Should there be a change in weekly judging? Continuation

What has that request got to do with anything?
Yes, these requests can generate one liners, and I'll occassionally put a request in, but only because I know that many new comers come here, and I'd like to read new stuff, I try and give honest critique, and my opinion, regardless of what I recieve back but I see Hellon's point that votes generated this way and may then win but does that make it unworthy of a win in your opinion?? (Not mine)
And yes Britt I know what you mean, A win generates down votes and a couple of comments, doesn't improve a writer in any way.

I've tried that Britt...Still can't see it.

Michael...I do remember roughly what Tara said but again...I can't see it anymore so...I will apologise to Tara for saying I thought the request had been removed.

Other things I can no longer see...on the left hand side of the front page where it lists mods/contests winners etc..that's gone now and...I do know that Mel's latest poem...can't remember the name right now had been nominated just before I signed out but....it's no longer on the nomination list although if I click on her profile the poem is there?

I accept the apology, don't you worry about it.
Seems your experiencing Nana's issues :(

Thank you Tara...you are very understanding :) I'm now looking at a thread I started myself..Kim Jong il is dead...and all posts be me are missing?

Nicko, I love it when someone quotes me... It gives me a sense of satisfaction. Keep doing that haha :)

Happy New Year all....

My statistical data for this year in 2011 in PnQ:

- Best Poet: Monster
- Best Poetess: Karla
- Best Friend: Lioness
- Most Missed Person: The Poetess
- Best Contest: Nevi's
- Best Mod: silvershoes
- Best Poem: Tidal (by.. Sib)
- Best Winning Poem: Price Tag (The Queen)
- Most Helping: A Lonely Soul
- Funniest: Ms Sunshine
- Most Patriotic: Fat Giraffe
- Most Talented: Hellon aka Miss Take
- Most Dark: Monster
- Most Commenter: Jenni
- Most Romantic: The Prince
- BreakThrough Talent: Lioness

Um. I'm confused.

Anyway, so what it looks like is we just need to have a 'formal' vote - do we want a sixth judge in place to break a tie if need be, or do we want the computer to make the tiebreaker?

Sorry for the late input

I have read a little bit on here and the jist of what I am understanding is that some want to change the voting system so that it wouldn't favor anyone because of whom they are friend or foe. Myself being a judge in the past thinks that it doesn't matter that if its computers or people judging, both can and will be manipulated. I didn't like the 10,7, 4 thing. because I felt that the ones that I scored a 4 for were just as worthy as the ones with 10. That is why I chose them. I think the only clear way to get unbiased votes would to be eliminate the contest altogether. Just have spotlight poems that rotate daily or something, that way more than a handful of poets get face time so to speak. No, I understand some of the ones that will be showcases will not be quality poems. But I think that where a panel of judges could help and it would also not tie everyone up to vote just on Saturday nights and Sundays.

Or perhaps have Janis add a button that when you submit the poem you could enter it into the contest. It will make your poem anonymous for say 7 days or so until comments and votes have been placed.
Perhaps my ideas are hog wash and wouldn't work but you never know.

I just think that as long as you can see the names of poets then there will be bias on some levels. Though I did try my best to be unbiased I did have a couple of times where I could not choose between two poets for a vote and if I known that person A had more wins than Person B then I went for Person B after analyzing the poem as far as I could and still not reaching a decision.

I hope that whatever is decided will benefit P&Q and prospective members. It would be a sad thing to see the computer make decisions for us.

Not to publicize or something... but what's said above is totally true ^ !

There is a web called creative-poems.com
Their contest there is unique. You can nominate your poem if you like... and it would be sent to two groups of judges. Group A votes according to grammar and structure.... by specific panel of points, then they forward the poems to group B where they vote on originality... idea.. content.. metaphors..... The 3 or 4 or 5 poems which got the highest votes win.

(N.B: The poems are sent to judges without the name of the person)

^ Abed, the concept is good indeed.

