The new number one

[Lauren Hynde]

There was once a thread on a different Poetry Feedback & Discussion here at Lit, started by that legendary figure, the most ruthless and discerning poets' poet, Unmasked Poet. That thread was called "The new #1", and in it, U.P. took upon himself the task of reviewing the #1 ranked poem each time he visited the top list. The idea was to find out what were the strengths and weaknesses of those most popular poems, what makes them tick.

Keep in mind that back then, the top-rated poetry list had a very different look from what it does today. I remember that the first poem I posted received close to 40 votes on the first 10 days, and its 4.60 rating was enough to keep it on the top list for over 2 years. This was a time when there were hardly two poems tied for points anywhere on the list, and the 100th most voted poem had a score a little over 4.50.

I always thought "The new #1" was a pretty cool thread, and one that had the advantage of really making us think and learn. This is why I recently came up with the idea of bringing it back to life. It could be good for the community, since there's always room for more learning, right?

Times have changed, though, and I'm aware of it. If there was ever a day when being #1 was at least a promise of good poetry, that was not today (recently, I mean). For this new version of "The new #1" thread to work, I'm thinking, it should focus on poems that are on the top list, with at least 20 votes, and those poems should have been posted for at least 6 weeks. Surely these criteria would lend some credibility to the choices!

And so, armed with these concepts and decided to find those samples of popularly-chosen excellence, I visited the top-rated list for the first time in almost a year. What I found was - well - devastating.

Poems ranked 01-07: 5.00
Poems ranked 08-15: 4.94
Poems ranked 16-33: 4.93
Poems ranked 34-55: 4.92
Poems ranked 56-83: 4.91
Poems ranked 84-100+: 4.90

Out of 100 poems listed, the only one that fitted my criteria was Sasebo, an illustrated poem by neonurotic ranked #84, with 4.90 from 21 votes. I'm delighted at the prospect of analysing it on my next post of this thread, and I want to invite all of you to do the same.

Before I do that, though, I need to ask what happened to this list? Somewhere along the way, we, the readers, lost something critical. What was it?

I don't know how else to explain it. This is not a top-rated list of a site with any sense of responsible self-critique. It is a fluff list, pure and simple. I'm not disputing any of the names on that list, and I'm sure that a lot of those 100 poems are truly deserving of the honour, but can this possibly be the top list of a site where every week we see three new threads complaining about low votes and trolls?

There was once a time on a different Poetry Feedback & Discussion here at Lit, when most regular posters decided to disallow votes on their poems so that the new poetry list could start fresh. The reasons were different then, but their solution remains the only sane option I see. The top-rated poetry list is dead. I'm out.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

(review coming up)

 

[BooMerengue]

Anyone ever tell you what a breath of fresh air you are?

cuz I'm tellin' you now...

 

[champagne1982]

There was once a thread on a different Poetry Feedback & Discussion here at Lit, started by that legendary figure, the most ruthless and discerning poets' poet, Unmasked Poet. That thread was called "The new #1", and in it, U.P. took upon himself the task of reviewing the #1 ranked poem each time he visited the top list. The idea was to find out what were the strengths and weaknesses of those most popular poems, what makes them tick.

Keep in mind that back then, the top-rated poetry list had a very different look from what it does today. I remember that the first poem I posted received close to 40 votes on the first 10 days, and its 4.60 rating was enough to keep it on the top list for over 2 years. This was a time when there were hardly two poems tied for points anywhere on the list, and the 100th most voted poem had a score a little over 4.50.

I always thought "The new #1" was a pretty cool thread, and one that had the advantage of really making us think and learn. This is why I recently came up with the idea of bringing it back to life. It could be good for the community, since there's always room for more learning, right?

Times have changed, though, and I'm aware of it. If there was ever a day when being #1 was at least a promise of good poetry, that was not today (recently, I mean). For this new version of "The new #1" thread to work, I'm thinking, it should focus on poems that are on the top list, with at least 20 votes, and those poems should have been posted for at least 6 weeks. Surely these criteria would lend some credibility to the choices!

And so, armed with these concepts and decided to find those samples of popularly-chosen excellence, I visited the top-rated list for the first time in almost a year. What I found was - well - devastating.

Poems ranked 01-07: 5.00
Poems ranked 08-15: 4.94
Poems ranked 16-33: 4.93
Poems ranked 34-55: 4.92
Poems ranked 56-83: 4.91
Poems ranked 84-100+: 4.90

Out of 100 poems listed, the only one that fitted my criteria was Sasebo, an illustrated poem by neonurotic ranked #84, with 4.90 from 21 votes. I'm delighted at the prospect of analysing it on my next post of this thread, and I want to invite all of you to do the same.

