Weekly Contest Changes # 3

In the last thread, several new ideas were raised, and old ones rehashed. I'll try to summarize them below. Feel free to add to the discussion.

1. There was a debate between having a substitute or the computer break third place ties. We started a separate thread for voting, and left it up for about 3 days. The final tally was
32 votes for a substitute, 6 votes for the computer. We will begin having a rotating substitute on hand to break ties and add a comment to the winners' thread.

2. We talked about judges being "blind" to the order of nominated poems. This would be enacted by hiding other judges' votes, and by shuffling the order of nominations so that current ranking couldn't be guessed by judges. Mods and contest manager would still be able to see the tally. Everyone seemed to agree on these ideas, and we will propose them to Janis.

3. We have discussed requiring nominations to submit comments that would justify their nominations. Mods would look over and approve these comments as we do for praised comments on poems.

-Those who do not support this idea believe that a senior member should be able to nominate for any poem for any reason. They do not think that requiring a comment would cut down on favoritism. They think that nominating a poem simply opens it for consideration, and they believe that it is the judges who are the only ones who should have to justify the worth of a poem, as they are the ones deciding on the winners. Those who do not support justified nominations believe that the judges can and would not consider substandard poems.

-Those who do support this idea believe that a senior member should have to give a reason for why the poem should be considered. They feel that justified nominations would cut down as favoritism, because people would not be as ready to nominate their friends if they had to write a comment supporting their move.

4. It seems that most people would like to see different standards for senior membership (nominating capabilities). Currently, you need either 3 praised comments or 100 poems. A subtext of this idea is that, if there are higher standards for senior members, perhaps some people would not see the need to require comments justifying nominations, because they would have more trust in the nominators.

If we can agree on a higher number of praised comments (numbers in the 7-15 range have been suggested) we can put that idea to Janis as well.

5. The idea of having 5 winners instead of 3 has been put forward. I am not clear on whether they would be ranked 1-5, or if multiple of each number would be allowed.

-Supporters of the 5 wins system feel that since there are now more nominations, there should be more wins to encompass them. They believe that 5 wins would mean that a higher number of the good poems would be celebrated, and that judges wouldn't have to choose between two or more good poems. Supporters of the 5 Win also believe that it would allow newer and younger members to win more often.

-Objectors to the 5 win system believe that 3 wins is enough. They allow that it is sometimes hard for judges to narrow down to 3 votes, but that this is a part of the "honor" of winning. They do not believe that 5 wins would give younger members a statistical advantage over established members, since the odds increase the same for everybody. They feel that stricter senior member rules could decrease the number of nominations to sort through.

6. An additional proposed idea was to enable voting for every site (or, alternatively, every senior) member. Winning poems would be chosen based on cumulative votes.

-Supporters - Believe a popular vote is the most fair solution because more people would go into choosing the winners

-Objectors - Feel the idea would be too unorganized, would be impossible to police, and would open the door for even more favoritism. They feel that most poems would not win by a majority, even if all members could vote. They also believe that this function (of a popular vote) is fulfilled by the "Highest Rated Recent Poems" on the front page, which highlights popular and highly rated poems that were rating by any member.

Additional Ideas:

- Decreasing the number of poems a senior member can nominate to lesson strain on judges
- Having judges vote 1-5 on every poem

If there is more than one person in favor of the Supporting side of 3, 5, and 6, please comment below. If the ideas are seconded, I would propose that we move to a vote in a separate thread, because I don't think many people's minds are going to be changed. We can also vote on the number of praised comments senior members should have, once people give clear suggestions below.

Thanks for the summary, Sibs. I'm sure that took some time!

Sibs, you did an amazing job compiling the information and now I feel like I am equipped to toss in my two cents.

I think a substitute is a much better tie-breaker than a computer. It's a nice personal touch, and probably more fair by PnQ standards.

