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

Incidentally, the system of changing the Front Page regularly was adopted to have variety there. A weekly change was agreed on, and to cover as many differing tastes as possible it was also agreed that editors should do it by turn. It does seem the most practical way of doing it, but like all 'systems' isn't perfect. Any alternative suggestions for running it, that are practicable, will, of course be considered. I must emphasize 'practicable'.

Im sure Jay chose to call it 'Featured work' with care. It's the choosing, and by whom, that creates differences of opinion. From time to time I've disagreed quite strongly with selections made by other editors, but respected the differences in taste that is one of the strengths of this site. I might criticise the poem on technical grounds, but not because I didn't consider it worth featuring for reasons of my personal tastes.

Remarks on anyone's 'stature' are surely irrelevant. Editors,as noted, are also members.

milner

    always - always, we come back to this.  the subject, topic, choice, whatever . .  I have this to say - do we come here to read, improve, explore, discuss, or do we come to simply toot our own horns? 
     as for me, I don't sweat the front page, the editors picks, etc, because that's not what it's all about.

There is an editorial process here as well as a workshopping dimension. Why do the editors bother to make their picks  (move pieces "up" as it is often characterised)if it is not supposed to carry some significance? Why do they  showcase featured pieces on a regular basis if it does not constitute a purported mark of esteem? Isn't it precisely  the point that for many of us  the  actions of the editors unavoidably  give the impression that collectively they do use the site  in part at least as a vehicle for tooting their own horns?  Yes, they are volunteers acting on an unpaid basis. But that doesn't mean that they cannot be challenged or held to account. There are many positives attached to this site but I think the perceived bias of the editors towards their own work (encapsulated by D's casual admission) is destroying its credibility. Which is a pity.

Yes, my original comment in respone to the current featured work appearing on the front page was

"How dull and predictable"

my point being that I find the poem substandard and a poor representation of the quality on this site; that the (probably, need to check) disproportionately high number of editor features is monotonus; and that Desiree's criteria for featured work (a brand name/ a safe bet) is unbefitting this fine site.

If featured work (and by extension "Picks") aren't mportant, then why have them at all?

B.

When you talk of 'perceived bias', Johnny, how many members are you speaking for? How many think we are doing our best? The numbers would be useful for us to know.

I'm beginning to think my poem is now being used as a stalking horse.

Nora. What a breath of sanity and reason!!!!

Cheers

milner

James, I think it's one of the outstanding strengths of this site that we are able to voice our opinions in regard to the merits and/or lack of same in the works posted, regardless of where the poem appears on the site.   Discussions of the work (yours, mine, countless others) in the poem's thread help me to see and consider any number of things I may have missed on initial reads.  Discussions of the work are learning tools for me.  I especially agree with "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."  But I would widen that to include poems posted on any board here at PC.  My personal opinions and comments may often be erroneous, but they are mine to offer.  With the current Front Page selection, does it matter that I find a certain whimsical magic in Milner's end lines whereas you do not?  Yes, in my opinioin, it does because you give me an opposing opinion to consider, to think about and to reason with myself as to why those lines do work for me.  This doesn't make your comments any less, nor mine any more than what they are.  

In re: unpaid volunteers -- editors and otherwise -- yes.  We are all unpaid.  What a wonderful thing it is to come across thoughtful responses and comments on the varied works posted here by members who give of their time and understanding/knowledge of the craft.  If it weren't for the membership and their efforts, where would we be?  What, for me, becomes unfortunate is that because a position as "editor" is accepted, we are labeled in not particularly complimentary ways.  Personally, when I have joined a varying number of story and poetry sites and found myself unhappy with that site -- I move on.  

I applaud Desiree's choice for FP selection and am grateful, as a member, that she has any time whatsoever to spend here at PC.  I also applaud her honest and casual remarks, her salute to Milner as a poet and to the poem.  And I applaud you, James, for your comments in this thread and in the FP poem's thread.  

lynn

p.s. While writing the above response, three other posts were made to this thread.  Briefly, I agree, absolutely, with Nora.  What it's about, to me, is reading, finding wonders in the writing, learning from what other writers write and other commentors have to say, growing as a writer.  Briefly, in re: Brian's original comment -- I found nothing to help me in my process as a writer.  In re: D's pick, see above notes.    Briefly, in re: a.e.'s comment  -- ?