Before I do that, though, I need to ask what happened to this list? Somewhere along the way, we, the readers, lost something critical. What was it?

I don't know how else to explain it. This is not a top-rated list of a site with any sense of responsible self-critique. It is a fluff list, pure and simple. I'm not disputing any of the names on that list, and I'm sure that a lot of those 100 poems are truly deserving of the honour, but can this possibly be the top list of a site where every week we see three new threads complaining about low votes and trolls?

There was once a time on a different Poetry Feedback & Discussion here at Lit, when most regular posters decided to disallow votes on their poems so that the new poetry list could start fresh. The reasons were different then, but their solution remains the only sane option I see. The top-rated poetry list is dead. I'm out.

Lauren, I think your criterion of 20+ votes was what slapped you down. I'm not a popular vote slut so very few of my 102 poems actually have more than 12 votes, in further consideration, very few have more than 10. I'll bet you can ask any poet here the average number of votes on their poetry and not many would respond with the 20 votes needed to glean a review on this thread.

Sad, but true. Votes don't matter, feedback will win my day.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Lauren, I think your criterion of 20+ votes was what slapped you down. I'm not a popular vote slut so very few of my 102 poems actually have more than 12 votes, in further consideration, very few have more than 10. I'll bet you can ask any poet here the average number of votes on their poetry and not many would respond with the 20 votes needed to glean a review on this thread.

Sad, but true. Votes don't matter, feedback will win my day.

Well, you're right, Carrie, but I'm looking at my own poems, and over 10% of them have well over 20 votes - and several of them are among those I consider my best. I thought it was a good criterion for this thread, because it would exclude most of those poems that receive 10 votes from friends before reaching the list almost by accident, and the 6 weeks minimum would guarantee the poem had been swept for irregular votes at least once. Anyway, it doesn't really matter. What shocked me was that between the top of the list (a perfect 5.00) and the 100th-ranked poem (a 4.90), the only difference is a single 4 vote. And then people try to pretend there is a troll problem.

The problem exists, but it's our (the readers') inability to retain any resemblance of critical thought. It's sad.

 

[wildsweetone]

Lauren, you have a great idea in theory, in practise, forget about looking for the poetry with more than 20 votes (20 votes is all very well if you're a poet who hunts down and grabs voters, or, if you're popular. The average Janes and Joes who submit here aren't self promotors in my opinion, so the voting stats are far lower.).

How about looking at specific authors and reviewing their best work, or perhaps looking at the top ten/twenty/fifty poems and reviewing them?

There's ways around it. I think it's a great idea.

The voting system on Lit is far too vague to expect to see the best poem voted the highest score. I would have expected most of us to be aware of that by now. Voting has been like this for years. So, forget about the votes and concentrate on the poems themselves.

 

[champagne1982]

Oh man, before I even returned to the forum, just now, I was thinking that the vote slut thing was wrong. I apologize to the poets who do happen to get 20+ critical votes that land their poem hot.

Maybe you could go to the most read poetry instead of the top rated one and find a few high scorers on that list? Perhaps a voter rating of 4.6 and being a 'most viewed' poem would be a better basic value?

Lauren, I still want to see your review of neo's wonderful poem, too.

 

[Guest]

I've been here for awhile and I can also remember the Top List looking a lot different than it does now.
So to change the scenery again, I've turned off the voting on all my 2002-2004 poems as the year end People's Choice contest has expired for them. It served no purpose to me other than a bit of an ego stroke. I'm a decent poet and I don't need a visual on the Top List to tell me that.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

The voting system on Lit is far too vague to expect to see the best poem voted the highest score.

Maybe the existence of a voting system is too vague, but the system itself is perfect, in my opinion. The problem lies entirely on the use people make of it. When readers can't bring themselves to vote unless its to vote a 5, this is what we get.

This is a fact that applies to every single poem on the top 100 list except Neo's: all the votes it received were 5s or, at the very most, one of them was a 4.

The top-rated poetry list is dead. Meaningless. That's why I'm disabling votes on my poems, and I've received PMs from others who will do the same. I'm not going to be an accomplice to this lie any more.

Lauren, I still want to see your review of neo's wonderful poem, too.

Tomorrow, with a clear head.

