Judge Recs

Please do comment. Not only do we need all the feedback we can get, I need stuff to read while stuck in LAX!

However, in response to David, we are set with 5 good judges through August & a short list of subs. If we implement the 3 judge reduction we'll work with the existing pool to make it as fair as possible .

" reading, voting and commenting on 30-50 poems in 24 hrs (Friday-Sat)."

Well technically you vote/comment three of those. :)

When I judged, rather than waiting until the end of the week to read the poems nominated, I started Sunday and read a little bit each day. I made a list of "yes" "maybe" and "no". My no ones I didn't go back to revisit and that usually eliminated quite a few. If I REALLY liked a poem and knew I wanted to vote on it, I would put it in the yes column and put a star next to it. I usually ended the week with a few poems in the yes column and three or four with stars. I'd revisit those poems and choose there.

Just a tip of something I do that helps alleviate some of the stress of reading what seems like a million poems.

Britt, you're so organized :)

I think three judges are enough as long as they are punctual and organized going into the judging experience knowing that a lot is asked of them. I honestly don't know what I would do if I was in Nana's or the Mod's place and have people flake out or just drop the commitment completely.

Of course, things come up and whatnot where some judges can't send votes in a certain week but overall this problem with the dropping of judges is disappointing. There cannot be an adequate contest without competent judges.

It wasn't a tiring job for me, at all. On contrary, if you choose to DO something, then it is because you LOVE to do it. And when you LOVE something, you do it wholeheartedly without nagging or quitting on the thing.

Anyway, when I was a judge I used to read the poems everyday (knowing that most of the nominated poems are read by me before they climb their way up to the nominations page since I read all the new poems of all the clubs whose members are the most nominated, like LTFR, FOP, TC, M&M....), from Monday to Friday, and the poems I liked the most, I used to add them to my FAVORITES LIST (it should be emptied every week). On Saturday, I go to my favorites list page and read again everything, then start to delete the poems which are my least favorite. The 3 poems remaining would be my Top 3.

I quite like Colms idea and it's definitely worth giving some thought. Of course as with any idea we have pros and cons and for now I still think experimenting with 3 judges and a sub is the way to go. As Jane previously stated we can always attempt any of the other ideas, members have suggested some great ones and that's why we like to hear what you all have to say. This is all about getting the site to work to the best of its ability so please keep voicing your opinions and thoughts.

Before I was a mod I judged. I had my own routine, I'd read the poems throughout the week and the ones I thought were worth a second read I'd add to a Microsoft word document under a [+] and the ones I wasn't as interested in would be added to the [-]. Everything in the minus list wasn't what I'd be choosing; I was certain of that. Everything in the plus list was worth re-reading. Then at the end of the week I'd go through the list again, making sure I had covered every poem and after that I'd work through my plus section to eliminate poems until I had my final three. It wasn't tiring for me. I get busy with life but I am always reading poetry from this site, instead of reading a book I'd log on the site from my phone. Not always do I get a chance to comment but dedicating half an hour (max) to comment on 3 poems once a week isn't a tiresome process for me.

Guys: You are all very devoted, so kudos. But realize the fact that most folks are not like you. As you already know, there was a big drop out this term amongst those who volunteered with much enthusiasm (but did not last, so I am wondering if they became victims of fatigue?). They have voices too, which will not be heard until the term is over, or perhaps never, as it is not easy for many to admit that stress is/was a factor in judging.

Further, around the time I volunteered as a judge (Dec?), is when the phantom knockout of nominated poems was fixed by Janis, allowing all nominated poems to stay up to 2 weeks, expanding the weekly from 20 or so to 40-60. If you remember, prior to last Dec when you folks served as judges, quite a few were knocked out by the computer before Janis fixed it. So, it was very different then when you were judges.

Simple suggestions such as rotations should help avoid what happened this judging term...which we will not really know until the judges are revealed, and that too if they wish to even admit that stress was even a factor.

I've actually judged a term since then, I did the last term. That's why I started reading more throughout the week. It was a lot to read all in one day and actually give every poem a chance. So I started earlier in the week.

I think were just saying how we found a way to alleviate some of the 'stress' involved. It may have never occurred to someone before and help em out. I'm always looking for new ways to do things, especially if it makes a task seem easier :)

Now, I am re-thinking and I'm finding myself against the 3 judges thought.

I don't think being a judge is really stressful, because all you have to do is to read poems and comment on what you like the most then press the 4/7/10 buttons! It is, apparently, what you do when you are a regular member and not a judge. And when people find it annoying, then they simply should not accept the job, in the first place.

When someone drops out or becomes late in delivering their comments to Nana (or whoever leading the weekly), then they should, right away, be disqualified. Of course, some happen to have emergencies or a busy day, but then again, they have a whole week to read/leave a thoughtful comment, not only a day. They should start reading once the previous contest is over.

Judging is fun. Being able to value poetry or help PnQ be a better place is fun. Sending your work to Nana and receiving a 'thank you' PM from her is also fun. Then why do everybody keep saying it is some kind of 'stress'? I don't see the stressful part, anywhere.

I could tell that I was kind of let down with few poems winning througout this term. I feel like this shouldn't be called a 'contest' anymore if there is bias or unfairness. Having 5 or 7 judges is way better than 3. Each idea has its own positives and negatives but clearly unfairness is more likely with only 3. Not really targeting anyone here, I have no idea of the current judges. Just voicing my opinion!