Milner, I cannot  conceivably give you a percentage of the overall active membership and it is hardly an issue which can be put to an open vote.  Anyway, it is evident that the editors are not prepared to take any criticism on board . There is no point in endlessly bellyaching and  it behoves those of us who find the  site fundamentally flawed to look to a constructive alternative.

My own perception of editors' bias is that, if anything, it works against honoring one another's work. I have not done any kind of analysis either, but since becoming an editor myself I find myself particularly looking for writing that does not come from board members and does come from new names; I consider this part of my new responsibility to health of the site. I think this is a common pov among editors; I can tell you that my own writing has been picked by other editors at about 1/4 the rate it was before I joined them. (Of course, I may have just turned into more of a shithead as a writer too...) Tom

Yes, as suspected (and predicted), this whole thread seves only to finger the dissenters and provide the editors with a platform to defend the status quo. Lavonne's comments regards being open to comments from members are laughable in the face of such pathetic rallying.
And Lynn, look back through the thread of Milner's poem to my original comment regards the particular failings of that piece. Comments made in the spirit of tryng to be "helpful".

Brian, what changes to the status quo do you recommend? Tom

Extraordinary then that despite this anti-editorial bias more than 50% of featured pieces are the work of editors

We're taking plenty of criticism, as is normal, but so far haven't received a single proposal, amidst all the carping, as to how to improve things. Let's drop all this personal crap and get on with practicable suggestions.

milner

Brian -- my response in this thread was to your post in this thread which you referenced as 'original'.  What is laughable?  What comments have been made to work from in re: the status quo?  What rallying?  Pathetic?  You dismiss a response with insult?  Is your opinion on any poem more substantial than mine?  Is mine more substantial than yours?  (no.)  Put aside the label of 'editor' if possible, pretend we are having that beer across a table from one another and discussing a poetry forum and its merits and non-merits.    Offer something to discuss  . . .

 Milner, the first step is to admit there are aspects which need improvement. This is not the message you and your fellow editors are currently sending out.

Got your message, way back. Suggestions?

milner

Don't make the mistake of assuming that featured poems by editors were chosen after the member became an editor.

Did you actually take the time to count the number of poems by editors? I wouldn't have done that but I'll try to do it this weekend. I'm impressed that you are so invested in the issue.

So I did a quick count and out of 148 poems in the archive, 97 are by former and current editors. That's approximately 65% editors poems.

However, the number drops considerably when you only count poems chosen while the member was an editor.  Unfortunately, no record is kept of the date each editor comes on board but at least half if not more of the poems by editors were chosen while the poet was still a member and not an editor. 

It may take me a long while but I'll try to determine a more exact figure because it may reassure some members.

I suggest we table this discussion for a while.

True. My one Feature was pre-editor.
If bias is a problem area, I'm glad we are looking at the reality, rather than just the reported perception, which is another issue in its own right.
It is worth noting that the editors board is a large percentage of the regular users of the site. According to  Statistics, the 5 most frequent posters are editors (7 of top 10). 5 of the 6 top topic-starters are editors (8 of top 10).

Gosh I wished I didn't work and could participate more. If I've read right, we have a couple of issues. Does the featured board serve a purpose? Are editors defensive? (can only answer for myself). The "picking" seems to have a bias.

So, Given that the mission is to provide a forum for people interested in poetry to post/publish the work for others to see and comment on, what changes could be made that promote or enhance that objective?

One historical note: the picking came about in the early days when the site attracted a lot of doggerel, and the different boards were established. Most of the editors that were a part of that process are no longer active or present. The turn over of editors is greater than air traffic controllers.

larry

Apologies, I don't have time right now to address every point, but perhaps a regular (monthly) Members Choice would be one option? Or guest editor chosen from the masses?
Though I have a feeling these things have been suggested before.