 

[4degrees]

I've been here for awhile and I can also remember the Top List looking a lot different than it does now.
So to change the scenery again, I've turned off the voting on all my 2002-2004 poems as the year end People's Choice contest has expired for them. It served no purpose to me other than a bit of an ego stroke. I'm a decent poet and I don't need a visual on the Top List to tell me that.

you will always be the top of the top list.

 

[quietpoet]

Is this a joke or something? (my 5 cents)

Seems to me, there still are several problems with 20 votes: 1. There is Nobody with 20 votes, go with 15. 2. To reduce the cronyism and trolling, you should drop the top few votes and the bottom few votes. Even if you are only averaging 5 votes after, it will give you a better idea of the quality of the poem. 3. If it becomes too difficult to get any accolades at all, people will just not post here, because it won't be fun. 4. Voting is subjective... this is poetry!

Maybe you should charge a buck to vote! Just kidding....

John

 

[quietpoet]

Qualification

Personally, I have never had more than 8 votes on any posted poem. Maybe my poetry isn't up to standards, but my scores are all high. I suppose being on top isn't my priority, but it does increase one's objectivity.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

QP, I don't think you understood what this thread is about, really. Why should I drop a few votes off the top and bottom? If you look at the list right now, the difference between #1 and #100 is one single 4 vote. Drop any votes off the bottom at all and every single poem on the list will be a perfect 5. Everybody is happy. Mediocrity rules.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I think that a great strength of Neo's illustrated poetry in general and this poem in particular is the complete integration of text and image. The text is not only juxtaposed on the image, but it is a part of it, it is a composition element. In Sasebo's particular case, there is an oriental feel that is impressed upon every graphic element: both superimposed photographs, and - for the most part - even the fonts chosen. The inclusion of the tree profile is very reminiscent of classic Japanese illustration, updated to today's techniques.

The text portion of the poem would do well on its own, an homage to simplicity and precision of language. There are no wasted words, and their meaning is unmistakable. I really can't set apart any individual verse, because they each drink directly on the images of the ones before them, to create a seamless fabric:

Sasebo, I remember you
drenched in saki
blind through
glowing ginzas
plum trees
with sugar flowers
blooming sex
and a sweet girl
named Setsu​

 

[twelveoone]

Well, you're right, Carrie, but I'm looking at my own poems, and over 10% of them have well over 20 votes - and several of them are among those I consider my best. I thought it was a good criterion for this thread, because it would exclude most of those poems that receive 10 votes from friends before reaching the list almost by accident, and the 6 weeks minimum would guarantee the poem had been swept for irregular votes at least once. Anyway, it doesn't really matter. What shocked me was that between the top of the list (a perfect 5.00) and the 100th-ranked poem (a 4.90), the only difference is a single 4 vote. And then people try to pretend there is a troll problem.

The problem exists, but it's our (the readers') inability to retain any resemblance of critical thought. It's sad.

As a strong and early advocate of critical thought, I would like to point a few things out.

I take issue with your assumption that the first 10 votes are from friends, whereas anything over 10 are legitimate, if it a fact of life, some have more friends than others and some are more active in soliciting. I am not interested in making "friends" nor do I do much active soliciting, I have gotten 10 or more votes on some of mine and I walk in here "friendless", or close to it. If I have a "fan club" they do not show up on a regular basis. For some six may be a fan base, for others ten, perhaps other fifteen.

These are my assumptions, some seem to borne out by personal experiance and some I will do a bit of extrapolation.
Location has an impact on views and votes, things posted near the top get looked at first, if alot of things are posted, I am sure, things that are buried, get looked at less.
If it is mentioned, it gets looked at more, and more votes.
Those two are from personal observation.

Extrapolations:

Illustrated, and Audio will get more views and votes, as they are always near the top and we are dealing with a rather simplistic audience here. I have no personal experiance in either, but I ask those that do if there is some truth in this.

Reviewers will get more views and votes, two reasons I suspect, people vote and and comment to draw attentionto their work (this is human nature) and Reviewers are seldom Not Mentioned. Again, I ask those that have reviewed and quit if this does not seem to be true. Part of this is based on when I was doing "Interact" I started seeing names show up. Another strange thing seemed to be whoever would be doing it with me, would sometimes be trolled. I remember the threads. It was a little too close.

The real problems are too many "fans", the encoragement of "fans", the abject refusal to accept anything less than" this is so wonderful" from anybody that is not a "fan". WickedEve made some comment a while ago, about a certain few that would always show up and vote 5 and comment - "fans". I am a fan of Eve's I hoped at times I was a friend. I am prejudiced, I am open about it, but I do not think that she can do no wrong, I merely think she writes better, more to my style

It is the "fans" that think their "idol" can do no wrong that seem to be a real problem here. The active encourgement of these "fans", this fear of being critical, because of retaliation from the "fans". The fear of not being popular that paralyzes this place.

