Weekly Contest Stats / Discussion

We'll see what everyone else says, but I expect we'd take the current list and use that for a couple different shifts. Just vote and nominate again when we're running low on our lists of willing judges.

Having 2 month rotations would mean we'd want about... 30 willing judges, providing they don't repeat (which they maybe could, if they wanted to.) With 3 month shifts we'd be down to 20.

True, but I think you'll have a larger number of willing judges if the shifts are shorter. So maybe it would be easier to come up with the thirty at two month shifts.... hmmm? :P

It doesn't really matter, but six months is definitely too long.
I don't think we should make a new nominations thread... I think it would make more sense to have a list of people that members think are worthy and capable of doing it, and to just continually draw from that. New nominations would only just confuse things, as again, you have a situation where only some people are being chosen (or are at the top of the list).

And I think it's find for judges to repeat if they're able. It's just important that the group of three judges be mixed up, so try not to have the same three voting together after their shift is done. A few months off is decent time before taking up a shift again, in my opinion, though, you'd probably be able to cover it just fine without having to repeat them even that often.

It doesn't really matter, but six months is definitely too long.

^^^
I agree, whether it will be two months or three months, it won't affect a thing, what we want is to change the six months system.

And I think it's find for judges to repeat if they're able

^^^
then we won't gain a thing.....if they are repeated, then it will be the same as if they will last for six months. :/

6 months isn't that long in comparison to how long the judges were judging before we started rotations (indefinitely), but if we're going to shorten the terms, I think 4 months is most reasonable.

We really don't have enough people willing to be judges :\ I think this might be our last brand new rotation, then it will be repeats... unless others accept their nomination in the next few months?

Nah, don't say it! so the judges will last for 6 months from now on??

That's what I would prefer, but I'm willing to try whatever majority wants.

Ok.... :/

Hmm. Does it really matter if they repeat? So long as there's some time between when they last judged? It still gives some variety, right?

I'd love to judge, I just can't commit to six months when I'm starting college and don't know what's ahead... I think a lot of members are in a similar boat on that.

But, do whatever seems best.

The major problems in the current system are as follows:

1. Each week some very good poems do not get nominated.

2. Each week some not-so-good poems do get nominated, primarily because the poet has a lot of friends.

3. Each week some poets get more than one poem nominated.

The solution to all of these problems is simple and does not require hunting down Janis or making any software modifications.

Get rid of the nomination process altogether. Each poet can submit one of their own poems each week. These poems will be divided up among the judges to QUICKLY screen out the poorer ones, and each judge will then nominate three poems to be considered for the weekly winner.

Thus, everyone would have an equal chance in the contest. Even those who don't have a boatload of friends and admirers can have their poems looked at by a judge. This would also guarantee that three different poets would win each week.

Sorry Kiko, but I honestly think that defeats the purpose of the process....

What's wrong with not-so-good poems getting nominated? I think the biggest issue you listed it that some of the good poems don't get nominated. The solution to that lies with the nominators themselves.

The "process" is dysfunctional.

Getting back to the rotation. One solution is staggered terms. Some members may be able to commit to longer periods than others. Accepting a nomination should include a term-commitment, with some minimum, say 3 or 4 months. As each of the judges reach the end of their terms, alternative judges will come on from a list of those who already accepted in advance.
Examples:
"Yes, I can judge, but only for 3 months."
"Yes, I can judge, but I can't start until the semester is over in December."

One advantage of this method is that the mix of judges will constantly be changing.

That's a very useful suggestion, Larry.

It doesn't matter if most of those nominated poems have one or lots of votes, as long as they are nominated they are eligible to win and for sure are being read by the judges.

Perhaps we can set a method for the judges to use and look at.

For example:

1. Its beauty, power, education & entertainment
2. Its message and interest
3. Its technical excellence
4. Its rhyme and/or meter
5. Its form and flow
6. Its choice of words and readibility
7. Its overall impact
8. Its originality

I understand that through this judging system some of our younger/new members might be left out in the cold with no chance of winning though on the other hand I have witnessed younger/new members who have won several times.

And to those members who have not won a single award, please don't be discouraged from writing just because you cannot write at the top level of each judge standards, remember to write from your own enjoyment and satisfaction.

