Vote [only] for senior status requirement

  • Narphangu
    12 years ago

    I'm with Abby on this one.

    1) Only allow a set time period during the week to nominate a poem- eg 48 hours over a Friday and Sat. (We would have to ensure that a poem is viable for two voting periods to ensure it has enough time for consideration after its date of submission.) This will cause a bit of an uproar at first, but is actually pretty fair. You miss out, you miss out. The judges then have the rest of the week to read and vote.

    This, though, I don't really like... Simply for the fact that if, in the course of the week, I read a poem and decided I wanted to nominate it, I'd have to remember which poem it was and seek it out again in order to nominate it. If we were to cut down to only one nomination per person, it would be really cool if members (or senior members, I guess) had their own short list tool where they could compile the poems they were thinking about nominating, then at the end of the week (during the nominating period, as Abby described) they could refer to that list and nominate their favorite. That would cut down on nominations, wouldn't it?

    And I still think that proving you can think about and critique poetry even once should be enough. Just because you may not be an active commenter does not mean you don't read poetry actively and understand what is worthy of a nomination.

  • abracadabra
    12 years ago

    Britt, I suppose knowledge of power and choice is nice to have, whether you use it frequently or not. Plus, it affects everyone's voting rights, which affects the front page, which represents the whole site.

    Kiko, you don't need to be a nominator to be a judge. I was a judge when I wasn't a senior. The judging tools can be given to you when you become elected, regardless of status.

    Really, Jane? I don't think those qualities are required. In fact, only your first point is valid. Half valid, because it doesn't mean you have lots of time by any means. You can leave 30 great comments in a couple of slow days in your life. 30 comments also don't necessarily mean you read widely. It could be commenting on the same three poets you always read. Same goes for your third point.

    Keep it simple and accessible. General voting rights should always be a reasonably attainable thing to achieve, given people have demonstrated they fit in the right criteria.

    If people want to be recognised for writing 30 comments, they have the platinum award and the hall of fame.

    If the problem is the vast number of nominations, there are ways to counteract it separate to a member's nomination rights, as mentioned above. Don't mix matters and sacrifice something needlessly.

    Get rid of # of favourites/poems as a way to achieve nominator status. Many members will lose their voting rights this way, and be forced to write a few thorough critiques instead.

  • abracadabra
    12 years ago

    Narphy, yes, members could have a shortlist tool as well as the judges. Or they could pop it in their "favourite poems" page in the meantime.

    "Just because you may not be an active commenter does not mean you don't read poetry actively and understand what is worthy of a nomination."

    I am with you there. To take it to a personal level, I read dozens of poems from this site weekly. Or at least attempt to (I rarely finish reading a poem here). There are very few who make the cut to be worthy of nomination. And I rarely comment on a poem I don't like or in which I don't see great potential. I know many others like this. Don't lose them.

    However, the nominator status should require more than one good critique. At least three praised comments are needed for statistical significance. They are, after all, being assessed by potentially five different moderators. There is something to be said for consistency. Five praises should be sound. Eight if you want to be really tight-arsed about it.

  • silvershoes
    12 years ago

    "You can leave 30 great comments in a couple of slow days in your life. 30 comments also don't necessarily mean you read widely. It could be commenting on the same three poets you always read. Same goes for your third point."

    You can leave 30 comments in a couple slow days in your life or you can leave 1 comment. 30 comments says something even if it was spread out over years.
    I was careful not to say anything about reading poetry from lots of different poets... I worded it more like "lots of different poems" haha, but that was me being cheeky. You're right.

    "Get rid of # of favourites/poems as a way to achieve nominator status. Many members will lose their voting rights this way, and be forced to write a few thorough critiques instead."

    I agree that we should do this.