Not to take away from Neo's place in the sun, but take a look at the top choice here, a picture of a good looking woman and a tree, well done, with a sediment that is easliy accessible, illustrated, by a reviewer, with a good fan base, who hasn't made many enemies with some poetic moments. What's not to like.

This is not critical thought, it is popular.

Just think for 10 seconds, about the comments you leave, about the comments you read, what is the validity behind them, who left them, and why.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

As a strong and early advocate of critical thought, I would like to point a few things out.

I take issue with your assumption that the first 10 votes are from friends, whereas anything over 10 are legitimate, if it a fact of life, some have more friends than others and some are more active in soliciting.

I'm not assuming that is the case for every poem, or even for most, 1201. But you know that happens. If you have issue with the word "friend", replace it with "fan", or "idolater", or "people truly thankful for the back patting they received". The result is the same: in many cases, it's not the poem being rated, it's the poet - or the person.

Not to take away from Neo's place in the sun, but take a look at the top choice here, a picture of a good looking woman and a tree, well done, with a sediment that is easliy accessible, illustrated, by a reviewer, with a good fan base, who hasn't made many enemies with some poetic moments. What's not to like.

This is not critical thought, it is popular.

I agree with most of what you say here, and of course I agree with this as well. Sasebo is a good poem, but it is not the best on that list, nor is it Neo's best by a long shot. It's a perfect illustration of how dead and meaningless the top-rated list is, however. It is rated 4.90 after 21 votes because it is a non-offending, non-threatening competent illustrated poem. My only criteria were being posted for over 6 weeks, and having received a minimum of 20 votes. Not that long ago, there would be well more than 50 poems on the 100 top-rated meeting these standards. They are not as unrealistic as some believe.


Here's a challenge for you - and for anyone else who wants to accept it: go to the top list right now, read each of the 100 poems there, and vote on all of them. Vote on all of them, and vote truthfully, with the score you really think the poem deserves. If it is at all possible, don't even look at the author's name or at other people's comments.

All it takes is for one or two people to do that. And then visit the top list again and spot the differences.

 

[champagne1982]

<snip>Here's a challenge for you - and for anyone else who wants to accept it: go to the top list right now, read each of the 100 poems there, and vote on all of them. Vote on all of them, and vote truthfully, with the score you really think the poem deserves. If it is at all possible, don't even look at the author's name or at other people's comments.

All it takes is for one or two people to do that. And then visit the top list again and spot the differences.</snip>

a note to all:
Don't revisit any poem you may have judged before. If you double vote, that's trolling and unless you choose to invalidate any opinions on a poem you may have, either previous to this second reading or current with it, only vote if you've never rated the piece.

 

[Du Lac]

Adjustments and a short example in history

Lauren
One simple suggestion. Instead of having the voting go 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Maybe we can make the votes slightly more flexible. 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 etc.

This would make a difference I believe in the voting. A small example of this change in scoring took place in gymnastics. 30 years ago a 10.0 on any event was unheard of. During the times of Marcia Frederick, Kathy Rigby, Natalja Kutschinskaja, Ljudmila Turischtschewa all wonderful gymnasts, but a 10.0 was only a dream. Then came Nadia Comaneci, Nellie Kim and Olga Korbet and the 10.0 was attained. All of a sudden through the years a 10.0 held value but not the stellar catch the golden ring of the past. The scoring system, due to the increase of talent, had to be re-vamped. In today's world yes a 10 can still be attained but, it is more common to receive a 9.875 ... yes it is more work but it regulated the judging system.

This example may be a solution to the problem you have been discussing. The voters may have this problem. They feel the poem is closer to a 5 than a 4, a 4 than a 3. Hence they round off the vote to the highest number, much like we do in cents, rounding off to the highest quarter or dollar. Sometimes you must readjust the system in order to make it work the way you want. Screaming that it is perfect now is not always the solution. It may have been perfect then, but as time teaches us... all things change and evolve. If we are to maintain the level of professionalism that is deemed in this thread, re-vamping and adjusting the scoring system must be accomplished.

To stay stuck in the past means you will be passed.

Just a short note and a suggestion.

Du Lac~

 

[sandspike]

I think I'll.....

