large should be, at least to the minds of those who select it, the best poetry which has appeared on the site? I think for an editor to declare she hasn't bothered to read most of the material on the site but has instead plumped for the "safe bet", viz, another editor, moreover one whose work is almost invariably picked by his fellow editors, leaves a sour taste in the mouth of many. This could be Milner because you are a writer of extraordinary gifts who towers above all others. However, justice must not only be done but  must be seen to be done.

I'm curious as to the purpose of this thread. Is it merely a place for dissenters to show their hands, or the opening up of a genuine dialogue between editors and the general population, which could possibly lead to policy review?
I suspect the former, though I shall gladly be persuaded otherwise.

B.

I would add Milner that to argue no prestige or honour is supposed to attach to a piece which is singled out for special mention,  fronts the site and willl receive far more hits than non-selected pieces, borders on the disingenuous.

I have to agree with plastic. When someone navigates to the page, they are shown a 'featured work'. To me, implicit in this is that the poem shown will be of such quality that it deserves to be seen by newcomers and veterans, one and all. It's not that I am 'disgruntled'; it's that, in the hierarchal method that the site implies (which I'm in favour of, generally), we expect the editors to be the ones pushing things forward. We are often told to avoid chatting like a social club--which I also agree with--but there is something of this unfavourable element in the way that this front page was chosen.

That's my point of view and really the whole thing is rather inconsequential, but I'm putting it forward because if the site wants to improve...

I couldn't agree more that Milner is a writer of extraordinary gifts, who more often than not 'towers above all others'; not with said poem, though.

Thanks

James

In fact, I was merely offering a hypothesis.

it may not be poem of the week but it's still the damn closest thing we got.

Do you mean that Milner's poem is the closest thing we have to poem of the week, or that 'featured work' is the closest thing to poem of the week?

You forgot to mention: also becomes eligible for publication in a future anthology.

B.

If Des had not been so honest, this discussion would not be taking place.

A few of the things that make this site so different from all the rest is the variety of editors and their qualifications, the candid responses of the members and the editors, and the small number of hard and fast rules. The editors are always listening to the opinions of the members and changes are made when we think we can improve the site.

Each editor uses vastly different criteria to make their selection. If they used the same set of certain requirements each week, the variety of poems appearing on the Front Page would disappear.

As to anthologies. The criteria will also change with each edition.  It is only this first one that will be limited to Front Page poems because we have several years to cover. The next edition will have a larger variety of poems from the site.

The circling of editorial wagons in the comment section suggests otherwise. One editor seemingly even believes that it justifies its place on "the title alone". That could save us all a lot of work in future

Some of us might feel that honesty on the part of the editors is to be welcomed.

Johnny, you raise the perennial accusation of editorial bias, which in now nearly 3 years as an editor I've noticed reappears at quite depressingly regular intervals. It may be noted that editors have been selected for a number of reasons, including critical engagement and temperament. Also included is an ability to write fine poems. Considering the latter, is it strange that a fair proportion of 'picks' should consist of their work? Or do you consider editors should reject all idea of selecting poems of other editors?  You also seem unaware that the editors are unpaid volunteers, and have other lives. There are times they cannot read everything posted. You may suggest they should opt out of selection on these occasions, but there are practical considerations, such as reorganising the whole schedule that is preplanned to suit foreseen commitments, but cannot easily be changed on the instant to fit any sudden change in circumstances. We all try our best to be even-handed, despite the barrage of accusations of bias, etc, and the temptation to attribute this to sour grapes on the part of individuals; an accusation I'm niot making here. It would be nice, sometimes, to receive some appreciation, but that's too much to expect. I know I'm not alone in having been near resignation under such allegations of bias on our part, and if I have to adopt a policy of not promoting fine poems because they are the work of fellow editors, then I most assuredly will. It is nigh impossible to ignore the factor of personal taste, but that has nothing to do with some mythical editorial conspiracy.

Whilst writing this, I see Lavonne has posted a comment, with which I fully concur.

Cheers

milner

I think the knee-jerk defensiveness of the editors when challenged tells its own story. There is a wide perception abroad that the editors  favour each other and the metrics do show a very substantial amount of cross-picking and what to many appears to be a hugely disproportionate amount of editors' work included in the featured pieces. Rick has sought to rebut this by arguing the editors do not actively lobby each other but of course iwhere a cosy introspective clique is involved nothing so explicit is required; one automatically favours one's own with the tacit assurance the favour will be reciprocated.

Untrue on my part at least, Lavonne. If a poem does not live up to what I, perhaps erroneously, believe to be the requirements for justification as a front page piece, I will put forward my objection. It actually has nothing to do with Milner, per se, and is to do with the fact that this specific poem was perhaps undeserving of being there.

Milner, I subscribe to your comments regarding editors being unpaid volunteers, having to work etc. But then, aren't we all volunteering here? There are members, myself excluded, who appear to put as much, if not more, effort into the site as editors themselves. I commend the editors, but equally commend said members.

To me, it's not a mythical editorial conspiracy, but just an easy option, and in turn a cheapening of the idea of front page. If we all agree that this is acceptable, then it means I must simply recalibrate my thoughts on what the 'featured work' represents. I am happy to do so.

thanks
James