Just thoughts. I agree this discussion should move towards practical suggestions and avoid personal insults.

B

     I've given this much thought today . . .and so, again, something to say.
If you go to any other poetry site, I can almost guarantee you'll find a lot of the same authors in the spotlight- even on sites that vote.  It happens.
     How many of us regularly send out to publications, magazines, books, contests, etc. etc. ?  how many rejections do you receive?  how many notes explaining why> how> or offers for improvement ?  that is, if they even bother.  .  .and I bet you- even if you DO receive a reply of any kind, chances are no-one personally licked the stamp to send it.
     Poetry is often a matter of personal preference. what works for one doesn't always work for someone else.  it happens.  me ?  I just sit back and try to understand just exactly what does work and why. . . cause I want to know. I search and search to find something, something of merit, whether it's just a word or just one line, I can always find something. (because it might be something I can draw upon later)  I don't want to write like someone else, I don't have to, and also it wouldn't be "me" - but I also want to be open to the possibilities I might discover within the examination.

     suggestions?  yeah, sure I'm up for that.  we're all friends here, so let it flow. . .

OK, a few points first and then I'll offer some more suggestions.

As someone currently studying about quantative research methods in an educational context, someone perplexed daily by the logic of statstical inference with its variances and standard deviations, I find the offhand, completely unscientific reference to site statistics as annoying. In terms of moving the discussion forward I find it pointless as they seem to be being utilised as support for the status quo and thereby quashing any need for discussion. This isn't intended as argumentativeness by the way, but I find it contradictory to say "let's discuss things" and then to make casual references to unanalysed statistics as a way of defending a position.

Regards diversity, I think it is wrong to draw a correlation between the number of editors and the likelihood of diversity. In fact, couldn't the exact opposite be argued? Wouldn't it in fact be more suitable to have fewer editors with more diverse tastes? Similarly, the lack of any strict criteria for eligibility as an editor is also no guarantee of diversity. It's been noted in the past (several times) that PC does have something of a house style, and the tastes of the editors can be easily spotted. Perhaps this is inevitable, perhaps even a by-product of the aspirations of parity with literary journals.

As Milner pointed out, editors are members too, post their own work and participate in workshops and discussions. Thus, individual personalities come to the fore. Perhaps this is a weakness when it comes to editorial decision making. Any decisions become aligned with a specific editor, rather than with the site itself or with Editorial Staff. Here we have a clear divergence from journals and magazine. With this in mind, a logical argument follows that features should be selected by the editors as a collective. Perhaps picks could be assigned to an individual, but feature presented as the decision of The Editors.

This isn't as impractical as it may at first appear. The current system of one editor choosing could be maintained in some respect as follows: each week an editor puts forward 3 nominations for the following week's feature. The nominations could even be made public, or at least the writers nominated could be notified privately. The editorial staff then would have a week to read the three pieces and cast a vote. It wouldn't be too difficult to arrange sending the nominations to absent or inactive editors. In the event of a hung vote, the editor making the nominations could hold the deciding vote.

A few features could be added to this model: at least 1 nomination must be a poem by a non-editor thus confirming (publicly) that the members' work are always considered. Additionally, members could be randomly invited to participate in the voting process. This would be tricky to organise, but worthy of consideration.

A couple of other points: perhaps inactive editors could have their editorial responsibilities suspended until they have more time. Similarly, inactive members could have their accounts suspended. I know recently the features rota was amended to make room for Tom and Tim and one (very active) editor volunteered to step out of the loop. Perhaps it would have been wiser for the inactive editiors to step aside.

Of course, all of this is dependent on an aknowledgement that the featured work is a prestige spot, as there seems to be a tendency to underplay its significance on the editorial side, whereas non-editor members find it something to aspire to. The labels "Featured Work" and "Front Page" do speak the language of prestige.