Take voting off my new poems and live on feedback. I think we all have
been weak in that dept. The voting today is not at the level it used to
be. It seems that the people I could count on don't read my stuff
much anymore. Maybe I've lost a step or I'm serving up the lines
way before their time. Anyway, feedback beats votes.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

a note to all:
Don't revisit any poem you may have judged before. If you double vote, that's trolling and unless you choose to invalidate any opinions on a poem you may have, either previous to this second reading or current with it, only vote if you've never rated the piece.

Good catch. Thanks.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Take voting off my new poems and live on feedback.

Hear, hear. I've disabled voting on all my poems, new and old. Public comments still work as usual.

 

[BooMerengue]

Here's a challenge for you - and for anyone else who wants to accept it: go to the top list right now, read each of the 100 poems there, and vote on all of them. Vote on all of them, and vote truthfully, with the score you really think the poem deserves. If it is at all possible, don't even look at the author's name or at other people's comments.

All it takes is for one or two people to do that. And then visit the top list again and spot the differences.

Where is the Top List? And if I vote on one I've voted on before will that be trolling? I didn't know that. Many times I've reread a poem and voted, not remembering if I had already voted or not. Does this make me a (unwitting) troll?

 

[bogusbrig]

I have read with some suprise that poems get 20 or more votes. The most a poem of mine has ever achieved is 18 I think and then most of the votes disappeared, I presume in the sweep for irregular votes. Once a poem of mine has achieved the aspiring ten votes, I can guarantee the next couple of votes are 1. No doubt my poetry doesn't have the pulling power of many people on Lit as I don't think I get that many readers. I'm not complaining but I'm wondering if the poets I like have had similar experience and that reviewing a poet or poem on popularity whether over time there would be an interesting cross section of poems reviewed or whether similar types of poetry will be reviewed time and again.

I think someone suggested different poets and their work being reviewed. I think this would be more fruitful but how one would fairly choose a poet to be reviewed is beyond me without some poets feeling neglected. However choosing a popular poet and poem,means that they are probably widely read and probably not introducing new work to the readership.

Just a few thoughts. I think the idea in general is a good one and I don't mind my thoughts being dismissed.

 

[PatCarrington]

Times have changed, though, and I'm aware of it. If there was ever a day when being #1 was at least a promise of good poetry, that was not today (recently, I mean).....

Before I do that, though, I need to ask what happened to this list? Somewhere along the way, we, the readers, lost something critical. What was it?

I don't know how else to explain it. This is not a top-rated list of a site with any sense of responsible self-critique. It is a fluff list, pure and simple. I'm not disputing any of the names on that list, and I'm sure that a lot of those 100 poems are truly deserving of the honour, but can this possibly be the top list of a site where every week we see three new threads complaining about low votes and trolls?

There was once a time on a different Poetry Feedback & Discussion here at Lit, when most regular posters decided to disallow votes on their poems so that the new poetry list could start fresh. The reasons were different then, but their solution remains the only sane option I see. The top-rated poetry list is dead. I'm out.

to my mind, the voting system has become ludicrous, pointless...and i don't think trolls are the problem.

the problem i see is the preponderance of voters who are willing to give a 5 to everything. just look at the 'top list' (which i agree is little more than fluff central). one vote of 4 can move a poem into the abyss, because of the low number of total votes and the fact that almost every vote is a five. to me, that shows an alarming lack of discrimination on the part of voters.

why?

i think it comes from, more than anything else, the desertion of this community (and of the voting mechanism by many who are still here) by an alarming number of top-shelf poets, ones who can and are willing to discriminate between poor and fair and good and very good and excellent (which in theory covers the 1,2,3,4,5 voting concept).

in the past year since i've been here, the number of high-quality poets who have put on their walking shoes is alarming. i make a mental list, and i shake my head.

and when i look back on threads from before, the number becomes staggering. why did they go?

there is simply not enough here, poetry wise, to hold them...and there is less and less all the time.

how many threads are devoted to serious poetry, where constructive criticism is welcome and given? and how many are devoted to off-the-cuff spillage that "i just write for myself" or that is followed up by a blanket "wow"?

a serious poet wants a community of other serious poets, needs that to improve. what they do not want is constant praise and back-patting and whining and recrimination.

they do not find that here, so they go elsewhere…and they have and still are.

and they find what they are looking for, and do not come back.

do you all want this to be a worthwhile community of writers, all of whom are looking to improve and can use each other to do so? if you do, you have to figure out what it takes to make it so.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Very well put, Pat. Thanks.