Judging is rewarding yes, but it can be difficult when people have other things going on, and to keep up with and read all the poems, decide on them, and write the comments can take up time that it often limited. It is a commitment, especially now that there seems to be more poems than ever being nominated.

I still think the rotation idea has more positives than negatives. Sub judges will I presume also be available/willing/qualified, so why not make them full judges and put them in a rotation system instead of having the same three each and every week? Britt I see where you are coming from that it may take a bit of organisation, but I don't think it would take much: it only took me 2mins to come up with the rota that could be used. Mods send it to the judges at the start of the term and everybody involved knows what's what. It would allow for some more variety in judges over the three months (would be a different combination of judges each week), and same judges wouldn't be on week in week out. And if people agree to be a judge for each week as is currently the case, they will be still able to do the three weeks out of every five assigned to them.

Sorry for probably repeating my earlier post but I think such a rotation system a more effective way of cutting the judging numbers down to three if that is indeed what is happening.

It can be difficult when people have other things going on, and to keep up with and read all the poems, decide on them, and write the comments can take up time that it often limited. It is a commitment, especially now that there seems to be more poems than ever being nominated.

^^ What?

If someone cannot be committed to this, then why he or she would accept to be a part of the judging process from the 1st place?

^^

Because life is unexpected and some might think that they can do it, but turns out something happens?

---

I'm going to re-suggest A Lonely Soul's previous suggestions of adding two new spots to the weekly winners. So instead of having 3 winners to have 5.

Five Judges do add variety in terms of likes that can be seen by the need to have tie breakers.
Also, last week there were if I'm not mistaken 4 poems with a 10
and I'm looking at this week nomination list and so far I see strong poems and it's barely Tuesday. :s

That's the only stressful part that I can think about if someone is a judge, having to pick only 3 out of all those poems. ( I haven't been a judge but if I were one that would be my stress).

The way I see it, it's either 3 judges or adding 2 spots to the weekly winners as A lonely Soul suggested before.

I don't see anything wrong with having 5 winners appearing on the front page, It will show more variety of poems.

Though, that's my opinion.

It really takes being a judge to know what being a judge is like. Some people think they have the time to commit, but soon realize they don't... and most often, things come up. Tomorrow is unpredictable. We can't expect judges, who are volunteers, to put judging the weekly contest on PnQ before things like work, school, and family. I can't predict how much homework I'm going to have or how long it will take me. I can't predict how many hours at work I will be scheduled next week, how many hours I will need to cover, and how many days I will need to stay overtime. I can't predict family emergencies. The list goes on.

We may have 5 people who would make excellent judges, and they may start their terms committed to staying for 3 months, but more judges means more people to rely on who have unpredictable emergencies that can come up - and from experience, they DO come up. 3 judges would make everything a lot easier and more manageable, if not reliable.

Colm's idea sounds good, but it also sounds confusing and I'm not sure we need the judging process to be any more confusing than it already is...

Abed, I am on the back of the horse and my sister is on the front.

But Luce, that was not the case we were talking about. As I read above, there are many judges who dropped out. I don't think a family emergency just happened with all of them at the same time... And even in that case, one could vote for the 3 poems read and just write one or two lines for the poems. It takes 10 mns.

-- Oh sweet, both of you look awesome.

Well its the moderators and Nana who are organising the contest and they too are volunteers so if it will be too much hassle for them its not very fair either. I just hope that with the same three judges, that they will not be friends/from the same club/have the very same tastes, if that were the case with even two of the judges then they would pretty much control the contest each week. But as is always the case with the contest there is no one perfect system.

I don't think a family emergency just happened with all of them at the same time... And even in that case, one could vote for the 3 poems read and just write one or two lines for the poems. It takes 10 mns.

^^
Well this shouldn't happen. It'd be better the judges resigned than just picking the first three poems they read and write a line or two on them, that's not judging. Judges have to do the job right: read all the poems and write decent comments, more than a just a line really. It certainly takes more than 10mins

Colm, Abed didn't say the 'first' three poems, I believe. He meant that a judge could read the poems, choose their top three favourites and vote for them. It takes me less than 7 or 8 mins to write a thoughtful comment, too. So I guess it's not an excuse for anyone.

If you feel unable or unqualified or whatever, then just don't accept the job. End of the story.

God, no, Colm, no!

not the 1st 3 poems read.

I obviously meant the Top 3 poems a judge have read.

If he / she has a certain kind of emergency, then a one line could suffice. Maybe after the 3 months are over, the same judge would go back to the poem and write a detailed comment instead of the former one line.

Just a very quick question, when will the new judges start their term? No specific date?

Judges are in place now

The new judges are?

Due to the replacement process we have 5 judges in place for this term, although they did not all start at the same time.

We haven't decided yet how, when or if to transition to 3 judges.

Playing devils advocate, though, since I'm leaning toward 3 judges myself, everyone should understand that we are sacrificing quality for convenience.

With five judges, it takes at least two people to agree a poem is award worthy, even if one person is a tie breaker. With three judges it will require only one 10 vote for a poem to win, which will occur frequently.

In rare cases it will even suffice for a single 7 vote for a poem to win. If three 10s & two 7s go to two poems & all other votes go to different poems, then the poem with the third 7 will go on the front page.