I have an idea to put forward. Instead of decreasing the number of nominations senior members have, why not make it so a poem can only be nominated once? If you try to nominate a poem, but it's already been nominated, you reach a page that informs you, "This poem has already been nominated. You have [X] nominations remaining this week."
Having a poem receive tons of nominations does nothing but sway judges' opinions (whether they admit to it or not), and decrease the breadth of poems that are nominated.
I'm guilty of nominating poems that are already on the nominations page. If I wasn't able to, I might expand my search for nomination-worthy poems that have not yet been nominated.

I think I suggested this in the past Jane...trouble then was a lot of poems with only one nomination ended up on the second page and the judges couldn't read them. Now that Janis has fixed this problem...I'll second this.

I think it is a nice idea but would that make it more difficult for the judges as the amount of poems increase?

Maybe lessen the amount of poems you can nominate and also make it so that you can only nominate a poem that has not been nominated.

Best of both worlds

Right now each senior member has 3 votes, right?

I'm curious how many more poems would get nominated if people couldn't nominate the same poem. If it dramatically increased, we could decrease the # to 2 or even 1 nomination per senior member... OR something else, like make it harder to become a senior member?
I'm not sure, but we've got some clever cubs on this site that could help refine the idea :)
I'm all eyes.

Maybe all three?

Decrease the number of poems we can nominate
One nomination per poem
Increase the number of praised comments

If possible it would be good to have a trial run and decrease the poems to 2 that you can nominate and then if there are too many you can further decrease it

At least a test trial can show us what it will be like

I was wondering...would it make any difference if a senior still retained their three nominations per week but were not allowed to use them until a few days after the new winners were announced? I've seen so many members use their 3 votes in one day and often wonder....what if something better comes up at the end of the week?..you have no nominations left...just a thought.

I think it is a good idea about the time when to nominate in case something else comes along but if they are keeping the three nominations that will make it harder for the judges as there will be more than likely an increase of poems to view etc

Especially if they were thinking of keeping it at one nomination per poem as to not persuade the judges view

I know what you're saying Lioness and..in theory I would agree that it would give the judges a lot more work....if every senior member still used their three nominations...call me a cynic but, I don't see that happening. People vote for friends...I think we've all now admitted that happens so...if another friend beats another to it I would think a lot would just not use their nominations....hope this doesn't come back to bite me in the ass!!!! (Having nightmares that this will become a quote for 'Looking back on 2012 haha)

I see what you are saying lol

I think no matter what happens in the end someone will always disagree

Can't please everyone I believe

I think as long as the decision that is made helps out the judges and is as fair as can be considering the policitcs

I hope it does not come back to bite u lol

**

I go for increasing the number of praises to determine a senior member. If that happens then I won't mind if number three is not implemented.

But to me 15 praises sound too little. I think 30 is a reasonable number. Or does it sound too outrageous?

And I like the idea of just being able to nominate one poem once. But still have three votes because I don't often use the three votes and sometimes there are more poems that I find worth to nominate.

I actually like the idea, especially since the amount of nominations shouldn't influence the judges it should not make a difference how often a poem has been nominated. So may as well decrease it to once.

I know it can be difficult to pick only one or two. There are so many great poems out there it would be a hard choice

I think at first we should decrease it to two and then see how it ends up for the judges.

If we decrease it to one, watch the amount of poems on the page increase, and the judges accepting the job decrease.

Personally I think if people accept the position of judge they should realize the responsibility of it. I think if the workload increases the judges accepting the positions may be more commited to the job and to judging fairly, not accepting it to show favoritism towards friends

As for the nominations I think the senior members should have to have at least a blue if not yellow or higher comment thing in order to be able to nominate, hopefully this will get people who actually read a poem and think about it to be the ones voting, not just anyone who might of given out a few praised comments to a friend and one liners to everyone else.

I agree that the nominations should be 1 per poem to allow more poems to be nominated and possibly those who only vote for friends will either stop voting if their pick is already submitted or they will actually look for a worthy poem. If they want to throw a hissy and not vote for any other poems because someone already voted for their pick I say let them. They shouldn't be voting if that's how they do it.