Finally, none of the above are concrete opinions that I have spent months brooding on. I am actually writing these thoughts almost as they occur, with an 11 month old asleep on my shoulder and a 3 year old behind me covered in pizza. What I mean is, I am not trying to force an agenda here and everything is offered in the spirit of friendship and respect.

B.

Brian, I don't get your first point about statistics. They may annoy you, but I don't think that A.E.'s citing of site statistics in #13 and #25 was casual, irrelevant, or in support of the status quo at all; nor do I think my and Lavonne's info on statistics in #31 and #32 were casual or irrelevant either. As to defending the status quo, my point of view, which I have often voiced ever since becoming a member, is that PC is the best site for poets on the net. I expect you agree. That's why we're here. The one and only reason it is the best site is that the editors who run it do a great job--not a perfect job, but a great job. If you, A.E., or anyone else thought otherwise, you would not use the site. I do rally to defend the general good work and integrity of the editors and of the site. Part of the good job the editors do is keeping open to suggestions for change, even those that arrive intemperately packaged. Your suggestions in #34 and #36 are very welcome. They are taken very seriously. Thank you. Tom

Tom, my point is that unscientific application of statistics can be read as propaganda and rhetoric. I was referring to the references made by yourself and Lavonne and I apologise for missing out John's citing of figures. My opinion applies to his reference too.

If we want to refer to the statistics we should apply rigorous scientific analysis, or we shouldn't refer to them at all.

I apologise if my point was unclear.

B.

PS: Tom, I think your suggestion that the work of the editors is "the one and only" reason this site is so good is absurd. And slightly insulting to those of us who spend a lot of time submitting and commenting on others poems. The site works because of the overall membership, not just the editors. If yours is an opinion shared by the editiors as a collective, please tell me and I'll gladly stop contributing.

Can I also add, that I hope nobody (editor or otherwise) responds to this with an indepth statistical analysis. My main point is that such an endeavour go against the notion of a forward moving discussion, in this instance, in my opinion.

Now, I have to go to the park and there is a 99% possibility that I won't be able to leave without tears and the promise of an ice-cream.

B.

Brian, I did not mean to insult your, my own, or any member's contribution. My point is that the site is run in such a way that we all are able to make such valuable contributions! It's not just dumb luck that we have so many great members. -Tom

I'm sure you mean well Tom, but I have to disagree again. I don't think the editors do anything especially to allow us to make valuable contributions. Perhaps the design of the site deserves some credit, but again, the atmosphere of openness and honesty (which I think is what you are referring to . . . . ?) should be accredited to all members really.
I would also disagree about the dumb luck too and say that it is the quality of all contributions (as well as the very professional site design) that attracts a certain type of member.

I fear I am being argumentative now and we may have strayed far from topic. . . . .

B.

I think it should be put on record that some of the editors have only accepted the position on the understanding that they can only contribute when time allows them to. Without this we wouldn't have such a variety of talented writers in the posts. Those who are able to spend more time on the site also need breathing space from time to time. This makes it difficult to organise a larger and regular work load for the editors that would be involved in a more complex system. It isn't as easy as some suppose, and apart from writing and some critical ability, which may be in varying degrees, editors must have the temperament that enables them to bite their tongue when shit happens, or they just plain feel in a bad mood. Insinuations concerning their honesty and integrity don't contribute to the health of the site. As Larry pointed out, we've lost some fine editors in the past, and some because they tired of such sniping. My personal standpoint is that I'm a member when I post comments, I pick poems that I like, regardless of author, for the 'picks' or front page. I can't profess to be an 'analytical' critic, through lack of training or inclination in that field. This is who I am, someone who strives to write poems and enjoy others', and if it isn't good enough, then I'll happily return to just being a member and enjoy the great benefits of this site. I'd also like to add that there are many members who are quite happy to read and enjoy the site without actively participating, and would take issue with the idea of 'inactive members' being excluded. That's a bit like a poet doing a reading with the condition that any of the audience who didn't wish to ask them a question, or read their own poem, would be chucked out.

Cheers

milner

I didn't glean that inference from Larry's post at all Milner, but thank you for your interpretation.

