Question about poets award

Do you think its fair to only award a poets award if the poems are voted 4.3 or higher?

According to the voting scheme a 4 is good, and yet you dont get a poets award for consistantly good poetry?

What if a guy wrote hundreds of poems, that are all good, and therefore all get a 4 voted on them. He wouldnt get a poets award.

It seems a little unfair to not reward a consistanly good poet.

To me "good" is a complement.

You dont have to be a genius to get an award.

Yes, we give awards to the best and the brightest, but isnt the poets award given to consitently good poems? my previous example still stands.

Would you beome so worried, lost and depressed if there were no awards?

I'm not whining, and the awards dont really mean that much to me. Although i think the award system is a good idea for people who want a quick evaluation of how well a poet is doing. For example if i was doing a random search of poets i would be more likely to read poems by gold poets because it would give me the idea that they were consistantly good.

It was only a question, because i thought consistantly good poetry from people should be rewarded and i thought the 4.3 standard was maybe a little high when a 4 is clasified as "Good"