Kiko pointed it out! these are the real problems, and I'll add to them this problem.....people are winning not due to their poems but due to their friends. I am truly convinced by this fact.

Myryn said:

"I understand that through this judging system some of our younger/new members might be left out in the cold with no chance of winning though on the other hand I have witnessed younger/new members who have won several times."
^^^

and that is exactly what I'm talking about! I am not that new to the site, I have been about a year here but I have no friends, like for example Nor or Myryn or Nana....or anyone. I'm not that well-known...and I feel because of this, I'm left out! ughhh.

Larry, I'm in love with your idea.
But can you explain it a bit more??? like how would a member be a judge for 3 months while the other one can't start before a certain date?? how can the mods manage to keep things organized?? :/

Kiko, I AGREE
but...

did you say everyone should submit a poem each week??? and what will happen if I submit more than one poem in one day??

but the three problems you have just pointed out are true and should be resolved! I agree with this.

I've been following this discussion for quite a while and I like some of the suggestions that have been made while I disagree with others.

Larry, I think your idea is quite nice, since it will help the rotating system and if a person is able to be a judge during a period that gets along with their personal business they might find more pleasure in it than when they're short on time.

Kiko, I have to admit that it might get tough if everybody submitted a poem during the contest for the judges to take a look at. I do not know how many active members we have during one week and how many are interested in participating in the contest but I think that might be quite an amount of people. I do not know how much time three judges have to look through a big amount of poems.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood anything of the things you said.

I'm pretty well known and get nominated pretty consistently when I post poems, and I think I've only had four winners in six years. It's quality of the poem. The judges don't collectively pick your stuff, like mine, to win. It's not a big deal...

I like Larrys idea of minimum terms but alternative judges. That's handy.. and actually how I worked things. I was smooth transitions. One judge was on vaycay and couldn't judge for a month into their term, so I got an alternative to sub in. It went okay I thought. Just gotta stay organized with who does what and when.

I agree with Kiko but we have to work with what we've got unfortunately.

^^^At Jenni:

I love this girl.

But Jennifer, Kiko isn't saying that the judges should read all poems submitted during the week, am I right, Kiko? he is saying that a poet should not have more than one poem nominated, each poem has its own week, if I'm not mistaken and I like his idea, so much.

EDITED: Britt, yes, you may be nominated by one member each week, so that you don't win every week. Got me? but when lots of members nominate for you, your poem jumps up the list and you will be considered as a winner.

But Jennifer, Kiko isn't saying that the judges should read all poems submitted during the week, am I right, Kiko? he is saying that a poet should not have more than one poem nominated, each poem has its own week, if I'm not mistaken and I like his idea, so much.

^ Yea I know that he is not saying that the judges should read all submitted poems by one poet, he is saying that every poet should be free to submit one poem of theirs, which they might think is worthy of a win, to the contest. But I wonder how many poets would like to participate and submit one of their pieces? It might be a big amount.

''The major problems in the current system are as follows:
1. Each week some very good poems do not get nominated.
2. Each week some not-so-good poems do get nominated, primarily because the poet has a lot of friends.
3. Each week some poets get more than one poem nominated.''

I do not see how letting every poet nominate or submit their own poems would solve any of these. It would cause all the above in huger numbers, plus other problems like having poems roll off the nomination page quickly (since every one would be nominating their own poems), Most won't read other works as much as before (they'll stay in their ''submit and nominate'' bubble) which would affect comments and interaction on the website and those who are not senoir members or newbies wouldn't have much of a chance, actually most people wouldn't have much of a chance since most poems wouldn't be on the nomination page for more than a few hours. It would be chaotic. As to judges ''dividing poems and QUICKLY screening out poorer ones'' Even if you found judges free enough to do so, some would still cause a headache over why that poem was screened out and whether is it because the author isn't popular. Same old, same old. I also wouldn't like giving a judge the power exclude a poem on his/her own from being on the nominations page, I'd rather that power be the readers'.

I wouldn't say people get nominated because they have a lot of friends, they get read because they do, but no one of the names I see nominating poems (which are a few) would just nominate it because the person is their friend despite the poem being not-so-good. It's just that tastes vary on here, what some might not see as so good, others might see as perfect. In the end, I don't think it's dreadfully a lot of work to be active enough on here whether on the poetic level or the social one to be read.