All this talk of "work load" is misleading I think. I have been involved in web forum administration before and it is hardly the most demanding pastime. I don't think being asked to read 3 poems a week places too much of a demand on anyone.

Interesting that despite the demand for suggestions, subsequent posts to my own have continued in an air of defence.

Do you really want a discussion or not? I think my first response to this thread still bears relevance.


B.

If are so experienced in web forum administration, Brian, and found it so easy, why not set up your own site where you can implement all your ideas? And I know I'm a bit thick, but not enough to consider reading 3 poems onerous, it's the coordinating of the people involved in that process, finding who is available on particular dates, checking that they do it, finding substitutes at the last minute when outside events cause someone to drop out, or they've forgotten it's their turn, arbitrating on disputes on decisions. All these are going to be someone's responsibility. And how and by whom are the members to be chosen for the job? I'm not saying it can't be done, but that it needs these and possibly other factors to be considered in any such proposals. And this type of work could only fall to those already most active, those who can be available regularly. Most of those already find it difficult to keep up with all the traffic, I know I do. This isn't a no, it's a maybe.

You complain of no discussion. Look at the length of this thread already.

Cheers

milner

milner

Again, x = y thinking. I find very little "discussion" on this admittedly lengthy thread Milner.

I have made several reasonable suggestions and pointed to my (albeit limited) experience with web administration as support for the feasibility of those suggestions. Your response at the start of post #44 is downright childish and until my ideas are responded to properly, the whole thread is a farce. The farce I suspected as early as reply #3.

I now anticipate a rush of support for your negativity.

B.

I'd already decided to stand back from this thread and leave it to others, as it is distracting from attention to others' submissions, which I regard as a duty, as well as a pleasure.

milner

until my ideas are responded to properly, the whole thread is a farce. The farce I suspected as early as reply #3.
Brian, as I said some time back, your ideas are welcome and being taken seriously. They come wrapped in a lot of heatedness attached, which engenders heat in those to which it is directed, and all that has to be expressed and then cool off. This whole thread is not a farce "until" anything. The sharing and digestion of ideas is taking place, and it properly takes time. That you suspect or predict the worst is irrelevant to this process, just another distraction. If you throw the whole contents of a toychest at someone, you can't complain that they didn't catch the ball. Still, the ball is there, and will be picked up. -Tom

Your sensible attitude is refreshing Tom. Thank you.

B.

'tis a muddle.

  :) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8) ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'(

Cheers

milner

Okay, finallly, a belly laugh! Tom

Is that a request to leave Lavonne?

No, I think your poetry adds a lot to the site.

but my opinions don't?

I get the picture.

Not sure I grasp your intent there, Lavonne.

Excellent SL! Could we not come to some compromise?: a tiddlywink on the thumb, dough-kneedling with the other hand, a snorkel on the nose and a Bernie Madoff cd booming from loudspeekers at the top of Everest.

Is this TOO MUCH to ask!??

cheers
james

Brian, your opinions do count. They are intelligent, well thought out and important.
No point in trying to grasp the intent of my female brain. I've been up all night, too
emotionally invested in this place. Apologies to everyone.

I think this begun as a rather more simple problem.

The issue lies with an editor admitting having little time to choose a featured poem.

In this case, I agree with others comments that 'brand-shopping' a featured poem, rather than making a considered selection based on the range of current work, stands to degrade the process.

To have your work introduce the site for a week is an honour and likewise so is the role of selecting the work. I'm sure many members could happily spend a whole week choosing a poem; but this is coming from a student. I understand time is an issue for many.

Therefore, perhaps it could be suggested to editors that if they can't find the time read a selection of current work, they pass the responsibility to the next editor in the queue. It's only fair that such a decision is made based on reading a range of submissions.

Is this a practicable solution considering the rota system?