As for the number of nominations per person. Leave it as it is. If people waste them early in the week they need to learn self restrain. And the number shouldn't increase too much because people are using a lot of votes for friends and not really looking for great poems for the fact that they are great poetry.

Gotta agree with the above post.

Writing one hundred poems takes a long time and that qualifies someone as a senior member. Leaving praised comments should be just as much work if it also equals senior status, and 3 praised comments can be achieved in an hour.

Make it 30/Platinum.

I am definitely for making more praised comments be a requirement. I said 50 before but that's pretty steep.

I agree that we will have serious judges who understand the responsibility... But I feel its been so hard to get all new judges every turn, especially at every three months, that we will just get repeat judges constantly. I personally don't care, but an issue about a year ago was having the same people judge. So if that is no longer an issue for people, that works perfect.

If the requirement is transcended to 30 praised comments or more, people will start leaving huge comments over night on as many poems as they can. It wont take a user more than a week to attain senior membership. It will be an accumulation of members turning seniors every week, slowly but surely the nominations will increase, judges will be buried in an avalanche of nominations.

Let the limit be set to 15 comments, but extend the time period for which a user is a member on this site. For example - A user must be a member of P&Q for one year, must have alteast 15 praised comments to be a senior member.

Thus it eliminates the possibility of members attaining a senior membership status over a period of weeks. Not only this, but it balances the exponential function and the rate at which senior members will increase over a span of years. It will take each new user atleast a year to become a senior member. By then, the user will have commented on enough poems, will have encountered acquaintances, will be familiar with the ways of P&Q.

And if people have problems with the judges, as they surely will. I did notice poetry winning based upon mere popularity. Certain poems are not worthy of a nomination. But you cannot blame a member for his/her friendly nature or their parameter of friends. So I propose, hmm idk if I can "propose" since I am not a regular around here. But why not select judges from the critiques community?. .There is a list of the best critiques offered on a dedicated page. Choose judges from there. That could be a minimum criteria for becoming a judge. Judges should be changed on a timely basis or the decision will start to incline towards favored members, it is human nature. People tend to go mad on power. Members that feel helpless will rebel and we have enough drama already.

I'm just saying.

I think it is a great idea about the time frame on being on this site as well as the senior member

Um, judges are already chosen based on people who nominate them and note to feel they would be a good judge. And they rotate every three months..

You know what is also a damn problem

those amazing old poems you find that you can't nominate...UGH MAN.

The best critiques are the potential judges, worthy of judging by all fair means, satisfying a criteria.

And I am aware of judges being rotated. But I meant, the same members should not be selected as judges the second time, except for exceptional and necessary cases. Which means a judge will not be judging consecutively and other members from the critiques list will be given a chance.

And Britt, I was replying in reference to your post where members are opposing about the same people judging. It is fair for others to oppose.

I like that suggestion about the time frame.. One year and (15 Or 30 with time frame) praises to become a senior member sounds great. But I don't know if it's too much to ask, for everyone to see the nomination list. I mean for them to see it but not nominate poems unless they become a senior member. I think it's a good idea for everyone to know what poems are participating in the weekly contest and later on find out who were the winners.

I have to admit, that I do not know how a specific time frame qualifies a member to become a senior member. Obviously during 1 year the person has the possibility to earn a specific knowledge, but it doesn't mean they actually will.

What I have proposed is a minimum criteria.

It isnt assured, that a member will gain all the knowledge required. But alteast he or she will be able to distinguish between poems that deserve a nomination and those which do not.

^ Everlasting.

It could be possible to make changes so other members could know as to which poems are being nominated. But if all members start to nominate and vote, it will be chaos, since it will become easy to attain a senior membership with 30 praised comments.

Hmm.. Yeah, We don't want chaos for no one.
Okay, then I guess leaving that as it is for only senior members to see it.