    We should -

    a) Make it so that only the Praised Comments category will lead to Nominator Status. Take # Poems and Favorites categories out of the picture.

    b) Change "Senior" to "Nominator" in title.

    c) Increase the required number of Praised Comments leading to Nominator Status from 3 to 10, in other words, from the Silver Award to the Gold Award.
    *10 really isn't asking that much, and if it is, stop being so dang lazy! :)

    d) Limit the number of times a poem can be nominated to ONE (in other words, it may only be nominated by one author).

    e) Decrease the number of nominations a Nominator has from 3 to 1.

    f) Create a smaller time slot in which poems may be nominated.

    g) Allow Nominators and Judges to make lists of poems that have been submitted throughout the week, or in the case of Judges, to make lists of nominated poems that they may then narrow down.

    h) Stop the rollover. If a poem does not win one week, it should not roll over into the following week.

    ----

    These are all things I would like to see implemented.

  • Lioness
    12 years ago

    I think they're all great ideas!

    People may still complain but you can't please everyone.

    It would be great to see how this goes. I think it will make it a lot easier on the judges

  • Hellon
    12 years ago

    Jane..

    b) Change "Senior" to "Nominator" in title.

    What difference would that make...it's only a name change..I don't really see any point in this one?

    c) Increase the required number of Praised Comments leading to Nominator Status from 3 to 10, in other words, from the Silver Award to the Gold Award.

    You have been on this site for how long? You have a little blue C next to your name (is that silver BTW) which means you have 3-9 praised comments in all that time..right? and you want to increase it by one point?

    *10 really isn't asking that much, and if it is, stop being so dang lazy! :)

    Mmmmm..Just one more....perhaps? I'm watching :)

  • abracadabra
    12 years ago

    It is just a ridiculous title change, you're right. But words are important, especially around here. People are reading too much into the advantages/elitism of being a "senior"- implying longer memberships and lots of poems or favourites give members advantages- when in fact the only difference is the right to nominate a poem, which should only need to be earned though some demonstration of critique. We may be implementing this system now, hence Jane's point A. This makes "nominator" more pertinent.

    Also, it is best to leave personal comments out of discussion to benefit general progress. Jane originally wanted a minimum of 30 praised comments. She is trying to compromise with me and many others by reducing it to 10. Her personal score has nothing to do with this.

    Jane, awesome. Thanks for the succinct summary of suggestions. I agree with most of them and think they would greatly aid the issue of endless nominations. 10 is still unnecessarily steep, but okay. It's not as silly as 30.

    I presume we would not be implementing all those steps at once. I suggest the following game plan to start testing over a period of months:

    First stage: Steps A, B, F, G, H together would be wonderful. A and G alone would produce some noticeable difference.
    Second stage: Add Step C
    Third stage: Add Step E

    I don't think much of Step D on three levels. Firstly, a member should be able to nominate any poem as long as it is their very best pick of the week. This then rewards the nominated poet who receives the correct representation of members' choice (even if they don't actually win the contest). Overlap of votes will also help reduce the number of poems nominated overall.

    Step G- I meant judges need more of a personal "masking" tool to hide all the poems they think are no longer worthy of their attention after a quick read. As for members, they already have a 'favourites' tool which they can use for the nomination period, adding and deleting every week as needed.

    That is all for now. Good stuff. Fark me. Good night.

  • L
    12 years ago

    "You can leave 30 great comments in a couple of slow days in your life. 30 comments also don't necessarily mean you read widely. It could be commenting on the same three poets you always read. Same goes for your third point.

    ---- well, I believe that even if the 30 comments come from the three poets they still vary. I mean the poems won't be the same. Each poem has different structures and different wording. So the comments will be different. Thus, it will have a variety.

    ---I like the ideas suggested, but I still think 10 is a low number. In either case, 15-30 sound reasonable. I would even think that 50 is an okay number. But I'm sure for some that would sound outrageous.

    -- I also don't find any difference between nominator and senior member.. I think that being a nominator it should be granted to senior members..

    When I joined the site, and I heard senior member, My first thought was that it was someone who had a long time in this site as well as someone who has commented on many poems.

    So I thought it was silly when I found out that I could also nominate poems specially because at first I didn't know what that vote button was for..

