Main Site Proposal Revision 3

[Chris]

[markstevenscheffer]

Chris,

Fine. I'll put a muzzle on the fun and games. It may not stay on long, though.

Some concrete thoughts. First, we should go back to scoring the poems. Come up with like five catergories, and have a 1 through 10 scale for each. We did this before, or something like it. People, as Gene noted, all have opinions, and love to express them. It's a quick and easy way to express an opinion by simply pushing your thumb up or down, or, in this case, clicking a box with a number to rate a poem. It's also fun to see how people rate poems, what their opinions are. So the scores given should not be secret, but viewable by all.

The top ten poems go into the voting for the contest. There will be the problem of the aberrant voice, the pissed off or whatever critiquer who may give a very worthy poem a one or something, and cause it to be excluded from the contest. This can be dealt with by letting the top ten critiquers nominate a poem for the contest that isn't in the top ten vote wise. We could also have the top ten poets from the previous month do the same. The worthy poems that for whatever reason, particular voting style or pattern of the critiquers who c ritiqued the poem, got ignored will have a shot because they will be picked by one of the top critiquers or poets. This will award critiquers also by giving them a special privilege - the power to nominate poems. The top poets should also have that privilege since, by virtue of writing "winning poems," they can be thought to have some knowledge of what a good poem is.

You will then have a pool of at least 10 to 30 poems "on the ballot" for the vote. You are right to keep judges out of it. Absolutely right. This will be like an American Poet - where the people actually vote, not a panel of judges. You need to keep the judges out of it. The need for some level of "expertise" will be met by allowing the top critiquers and poets hand-pick their choices for the ballot.

Name of poets should not be hidden. Voting during the tallying been open to scrutiny? That's a close call. It should either be open during the whole vote or closed during the whole vote, not like we had it in the past, where it was open for five days or whatever and then closed. Some poems may be neglected because of bad "early returns": that fact suggests keeping the results hidden. On the other hand, seeing the current results could also influence the vote for the better, and help us reach consensus. If the vote is close, in instances where the majority really does favor one over the other, the majority could change their vote to reflect that consensus, and the choice of the majority could win. I may like the Libertarian candidate over Bush or Kerry, and vote for him or her. If i could see that my candidate has absolutely no shot,and the race was a toss-up between Bush or Kerry, I could change my vote and have a real say in who is gonna be my President. Just an example.

On the other hand, there is merit to Gene's suggestion of just one vote and that's it. You pull the lever once, so give it some thought and let's have the results reflect our real preferences, and not be influenced by the rest of it.

I dunno which of these is better, multiple votes with the tallying public or one vote with the vote not known 'til over - or maybe a combination, one vote over a seven day period with the current votes viewable.

As to who gets to vote, it should be tied to some commitment to the site. Gene's ideas work as well as any other, I think.

Mark

[TheBridgeTroll]

Chris - It seems to me you feel that the critic and the critique are pivotal to the success of the site and I agree with that. I believe that poets post their work on sites like TPL for the express purpose of having it read and commented upon by as many people as fate will bring them.It follows that the site should be set up to encourage people to critique like Philadelphia voters, early and often. It also follows, from my point of view, that the critiqueing system should be as easy as possible, again as a motivator towards multiple critiques from each participant.
While I am wholeheartedly in favor of making the site primarily poetry focused, if you look at the system I proposed in my previous post, you'll see that it makes the critique not only important but a required function of participation. In order to become involved at any level, the participant must offer critiques. If a poet wants to simply post a poem and look for some responses to it, the poet MUST critique a prescribed number of poems. Higher levels of participation require more critiques. TO post a poem, the poet would need to accomplish a minumum number of critiques,
say no less than 4. To be eligible for the monthly poetry contest...no less than 10; to be eligible to vote...no less than 15; to be eligible for critic's awards...no less than 25. (The numbers are arbitrary...whatever worKs)
As to whether the voting should be turned over to a panel of judges or left open to the public well, that depends on how the participants view the process. If they want it to be a "true" poetry competition then a panel of qualified judges is the way to go. However, if it is viewed simply as a contest to determing the participant's "favorite" poems, then open voting works just fine. Mark's suggestion, what with its top ten poets and critics
making some selections for the final lists looks like a combination of both and a solid and viable process.
All of Mark's ideas look like they would create a "fun" site. All except one, I think. The ability to change your vote seems to me to be counter-productive to the idea of selecting the "best" of the month. Choosing the "best" poem isn't really a democratic process and shouldn't be left to the idea that majority rules. It is a subjective process and one vote, one time is really the only way to address it. The voter should vote for the poem because they liked it, not because everyone else is voting for it.
However...in order for any system to work, in my opinion, poets must be willing to accept the critics opinions of their work and rate the critic honestly in terms of the value of the critique, not whether the critic said "nice" things about the poem. Critics must be open to accepting the poet's rating of their critique as long as the rating is an honest reflection
of the poet's response. From such interaction long threads of discussion on the poem and the critique can be created and that's what a poetry site should be about.