Oh and one last thing, if any of you go back to the site main board contests starting from Abby's first one you'd see that those with the highest scores are the same who make it on the front page, mostly, despite being anonymous on these contests. So I'd suggest everyone feeling like the system is not so fair to join one of these contests and see where they stand, it is my understanding that there is still time to join Colm's.

He isn't saying this as well. you mistook him. He was saying that everyone should submit a poem and just one poem every week....and it may get nominated or it may not..
but what matters is that no member should submit more than one poem so that they don't get more than one poem nominated, got me??

"So I'd suggest everyone feeling like the system is not so fair to join one of these contests and see where they stand, it is my understanding that there is still time to join Colm's."
^^
Ughhh Nor, in your contest (with Mel) many of those whom we see on the front page were eliminated from the first round or maybe the second, I only won twice, but I lasted till the 3rd, and some stuff happened with me so I couldn't write an appropriate poem for the forth round....I don't think this is right. :/
And for the site contests, there is only one winner, right? not like the weekly contest. And I've been over here for one year or maybe less, I only participated in your challenge and I wasn't that bad so no, I don't agree with you on this, at all.

Even with one poem from every senior member, it would be too much, not to mention it would probably cause other people who were nominated by others rolling off the page at times which I do not find to be fair.

What about having a weekly thread in the poetry forum or even this one where poets can promote one their poems each week by posting its link on the thread for others to read and nominate if they like? It would be more organized.

EDIT:

''Ughhh Nor, in your contest (with Mel) many of those whom we see on the front page were eliminated from the first round or maybe the second, I only won twice, but I lasted till the 3rd''

Actually, that's not true at all. Go and check the names on the thread. The only exception is Slighte but she wrote the last poem and submitted it like two minutes before the deadline because she didn't see the contest except upon the last minute. You have one twice or three times, haven't you? if you actually compare your points to others you'd find the ratio is somehow fair.

On a side note, I don't see why the hard feelings about not winning (Especially when speaking about oneself or one's work). It's neither here nor there.

I write because it is my pleasure and I like my poems, those more others less, though they're not flawless. I like them because I know I put my heart in it. That is why it is not about winning to me, I mean hey it'd be nice but that's not the reason I write.

Ingrid said that when she was a judge she did not put into consideration how many nomination one poem has, she rather looked at each poem seperately regardless how many nominations. I think that the amount of nominations should not matter or raise that poems possibility of winning. I have an idea: Maybe a poem should be able to be nominated only once, like that the amount of nomination problem would be solved since it can be nominated only once anyway. People would have to spend their votes on other poems that are not nominated yet, which might make them find new talents. If they think that there is no other poem that has the potential to win, then they just keep their nomination, rather than spend it.

I do not know if my idea is any good though.

What about having a weekly thread in the poetry forum or even this one where poets can promote one their poems each week by posting its link on the thread for others to read and nominate if they like? It would be more organized.

^^^
I agree but every member should be taken into consideration and their writes should be read carefully..if this happens, then what a great idea!

but still I don't get this....
did Kiko mean that every senior member should vote for their poem so the judges would read it all?? oh my gosh, I got it wrong then...I thought he was saying that every poet would submit to the site only one poem so that nobody would nominate more than one poem by the same poet...hmmmm

"Maybe a poem should be able to be nominated only once, like that the amount of nomination problem would be solved since it can be nominated only once anyway. People would have to spend their votes on other poems that are not nominated yet, which might make them find new talents. If they think that there is no other poem that has the potential to win, then they just keep their nomination, rather than spend it."

^^^
A very great idea, Jennifer, but I hope we won't need Janis for this too....:/

EDITED:
Nor lol there is no hard feeling but we've been asked to state our opinions, right? and I just said that things are being unfair kind of, and it is true.

About your contest, of course a site contest will differ from the weekly contest... because in a contest, there are prompts, and there is a deadline and dunno what, so I don't know why you even brought this as an example....it's not related to it.