    In other words, I still think that asking for 30 praise comments is not much. I won't oppose if someone suggest a time frame of 1 year either, as long as it has 15 or so praises. Because that shows that the poet took their time to read and specially leave constructive comments on other poets.

  • Britt
    12 years ago

    Why are we voting with most people saying higher numbers, and now its said we should just do 10?

  • sibyllene
    12 years ago

    I agree with most of Jane's list, especially "a." The more I think of it, the more I start to believe that higher number of comments required wouldn't make too much of a difference. There are many active members here who would want to "catch up," and who would probably do it pretty quickly. Then we're back to where we started. But I'd still be in the 8-15 category, rather than 3. But that's what we're voting on.

    I don't really see the point of "d." Is there something I'm overlooking?

    "H" would cut down on some judges work, I think. If we implemented a "nominating window," I think that would address the issue of a poem not having enough time on the charts. But would submitted poems still be eligible for nominations the following week? I'm thinking about poems that get submitted on a Friday, and only have a day for people to read them. I think poems un-nominated poems should be eligible for a certain period of time, independent of the contest time-frame.

    "F" would also give judges an "all-clear" for nominating. Heck, if the nominating slot was Wed-Thurs, they'd have all weekend to do their judging, and we might not need judges to be available strictly every Sunday

  • Jad
    12 years ago

    Yes. 30

  • Colm
    12 years ago

    I think poems should be able to be nominated any time, people mightn't be around on Wednesday or Thursday. If you see a good poem on a different day it doesn't really make sense to have to wait to nominate it. If there was no rollover there would be no need to shorten the time a poem can be nominated for. If its nominated before Friday its eligible for judging that weekend or after, if its nominated that weekend it will only be eligible for next week.

    I would be more in favour of decreasing the number of nominations to 2, not 1. We don't want to cut down the pool of nominated poems too much, I know there have been a large amount of poems but it isn't an unmanageable amount. I'm still not sure about a poem only being able to get one vote. I agree with most of the rest (the number of praised comments necessary should be decided by an average based on votes).

    I think it might be a good thing if judges couldn't see how many nominations a poem has or who nominated it.

  • Narphangu
    12 years ago

    Sibs, I think that d, while it wouldn't limit the amount of nominations for the judges, would get people who really wanted to participate to expand their horizons and look elsewhere for poems. If their choice poem from their "usual" list of poets is already nominated, they might choose to visit new poets to find something else.
    That's just my interpretation, though.

  • silvershoes
    12 years ago

    Yes, what Narph wrote, and also because I think when a poem has a load of nominations under its names it will be more favored by judges than another poem that has only one nomination under its name. The poems on the nomination page are meant to be weighed equally so I don't see why they should need to receive more than one nomination. It is pointless anyway, it's not like more nominations on a poem serve a real purpose?

    Hellon, not sure why you decided to target me, but I'll explain myself. Firstly, I am not trying to hone the nomination system to serve myself. I must submit to whatever praised comment standard there is that the rest of you have to. Secondly, Madame, I have a Gold Award as of a few days ago. Once the site is refreshed, it should pop up. If not, I'll leave a few more rich comments, and maybe one of your poems will get lucky.

    Britt, I tossed the number 10 out there to see how people would react. I would be fine with any number from 10 to 30, but it's what YOU guys want that matters.

    Colm, perhaps we should try decreasing the number to 2 before decreasing all the way down to 1. I think that's a good idea. Baby steps.

  • sibyllene
    12 years ago

    I like Colm's idea of decreasing to 2, first. We can see how that goes, determine whether it helps or hurts, and then take it further if needed.

  • The Queen
    12 years ago

    "c) Increase the required number of Praised Comments leading to Nominator Status from 3 to 10, in other words, from the Silver Award to the Gold Award.
    *10 really isn't asking that much, and if it is, stop being so dang lazy! :)"

    ^ Personally, I dont agree with this and I still stand by my opinion that we need larger number of praised comments. What's the point of voting if the majority of members views are being disregarded. I mean 10 is pretty much the same as the current 3-9 citeria.