One more thing...FP, let's move the babbling over to the TPL Pub at some time. Musn't upset the Trolls de Jour!

Peace - Gene Dixon

[markstevenscheffer]

Troll notes: "All of Mark's ideas look like they would create a "fun" site. All except one, I think. The ability to change your vote seems to me to be counter-productive to the idea of selecting the "best" of the month."

Alright, I noted the idea of changing votes - which is the current system. It is not my idea. Again, it is the current system. It is certainly not my idea in the sense of that is the way I believe it should go I mentioned both the one vote and the multiple as having merit, and didn't claim either as my idea or the idea i was advocating.

Troll, I fill my mouth up with enough words without you doing your shoveling.

Ooooopps. Should that last sentence be in the Bar and smoking section of the site, the one with the rats . . . er, the stools?

FP

PS - and we should just end the scoring of critiquers nonsense. It only tends to piss people off. For my part, anyone with the gall, nerve, fortitude
,intelligence, temerity to attempt to decipher one of my poems deserves a 10 . . . and usually gets one.

[mrnurse]

Arnie, I didn't follow what you were trying to say about voting results should be open to all during the time the poem is on display. By "on display" do you mean the time BEFORE the voting begins or the time during the voting period (currently 7 days)? I'm not sure which way I'm leaning at the moment.

Yes, I meant BEFORE>and unlike JoAnne, I would like the names of the
poet hidden. And that's my three cents worth!

[Len_McIntosh]

Chris:

You have a much broader understanding of how a poetry site should work than I do. So, I'm happy to go along with the changes and adjustments you make. I do not yet have a complete grasp of precisly how they work, but, as always, it will come after a short period of time.

In one of your earlier proposals I recall seeing something about you considering a place for prose. All of the serious poets that I have known dabble in some form of prose, Chris. [More often short pieces] Should you decide to include a place to post short fiction,I would certainly take advantages of it. Also, I've noticed that most of the popular poetry sites include a posting of short fiction.

I can only imagine the hours you've put into this, Chris. When it's in operation I hope we members will do our part to promote a campaign to add members. Any ideas that you may have as to how I can best help in that respect will be appreciated.

Thank you most kindly for your efforts, my man.

Len McIntosh

[Poetbard]

I am interested to see this entire thing work, but after reading several times, I am unsure if the voting at the end of the month will change. As this month ends I have the same dilemma as most months, too many poems worth a vote, and too little dispersion of votes.

My suggestion: At the end of the month voting, allow the votes to cycle down to at least the top 25 poems on a persons list. I am, no doubt shorting excellent poems by dropping all votes out on poems below the top selections. It is important to note that if someone gets twenty voters to give 10 votes, = 200, that poem will win over a poem that has 4 people giving a top prize of 20 votes = 80. But if the voters top vote distribution is truncated as it presently is, equal poems, often there are (3) I’d choose as a top poems, so on down the list, I must eliminate votes for worthy poems. This will not affect so much the top poems, but the scoring of poems (my guess the top 4-10) may definitely be affected, and a truer representation of the poets will be available.