And are you saying that a win or two is way enough for me? am I that bad??? and even if I am, you just said it is all about tastes...so if you see my poetry or some members poetry isn't that good, others will disagree, definitely, you can't decide who is worth a win and who is not....

Actually Nor made a good point..i guess she meant it this way..

if you guys think that the winners of the weekly contest are being picked regarding who they are, then its not true, because most of them are winning the site contests when they remain anonymous and unknown, which is very true if you go check the majority in the lists..

Hence you may join the new site contest, cause you will remain unknown and see if your position differs.

That's how I understood it..not sure

The prompts and the deadlines are on all poets alike, so it's the same really.

I didn't say that a win or two is enough for you neither did I decide who is worth the win or who's not, don't put words in my mouth. I said that in comparison to others (who dealt with prompts and deadlines) it seems like the ratio is a fair one.

About opinions, yes. Did I say you aren't allowed to state your opinion?

---

Edit:

Thanks, Nana.

I guess we need Kiko to explain what he actually meant. It might be obvious but I'm slow right now, don't mind me. :)

Well the problem with my idea might be that the "friends nominate each others poems"-problem still exists, just that they would not nominate the same poems but all other that have been submitted during the week. But I somehow can't imagine that people are this obsessed with their friends winning. Atleast I have hope that it's not like that.

Lol ya Jenni, but it's not a problem if a friend nominated his friend's poem when it's a good one, I asked people to show me one bad poem that won!

And, I did get an answer, but for me, the poem pointed out sounded really good!

Ain't you a friend of The Poetess ? and Tara kay ? and Lebanese Pheonix? They are all her friends and all of you nominated her I am weird, so did I. Did you guys nominate her poem because you are her friends ?

I guess not, so if you start seeing things this way, people will start taking you wrong as well, especially that her other poem is also nominated by Lebanese phoenix and Tara..(same people)

It's not a big deal really, people nominate poems that they consider good enough, not for any other reason, poems win regarding the judges tastes, and that's why judges are always being changed. Can't see what's unfair, its impossible that ALL the judges that have been picked, were all unfair.

Jenni, I think it's more of people with the same style and tastes group together and hence read (which leads then to nominating) each others poems. I don't think anyone would nominate a poem that they see bad just because it's their friends, neither do I think that anyone would read a (what they think) a perfect poem and refuse to nominate it because the author is simply not their friend. Just because I, for example, don't like a poem that is nominated doesn't mean some don't find it a masterpiece.

I think the main issue here is that the same people (who are well known as good poets) are those who are always ''read'' and hence nominated. It's actually hard to shift between all the poems on here to find a poem you like from someone different or unknown (I tried it plenty) so people stick with the authors whose work they like when it comes to reading which is the first step to nominating.

I'd have to say I have no problem with people upset some authors they think worthy aren't winning. However it's people upset they themselves are not winning or are better than others who are being nominated or winning that I do not understand much, but then I never liked any of the stuff I write anyway so I can't relate. So I guess it's understandable.

But then I never liked any of the stuff I write anyway so I can't relate. So I guess it's understandable.
^
lol Nor...

Anyway you made a good point, it's my opinion as well.

I guess you misunderstood me. I do not think it is wrong if friends nominate a poem if they truely think it is good. There is nothing wrong with that.

I am sure that all the poems who won so far were worthy of their win and I'm sure that it will be like that. I mean just because a poem might not be my taste that does not make it bad. I never said that a poem that wasn't worthy won.

I'm a friend of hers and I nominated her poem because it was good, I get to read her poems more than others because she's a friend of mine but I always try to keep an eye out for new poeple. Though I generally do not nominate poems really often anyway, guess I'm really picky lol.

I can't really tell whether it's unfair to me or not since I've not really bothered thinking that I might be treated unfair because I know it'd never be anybodys purpose.

I also believe that it's obvious that those people who win more often will be always read as you said. I mean they would not of won as often if they were not any good. I think that those poems should win that are good, regardless of how often the poet has won before.

Well it seems we've all been saying the same thing but in different ways/phrases. Glad we're all on the same page, most of us at least.

This weekly contest thing is far too overrated.. is that what we joined this site for? Well I certainly didn't. Yes it adds interest and participation to the site, some like the recognition, no problem with that I suppose but it seems no matter what system we have in place some bodies not happy.

