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.