I’d personally like the voters list to contain the ability to give votes to at least 25 poems, on a 1- 100% of vote percentage, and 25 – 4% of vote percentage. In my opinion there are too many “quality” poems each month for the truncated voting list as it is now.

You can still award as you are going to do, top ten maybe, but the actual “value” of poems will be more representative, and “surprises” will be more likely to occur. I also believe that a blind voting period is better than showing the standings. I can go to the voting standings right now, drop a person down on my voting list, and that will move my poem up, or increase the viability of a poem I want moved up on the list, whether that poem is worth the bump or not. I think, expand the voting “points” ability of voters, and keep the voting “silent” till you tabulate the final votes. It’s not as much fun, but it is fairer.
_________________
Tony

[foot1184]

[Marilyn]

[Chris]

Hi Guys,

Sorry I have been quiet for so long. I'm not one for making excuses so please just understand that I have been very busy lately with many things that have been going on in my life. There is not a week that goes by for me however, where I don't think of TPL. I hate the fact that I don't have time to give it the overhaul that it deserves.

The reason I let TPL continue in its current state is because I have the hope that someday I will be able to develop it into what it truly should be. It is so very difficult to see something you love become stagnant. But until I have the appropriate measures programmed and set up, there is no way to truly administer the site properly. "Brute Force" was about all I had before. I had to be here 24/7 taking care of the site. -That would burn anyone out... trust me. It was clear to me at that time that TPL needed an entire re-invent from the ground up. Something new, something fresh... something that had never been done before.

I'm not a graphic designer so it may not be the most flashy sight ever, but I do know that I spend nearly every waking moment of my life INVENTING. Whether it's Pulse Motors, Electrolyzers, Electromagnetics, Gravity Engines, or Programs ...the point is I'm inventing. TPL was an invention and whether you can see the gears or not is inconsequential... they exist. In fact the current TPL has had many of the "gears" stripped out of it over the years. I had originally put many more things into it which did not turn out so well when released to the public. -So I changed and adapted (morphed) the site into what it is today.

For now I leave the site up just so that people know I have not forgotten. Please don't misinterpret my lack of appearances on TPL as apathy. People say "Chris has left us." Well I haven't left anything, I have simply had to make some choices in life. Two small children and a ton of work that needs to be done on our house... would you have chosen that same way that I did? For now TPL must remain as it is or be "turned off"; those are really my only 2 choices. -One day I will return to program the 2nd evolution of the site but only when I have the time and resources to do it properly.
_________________
Thank You,
-Chris

Site Administrator

[kenp]

I like this site far better than any other I've visited.
Sadly it appears to be slowly but surely fading away.

[L]

Chris,

I like TPL the way it is, I can see the advantages to your proposed changes....and certainly understand the time element constraints. In the final annalysis you should do what you feel is best for TPL....however I believe there are a lot of people who'd be very sad and disenheartened if you were to shut her down.

Many have veared away temporarily....though hopefully your address of the issue will taken to heart by those that need to do so....I applaud your stand on the "bullying" on the forum. I'm not sure if having mods on board would help to prevent such actions but perhaps it is something to reconsider.

Again, thanks for the update and input...TPL is well worth keeping up and running, there is nothing to compare.

Lora

[Chris]

Mods made it worse despite their best efforts. They tried their very best to do the right thing but simply became targets of ridicule. With me it's simple... if you're an ass... you're gone. No if's and's or but's about it. I simply hit the button and the problem is solved.

If the person comes back there are plenty of others who will notice and alert me to the presense of the individual as they try to come back under a different ID.
_________________
Thank You,
-Chris

Site Administrator

[L]

Yes, I can see your point Chris. You've got it down and it's definitely a lot easier your way...

Thanks again for a speedy reply and for this site.
Lora

[kenp]

We'll be able to judge the health of TPL by how far down the scale my poems go. If I struggle to get in the top ten then we'll be well on our way to a comeback!!