For anybody to give up their time to judge others poems on a weekly basis is an absolute bonus. I have been a judge for site contests a number of times and its hard yards and all I can commit to time wise. Yes we all have different tastes, what I might give a 10 to somebody else might give a 5, you see that in the results of all site judges. Weekly judges are no different, they do their best and we should give more credit, in fact get down on bended knees and kiss the ground they walk on...

As for friends nominating for this or that, and how many nominations each poem has, so what, favouritism will always be labelled somewhere no matter if we swap the judges weekly.

The system is working, no good fiddling with it more. What is more important is getting more judges who are prepared to give their time. But who would when all they get is criticism.

So hats off to the judges I say...

I like the system just fine, though the terms being shorter might be easier for judges.

Poetess I wasnt talking a out Kikos point, but yours.

I think its in bad taste to say boo I don't win. And then say winners win because they're popular. When I first joined the site, I knew no one. My best friend and now sister is someone I met here through reading her poems, because I liked them. That's how you get to become friends usually. You like someone's poetry, you comment, they return, you PM them a thank you, you chit chat and become friends. That's usually how it happens, so yes of course I nominate my friends.. to say you don't or your friends don't nominate your poetry isn't true, I see that every week.

Point is, were talking about if there should be changes to the weekly to make it more fun, easier, throw around ideas. Not to discuss how to make the Poetess win each week. Amount of votes and nominations don't mean anything, and if we only got the do one poem one time overall, I'd stop nominating poems. No way am I stopping and looking every single time I read a poem I like to make sure its 'okay'. That's just silly.

I'm on my phone but read Narph and Larry's post after mine and I agree with them. I guess it doesn't matter if the judges repeat and we would have a bigger pool of people to pick from if the term was shorter. Still, I would vote no less than 3-4 months so people have enough time to figure out the works and take it seriously.

I agree with Nicko that this isn't really that serious. Having said that, I just think that if you're going to hold a contest each week, it should be a fair one.

What I'm proposing is no different than what goes on in every site-wide contest anyway. People who want to enter, simply PM their poem to someone. No one HAS to enter and only one poem per person can be submitted for each weekly contest.

At first, there would probably be more poems than usual, but it's not hard to screen out the poor ones. It would only be tough on the judges if there were a lot of exceptional writes, which would not be a bad thing. There's usually about 10 poems each week (imo) that are exceptional and a few more wouldn't break the bank.

Many senior members tend to only look at and nominate the poems that are ALREADY nominated or else they nominate their friends poems. I can tell you from my own experience that it can be frustrating to write a good poem, and then have to hope that someone nominates it.

Perhaps a thread, like I mentioned above, would do as a start, Kiko? Just a suggestion.

Nor, I thought this WAS the thread for discussing how fair we thought the site contest is.

I read where you said that the judges might screen out poems based on who wrote the poem. If that was the case, then any system would be totally corrupt. So, what would be the point?

What I meant was that it's fairly easy to screen out poems that are not exceptional by the quality of the language, use of poetic devices, grammar, and for rhyming poems, poor meter and forced rhyming.

''Nor, I thought this WAS the thread for discussing how fair we thought the site contest is.''

No, I meant a weekly thread for members who think like they've written a good poem to promote their work on by posting links for these poems so that other interested members (hopefully) would read and nominate the poem in case they found it worthy. I think that would be like a middle solution and we could see if it would do more harm or good and whether it'll be chaotic or somehow manageable.

As to judges screening out poems, I was addressing your suggestion of letting a judge screen out unworthy poems from the nominations page (due to the increased number that would turn in once people start nominating their own poems). As far as I understand no judge has the power so far to remove anyone from the nominations page unless the poem doesn't get enough nominations that it falls off the page of it's own accord, which is more up to the readers/normal members than the judges. I don't think anyone is screening out anything at the moment.

What nominations page? In my proposal there would be no nominations page. You submit your poem directly to the judges via PM, just like in your contest, just like in Colm's contest, just like in every other poetry contest on the face of the planet.

I must have misunderstood then. Sorry, my bad. That sounds more reasonable, I guess, (though I prefer now's system of nominations as is) One problem would be that the judges are supposed to be anonymous.