I see you edited your post so fast, Britt.

anyway..

um.. that's a name.. a name of a normal man who'd slap the asses of the acclaimed humorous people with his most humorous jokes ever.

Actually I came back a couple minutes later and added on, I had another thought and didn't want to double post :)

Lol like I did also...

yes, I agree with you. I didn't write in another language though.. the person's name is like that.

I wish I could see him one day...

Direct translation to abu al 3abed?
it would mean Abed's father,
anyways he's the arabic version of Chuck Noris

....

ugh...where is bob..bob and nicko are like twins
except that bob was a bit more revolutionary...

WHY ARE PEOPLE OVER 40 SUCH GIFTS...
COME LIVE WITH ME ALL OF YOU<3

I CAN COOK GOOD OKE

X0X0

I added this in the voting thread, after a question by the astute Mera Luna:

"Computer

In this choice we will continue to let the computer automatically choose between multiple poems with the same number of judges' points. A pro is that the computer is naturally unbiased. A con is that it chooses its winner based on number of nominations or ratings*, rather than other value.

*I added the "ratings" part, because I'm actually not sure which value is considered. We never heard back form Janis for a definitive answer, so if anyone knows, please speak up! If you already voted and this fact would change your vote, let me know and I can edit it."

Also, there is a lot of talk in here that isn't relating to the topic at ALL, and is just getting snarky. I'll be deleting several posts without penalty. We've had a lot of good, critical discussion in these threads so far. Even when people have disagreed, they've been generally civil and committed towards producing good ideas for the site. Let's keep it that way.

Alright, I deleted a ton. Sorry for any collateral damage, but I figured it was better than doling out penalties.

I deleted all the bickering that wasn't related at ALL to the site contest. I also deleted some things that weren't bad in and of themselves, but the referred only to the deleted things so they wouldn't have made any sense out of context anyway. No penalties were given, but come on, kids. Control yourselves a bit. If you feel that I deleted one of your posts and shouldn't have, (and if you can successfully argue that your comment was constructive or otherwise worth something) let me know, and I'll see what I can do.

I hope you all realize how much I HATE deleting things. Every time I click delete, a little part of me dies and goes to mod hell, where it will haunt me later. I would much rather let people just do their thing. If you want that too, help me out by... 1. really thinking about what you're writing before you post it, and ponder whether it's worth it. 2. Trying to keep personal arguments out of threads that are otherwise positive and constructive. If you folks had posted all that stuff in the friendship forum or something, I probably would have just let it be.

A lonely soul would like to discuss the additional possibility of having judges vote on 5 poems. As I understand it, this is due to the fact that (with all nominated poems now being visible) judges have many more poems to choose from. This would require some coding changes, and another discussion on scoring values, but I'd like to invite past and (especially) current judges to give their input. Don't tell us if you're a current judge, of course. Or PM me. Do you feel that 3 votes is enough? Would 5 make your decisions easier? Etc.

Since the poems in the nominations list page are now more than 25 poems, then YES, judges should vote on 5 poems to keep the game fair now that poems stay for two weeks maximum, and every time the number is getting bigger.

'An extension of this idea would be to give the judges the power to vote 1,2,3,4 and 5points each week. They would have to use three of their votes and could use all five, depending on week to week. Say one week there were not many good poems nominated, a judge might vote 5pts 3pts 2pts on the three poems. If in another week the quality was close or there were many good poems, the judge could use all five votes, 5,4,3,2,1. It would give the judges power to reward poems they see as exceptional, or reward poems that were very close to making the top three by giving their extra votes to. But I think the major fault in this plan could out-weigh the advantages: one judge having more of an influence than another. Also it wouldnt help bias voting if it existed.'

^^
This was part of my first post on the first thread. As with most things there are pros and cons.

EDIT: Think I may have got the wrong meaning from the proposed idea of judges voting on 5 poems... Does he mean there to be 5 winners or that it will stay at 3 winners but the judges cast 5 votes?
I think 3 wins a week is plenty, I second what Abby said on that.