To be honest, everybody is able to view the nominated poems. They only have to use that link.

http://www.poems-and-quotes.com/contest_poems.html

Thanks, I didn't know that.

I also like the minimum 1 year membership idea. I've wondered about that before, but wasn't sure how people would feel.

Man, I don't know if I have 30 praised comments... gotta go check!

Edit: Aw, shoot. I don't have 30. Haha! Guess I have some work to do. I feel like since I've been a mod I've commented on about 10 poems. It's a reminder that I ought to get more back into writing and reading, rather than just modding all the time.

Edit again: I forgot that I've also been a member for 6 years and have almost two hundred poems. I guess I don't need to panic. But still.

Haha.. sibyllene.

I think you don't have anything to worry about. I also like the minimum one year membership idea even tough I won't be able to nominate poems until 6 or so months.

and About the 100 poems, I'm almost to that point..

But this ideas are still coming afloat, will see what the rest of the members think about them. :)

but I think you are safe.

^ Enjoyed Sibs self humor above.

Some of the excellent ideas proposed so far have their own pitfalls, and may not be the solution which everyone is looking for. Here are some reasons:

1)The current nomination list is close to 40, and practically each one of the nominations is from senior members in good standing with all of the criteria proposed. So simply increasing the # of praised comments, will still not limit the # of nominations, as PnQ has grown, and there are many very good writers and senior members. Nor, limiting each poem with just 1 nomination will work well, without simultaneously limiting the # of nominations available per senior. People will simply triple/multifold increase the # of poems nominated if they still have 2 addl votes left to nominate, creating a bigger nightmare for the judges. But, all of these suggestions seriously compromise an individual members freedom and varied taste's. Often, we have 5 or more poems new poems per week that we like and wish we could nominate all 5 or more, so this concept, although well thought off is not a real solution, in my opinion.
2) Making 1 year or 100 poems as criteria for senior membership is not going to work well either, as there are brilliant writers who leave and come back when they wish (Hellon, Karla, Mera Luna, and more). PnQ would lose its shine with this rule. Hellon just deleted 4-5 of her poems after she came back, and now has only 3! Guess what will happen to her with this proposal!
3) There are at least 5 or more excellent poems each week, but each judge can only choose 3, often making them feeling regretful that they could not score on the more deserving one's. And then the disappointment that the one's they chose as their 3 best did not even make it to the winner list, too often.
4) The only real soln to me to curb the # of poems being nominated/showing up on front page is a) The poems should not stay on the page after the contest is over, i.e a second week....this will cut the nos. by about a 1/3rd.
and/or
b) Limit the page to 30-40 max/week. Thereafter, they just stay in the waiting list for the following week, above the nominated one's.

Here is a chance to play a FUN MOCK JUDGING GAME: I am willing to put up a quick 24-48 hr once a week judging game as a trial run for players using the currently nominated poems in a separate thread for a few weeks, to realize the judging dilemma, deficiencies and oddities. In the game, we do not have to comment (just for the game), but simply score on all (not just 3) nominated poems). For the game, I will modify the current rating scale from the current 10,7,4 to 1-5 to make adding scores from 40 poems easier, This will also give me an opportunity to test the validity of the previously suggested 1-5 scale (http://www.poems-and quotes.com/discussion/topic.html?topic_id=133336), that was earleir abanodned for a simple glitch, which is now fixable by disqualifying the lower # combos that may win in a remote circumstance (3,3,3,3,3, or 2,2,2,2,2 as they would not have comments on them any way). If people are willing to play a demo game that I will set up for them they will be able to realize the dilemma the judges face, each week. Unfortunately, because of the posting limitations only 5 can play the game at one time. Past or current judges or mods would be the best players, as they can compare and criticize the accuracy/superiority/simplicity of this scoring system to the existing one. The mock scoring game can then be repeated another weekend by another 5 players. This way, one can have hands on experience, and critique/fine tune or abandon it before suggesting any real changes to Janis that could backfire later. What do you think? Send me pm's (so as to not to clog this thread), and I will set up the game when I have at least 5 judges/ex-judges willing to play. OR if you all prefer, I will set it up, and let the mods handle it, as they have the tools to go in any thread and modify, which I will not be able to.
Do we have any sportsman type's? Join me in having some fun. The purpose is not to usurp the current judge's choices or prove anything other than validate the concept/methodology by field testing it. Judge's and their choices will not be disclosed, unless they wish to.