Mike, that is what is supposed to happen.

larry

Mike, we often find the need to do exactly that, pass the responsibility to another editor -- and we do.  So, yes, it is a practicable solution, and one that we do, in fact use.  It is an honor and priviledge to be able to make that selection; I don't believe any of the editors go about that duty lightly, including Des, including this week's selection, even though her time was limited.  I can't help but think that if I, in a quick and off-handed casual manner had introduced a featured poem authored by you, or jamesthomashoward, or any number of bright wonderful writers on this site, and used the term 'brand-shopping' in my reasoning for the selection, along with limited time -- the terminology would've been completely acceptable.  But acceptance by a portion of the membership of the choice of a work by a fellow editor hasn't been the case with this week's selection.  

For the record, I may not be in total agreement with a particular choice for featured poem as the poem with the most merit; my tastes oftentimes are at odds with the tastes of the editor making his/her selection for the week.  But these differences, I think, are what allow for diversity.

Suggestions are being considered by the editor's board.  It is excellent to hear another voice on this.  Thank you.

ld

Larry, Lynn-  I'm glad to know that this is already the policy, thank you.

I wouldn't want to suggest that Des takes the role of editor lightly. It seems that what some object to in this week's case is a selection born out of a lack of time, as opposed to an active involvement on the boards. It's easy to see why this might rile members who invest a lot of hours doing the latter. Perhaps it's just a case of reiterating the guidelines already in place.

And Lynn, I agree, diversity is a great thing-  I don't expect to like every featured poem; the issue is with involvement- whether it's Miner's poem chosen by Des or Brian's poem chosen by you, I'd like to think it's a qualitative decision from a range of submissions, not a time-constrained default.

Well put, and seconded, Mike.

James

Mike & James,

"And Lynn, I agree, diversity is a great thing-  I don't expect to like every featured poem; the issue is with involvement- whether it's Miner's poem chosen by Des or Brian's poem chosen by you, I'd like to think it's a qualitative decision from a range of submissions, not a time-constrained default."

I like how you mention what you expect from the process and wanted to steer you guys in the direction of the following post by O which describes in detail the process that all of us follow to pick the front page -

http://www.poetrycircle.com/index.php/topic,10026.msg61455.html#msg61455

Thanks for all the input - Michelle

Thanks Michelle, I actually had Oleksa's post in mind when I considered this issue.

I think it's a particularly fine example of dedication to the role and I would hope it's this type of detailed, considered approach that, as you say, all editors follow in making decisions.

I do think giving a little insight into the process that lead to an editor's choice is a great idea and goes along way. O's commitment in this case is to be applauded.

The Italian Parliament that is our editors board has many competing ideas whirling around (even more than usual) about improvements to the site, including the suggestions recently discussed here. At the moment, there is not a consensus behind one of them, but editor/members do continue to attach great significance to the Featured Work selection, and do certainly acknowledge a normal degree of fallibility! Also, remember that we are all always free to open new threads here to honor additional poems, experiment with voting etc., and play with other ideas to make the site more useful and fun. -Tom

this whole discussion has made me want to crawl under the covers, its like I'm 12 & my parents are fighting in front of me- call me a sheep, idc, baaa.

it's not my site, everything, including me, has 'errors'; moreover, pc has allowed me to offer my writing for critic that honest authors are often not allowed & for that I'm grateful-

That's all folks

I started to read and couldn't stop.  Here it is again, the bloody story of humankind.  Everything should be perfect, that it isn't is someone's fault; that their definition of perfect bears no relation to mine is none of my concern. 

That's my way of saying I don't see any solution here.  We want critical judgement on our poems, back up, I want it. That comes from editors and members alike.  However when I weigh that criticism am I more likely to listen to people who demonstrably (most of the time) write better poetry?  Yes in much the same way that people who don't play the piano usually make poor piano teachers.  So we need editors.  And we have great editors.  And if we have those editors because they are more accomplished poets is it a surprise that their poetry features more often on the front page?  I mean really!

If we want to remove all bias, we would need 500 pages of evaluation criteria that no one but a computer would understand.  And why?  To define the ultimate in subjectivity - creative merit.

So let the editors do their work and I suggest every 3 months the entire membership gets to vote on the "best" poem from that period and that gets added to the front page somehow.

k

Thanks, Kev.