The problem discussed with 1-5 votes, earlier, is that there's more potential for ties.

Oh, I mentioned a bit ago that Janis hasn't been here lately, but then I went into the mod room and saw that he'd posted today. Yay!

LP: Poems have always stayed up for 2 weeks, but yeah, there are a LOT more poems to choose from, now.

I guess you could say, though, that the top three should be the top three, whether you're choosing amongst 15 poems or 35.

Naaaaaah. Stick with the top three. A competition usually has a set number of places, regardless of the number of entrants. There's only gold, silver and bronze. Employers don't increase the number of job offers just because there are more applications than expected.
It's pretty simple. And it makes winning that much sweeter.

I agree with Abby. I'd like to see it stick to three.

Abby hit the nail on the head for me, I don't feel it's necessary to up the winners from 3 to 5.

Gold, sliver and bronze works good for me so I see no need for making more positions available...I know we are voting at the moment for subs v the computer and it looks like the sub will win so...if this goes ahead I'm still not sure if I'd be happy with a mod standing in....they are all in clubs so...I'm pushing for an independant stand in and...no...I DO NOT mean me...I was thinking of...non club members....Anna Stephens...Ingrid...Maple Tree..and...yes, me at a push!

If I were to leave my club of 5 years, would that make me more suitable to be sub or a judge than anyone else? No.

If I had never belonged to a club, but I was an active person in the forums and poetry, PMing people and forming favourites etc... would that make me more suitable? No.

If I were a good poet but had never formed connections with anyone on this site because I'm inactive or disinterested in PnQ life... would that make me more suitable? No.

There is no formula. There is no getting away from at least a little bias in any judge, any human, anywhere. There is only faith that the judges are selected by us to do the best and cleanest job they can do.

Just thought, I will add this to my additional qn:

I am not sure who the current judges are, but I can tell you, if I were the judge now, the choices are mind boggling with so many wonderful poems 30-35 sometimes or more, and we may not be doing enough justice to all the wonderful writes. 2 Gold's, 2 silvers and 1 bronze are better than ignoring any a good submissions. Yes, they do have ties in athletic competetions sometimes to award 2 medals, rather than ignore them.
Seriously, folks please rethink in the current environment! The method to vote for them can come later.

Why do we have to have five? In everything its never 'top five'. It's always top three. If we did top five the chances of ties increase, and you're adding more work for judges. Sometimes people struggle to pick and comment on three. I don't know if you are judging now, but if you arent, you haven't been a judge before and probably don't understand how stressful it can be. Ask most previous judges and they will tell you.

That being said IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL. I don't understand the need for five. Sometimes there are five great poems up there. Winning is supposed to be an 'honor', but it seems like we have people trying to change it so more people (maybe themselves?) Will win. Don't understand it.

Again with the clubs... Really?? I have been in a club most of my PnQ "life", and I get small amounts of comments and nominations. If I do get nominated, it's generally not from within my club (sometimes it is, sometimes not). Look at TC - a ton of them write amazing poetry and it's rare to see them generate a ton of comments. So I don't get the point.

Three winners is more than enough. The contest is every week, not every month or year. Most 'proper' contests have one winner and two runners up, and thats from thousands of entries...

I agree with Abby (she is talking a lot of sense in this thread) about the sub judge too. I don't think clubs come into it.

2 addl points in favor of 5 wins:
1)Young and upcoming poets need encouragement (not myself...so please do not over-read my comment). The pattern so far to many new members suggests that only certain people, either very good writers (and yes there are at least a score of them) or some others (just do not want to create controversy again) win repeatedly, discouraging a lot of good aspiring writers. Just look at the winner list for example, there are only a very few newbees, compared to recognized names (prior winners, outstanding writers, etc) who dominate this list. So, in essence when aspiring newbees want a chance, it will not happen, until the best retire or stop writing. This is not just my opinion (as an observer) but many others. Perhaps, if Janis had a POLL button/feature for the whole site, the answer would be not be that inobvious to the people who are winners, over and over again or to the one's who judge the contest.
2) The voting system, which is really flawed, any way you look at it, will now recognize more poems that are equally good, and allow the judges to make a wiser decision, particularly when they think there are 5-6 good one's that could be winners and have to just choose from 3.