Whatever changes we implement, they don't need to be too drastic right away, because they can be revised. We should organize some kind of trial run(s).

It's amazing having Janis around to make stuff like this worth considering.

No game should include current judges, since it will disclose their identity.

A 100 poems?. .is that not a bit exaggerating?

And A lonely soul, I did not suggest an imposition of 1 year as the minimum criteria, it was an example. The time frame could be a month, two months, six months or whatever the population decides. And for those who keep coming and leaving, they will stop doing it.

I suggested a time frame because it takes the control away from the user. He or she cannot randomly add poetry or comment overnight on multiple poems to become a senior member. With the time frame achieved, a member will be much stable and acquainted with the site and by then moderators will have enough time to observe a member.

Come to think of it . can moderators retract a members senior status and privileges?. .That isnt too frightening and unnecessary. .but still.

Lonely Soul...I'm really flattered regarding your concern for me...truly I'm humbled by it. I'm not sure if any of these changes will affect me because, as you say, I come and go. I gained my SMS by giving good critique I assume because I doubt I've ever had more than 100 poems listed at any one time that I remember because...I often delete them after a while I've only been on this site (this time round) for 4 months or so, so perhaps my SMS will be taken from me....will it stop my giving honest critique?...of course it won't. It will prevent me from nominating and that would be a great pity but it's a decision I will accept.

And for those who keep coming and leaving, they will stop doing it.

^^^^

Sorry, I can't remember your name...it's very long I know (so I'll call you all the V's) but....it wouldn't stop be leaving if I wanted to....again :)

Edit

I'd also like to say I agree with Yaki on the older poems not being eligible for nomination....I'm not sure how long that little nomination button lasts on a poem but...I believe it should be extended...maybe by a week or just a few days. This would allow members from different time zones to find good poems to nominate...and may cut down on people just going to their favourite's list and nominating from there. Personally, I've never had a favourites list for this very reason.

and Larry...I could never figure out why the judges have to be a secret anyway? If you give an honest critique on a poem...everyone can read it..I'd actually like to know who the judges are...that way we could all see if there is actually any favouritism going on as has been suggested.

^^
Hellon, I think its better that the judges just go about their business without being known and made open to more criticism about favouritism every week. The mods and contest manager know what the judges vote for so they can do something if favouritism or whatever is an issue. We have to remember we dont have an unlimited pool of judges, they should be encouraged not discouraged from being a judge.

I think if people write 30 praiseworthy comments they probably shouldnt have to wait a certain time (e.g. a year) for their senior member status, they have earned it with the 30 comments. A number from 20-30 comments seems ideal to me.

If a poem could only be nominated once I think it might increase the amount of poems nominated, which is what some people are trying to avoid I think. It would be interesting if the judges couldnt see the amount of nominations a poem has or who nominated it. It might reduce any bias more effectively.

I have another suggestion, I think it was in place before, that may reduce the judges workload a little if it is such an issue. Its implementing a system so that poems can only be eligible for a win one week. For example, all poems nominated up until Friday night would be eligible for that Monday's win: All poems nominated after Friday night would only be eligible for next weeks win. I have a poem that got a hm last week but its still there this week, if it was to the judges taste they could have voted it last week. On the other hand, some poems, depending on when they are written and nominated only get considered for one week. Judges would still vote for the best poem eligible for that week, they just wouldnt have to consider half of last weeks poems too and everybody would have a fairer chance.

I agree on extending the time for a poem to still be nominated..