  • silvershoes
    12 years ago

    I apologize if I'm confusing people. Emphasis on the above statement, "These are all things [I] would like to see implemented."

    I know I'm a mod so it probably seemed like I was saying, "this is what we're going to do," but I really was just laying out an option from a member perspective :)

    I would be fine with 10 praised comments. I would also be fine with 30. That doesn't mean anyone's opinion/vote is being disregarded.
    We should still take the average, or whatever we originally planned?

  • abracadabra
    12 years ago

    If anybody has reconsidered their preferred minimum number, perhaps change that now so it can be averaged when voting ends.

    Sibs and Colm, regarding your concerns for the proposed limited nomination period making it unfair on a poem's chance to be nominated dependent on their submission dates:
    Each poems should have AT LEAST nine days after their submitted date to be considered for nomination. Each poem will be subject to two full voting periods or 4 voting days. E.g. the voting period is Friday and Saturday. If a poem is submitted on a Friday, it will have 15 days to be considered. A poem submitted on Thursday will have 9 days to be considered.
    Though there is a maximum disparity of 6 days, the advantage is that once a poem is nominated within the limited nomination period, it is only a candidate for 5-6 judging days, same as any other nominated poem. This control is not present at the moment, leaving a much larger disparity in fairness.
    Plus, if a poem can only be nominated once, this unevenness will further decrease in importance.

  • A lonely soul
    12 years ago

    Stopping the rollover week to week, establishing a cutoff deadline of Thurs night for noms and/or max of 30 poems, and giving judges Fri, Sat and part of Sun to read and decide will reduce the current list approaching 45 by 1/3rd. The poems nominated after Thurs or when max is reached can simply go on to a waiting list/overflow list for automatic placement back on nom list for the following week. Mods please consider voting on a) cut off date for noms, b) cut off max # c) stopping rollover, next please. I believe about 15-18 of the 43 or so on the list currently are rollovers!

    EDIT: I do not consider anyone's write from the heart a crap, nor should any judges without giving a reasonable consideration. Nor would I undermine any judge's individial taste, as the broader the taste, the more valuable their opinions.

  • abracadabra
    12 years ago

    So...I just pretended to be a judge. It took me 20 min to narrow 42 nominations to 7 candidates.

    Everyone's right, there is a lot of crap being nominated. Waaay more than before. Ho boy. But if you're like me, it shouldn't take you long to identify crap. Don't read it all. Don't do that to yourself. Move on.

    We are creating a monster out of mostly nothing here.

    By the way, there is no concrete correlation between the quality of a nomination and the quality of the nominee. Many of the nominees nominating crap already had a gold or platinum comment award. I looked up how they got it through their list of praised comments, and most of the time (though some were dubious) it was fair.

    Sometimes, people with crap taste in poetry still have the ability to write detailed analyses and earn their way to nominator status. Deal. It doesn't matter if they write 5 or 500 great critiques. Their taste may always remain questionable. Raising the minimum achieves no effect. It is only a short-term solution to reduce nominations.

    There is no getting away from crap. But there are ways to limit the crap... if judges can't handle it all.
    Concentrate on limiting the voting periods, thereby extending the judging periods and leaving each poem the same amount of time on the nomination page.

    Such an easy change.

  • Hellon
    12 years ago

    Jane...I wasn't targeting you at all....I was replying to your post and just used your number of comments as an example. A lot of members on this site will be in the same situation as you if SMS is based solely on this number and not on the length of time a person as been a member.

    I'm sorry if you now have a gold square next to your name but....as it's still not showing I had now way of knowing you have gained a few more praised comments these past few days.

  • Larry Chamberlin
    12 years ago

    The final tally of those actually voting:

    22 yes votes, 12 no or 'should not be factor'
    Average
    23 comments...........counting only yes votes
    20 comments...........yes votes + "3" for no votes
    15 comments...........yes votes + "3" for no votes
    .............................+ "0" for "do away with"

    Due to the issues raised, more talk is needed, as well as more votes.

    I m now re-locking this thread at 102 posts