If you still wish to retain 3 winners, then consider this alternate equal opportunity (democratic) suggestion:

Let every PnQ member vote (perhaps max. of 3 votes of 1 each) by asking Janis to provide all members the voting button, let the computer tabulate the top 3, by cut off deadline, then pick the best comment/s on the poem (or ask from a panel to write 1 or more comments), and you would have your praises to go along with the winning poems. This way, all the PnQ members will feel that they put in a contribution to the effort of selecting a winner and do not get left out. Also, the best will remain the best, and will win, if they are deserving. A sitewide voting is appropriate for a sitewide contest, not being a club contest, and generally considered a fair way.

If neither suggestions are acceptable, it is just fine. These are just constructive suggestions raised to solve a dilemma of how to be fair, from just 1 observer and can be disregarded.

EDIT: Agree with Kiko 100% (see below) that nominations need to be checked/gated, by justification, i.e appropriate comments, most importantly to filter substandard nominations and make the judges life easier.
My other concern is limited participation in this thread. It seems only a few members are giving their opinion over and over again, so we cannot move forward with suggestions that could improve things. We are not getting a wider representation or opinions of members who really make this site popular, the constituents - hence I think a poll button/with a qn box to be used by moderators will be very desirable to resolve this and other future issues. It may look like a student council, but that is what a democratic system is based on, to be successful and respected by all.
Unfortunately, completely disagree with this statement (Calm, see below):
"Giving wins to 'newbies' isnt encouragement, it is false praise"
No one is promising "wins" to newbees!! You have to be always deserving to win. Just encouraging wider participation in judging. Wins are always on a merit basis, in any contest...they are not give- aways. This answer also applies to Britt's comment below re: giving both A and F students a C. Please do not misconstrue, this is not what it is about.

"Let every PnQ member vote (perhaps max. of 3 votes of 1 each) by asking Janis to provide all members the voting button, let the computer tabulate the top 3, by cut off deadline, then pick the best comment/s on the poem (or ask from a panel to write 1 or more comments), and you would"

I'm sorry but that is an absolute bad idea. In this case, why have a voting system at all? Why not just let the computer vote for it - it would take based on votes and comments anyhow. You do this for one week, tell judges not to vote for a poem, and you watch what pops up. I don't think it would be pretty.

If people write to get on the front page and that is their soul purpose, then I feel sorry for them. They should be writing for other reasons, not to "win a weekly contest" on a poetry site that really has no merit. I was a newbie at one point and got myself active because I wanted to. My writing has changed DRAMATICALLY because I read more (thanks to the front page showing me who the best poets were I could find and learn off of them), my writing has improved because I have made friends who help me, critique my poetry and give me ideas, suggestions, help. Not because I won the front page. I didn't do that until last year, and even then I was annoyed because I didn't feel it was a great poem for the front page.

Yes, a lot of the same people win, but that's because they are consistently good. If you work your butt off in school and get all A's, but there is one person who goes every day but really doesn't care, just does it for them, and get's F's.. should we take away your A, and give you both C's... to make it 'fair'? No.

The problem, as I see it, is in the nomination process, not the judging.

As it currently stands, in order for a comment to be praised, it has to pass the "smell test" or be rejected by the mods. Shouldn't we apply these same standards to the weekly contest nominations?

Last week, Danny's poem had five nominations and zero comments. I think that if you nominate a poem, you should have to justify the nomination with a comment, and not just "this is a great write."

The mods could then go over the nominations the same way they go over the praised comments and reject some nominations that are not up to snuff.

This would cut down on the number of nominations and help the senior members become more adept at critiquing poems.

Giving wins to 'newbies' isnt encouragement, it is false praise. In many ways you get encouragement to keep working on your writing when you dont win. A newbie (or any poet) improves by reading good poetry, be it from famous poets or good poets on here. Not winning the contest shouldnt discourage people. If you are discouraged from writing because you didnt win this contest, well then maybe you shouldnt be writing poetry.

If I remember there was a discussion a few months back about what constitutes a front page win, it was agreed that the judges should vote for the best three poems each week. No matter who the writer, if they won 50 times before or if they had never won before. I would consider that way to be more of an 'equal oppertunity.' Best poem gets the win, thats the fairest way, be it from a 'newbie' or from an 'outstanding writer'.

until the best retire or stop writing.
^^
Why dont multiple winners of the contest not write anymore, or why dont they delete their accounts: Would that make newbies write better poems?

If everybody had votes I think it would turn into a popularity contest, and lose whatever credibility the contest has.

"The mods could then go over the nominations the same way they go over the praised comments and reject some nominations that are not up to snuff."

I do like this idea, but see people arguing now that they didn't get accepted because of mods bias (I'm trying to look ahead to snuff the arguing and loopholes lol). How could we avoid that and still have a change?

The only way to get newbies recognised is to find their work and nominate them (and this doesn't happen often). After that, they are left to the judges' discretion the same as anyone else. This is the fairest way. Top 3 or top 5 makes no difference to the newbies. If they're not good enough, they're not good enough.

I think Kiko has a point, though it basically leads to two sets of judges- the mods and non-mods, which technically doesn't make things any fairer than before (though it's easier to select the winners).

I do, however, like his idea of giving a valid reason for nominating a poem, and having this reasoning approved to filter the selection. But this leads to further problems: If a mod disagrees with a member about their reasoning (say about flow or uniqueness), should that discount the poem? Or if a mod likes the nominated poem but thinks the stated reason is flimsy (i.e. it woz a cool pome), should that poem be counted? Guidelines for both mods and members need to be laid out for this process.

Or we just stick to the current system. I don't think it's all that bad, really.

"Or we just stick to the current system. I don't think it's all that bad, really."

AMEN,AMEN,AMEN....
MMM

PREACH THAT BABYGIRL.....

tooo much pondering with this already..

I think I even have hair pain... yes. hair.

Please don't turn this into the student council elections from high school where popularity said who won. I like how things are now.

"Please don't turn this into the student council elections from high school where popularity said who won. I like how things are now."

That's exactly what is wrong with the current system. It IS a popularity contest. The only requirement to becoming a senior member and to nominate poems is that you have a lot of friends. I think you should know a bit about poetry and demonstrate it, before you can nominate a poem. You don't need to write an Auzy-length critique. You just can't say "Ur a good poet" or nominate without any justification at all.

Here is a comment someone made on a poem that has just been nominated by he/she:

"I think it's a cut little poem about MONKEYS, because they rule like PENGUINS! Great job! 5/5"

If nothing changes, we will continue to be mired in mediocrity.

Yes but judges are smart enough to know that poem isn't front page material. I hope lol

Just because a poem is nominated, doesn't mean it is going to win.

I guess I don't see how 5 winners would encourage new members. They can be nominated just fine, but if we're not setting aside two slots for new members, then I guess I can't see the point of expanding, on that front. As someone else said, they can gain exposure and the chance of winning by having their poem nominated. Once it's nominated, we count on judges (who are themselves nominated, remember) to use their judgment to pick the best 3 poems, period.

That said, I do think it would be cool to have a separate front page spot for new members or recently submitted poems.

You don't really get to be a senior member by having lots of friends. Your friends can praise your comments, sure, but they still have to be approved. Senior membership is just a baseline indicator of how involved you are. If you are able to adequately critique a few poems, you are considered worthy of nominating.

I would have to disagree with site-wide voting. We have that with the ratings system, and we've all seen how skewed that is. Our judging system has more controls, and allows for (in general) more worthwhile comments.