Somewhat meaningful votes - a proposal

[Senna Jawa]

Guys, form teams, which will evaluate poems, and let Literotica publish these votes by recognized teams (in addition to the useless "deomocratic" vote). Teams should be formed by people who like and trust each other, so that they will have fun and a feeling that their team vote makes sense. Thus teams should be small but large enough to cover potentially all new poems and then some. The knowledge that team's ratings are taken seriously will make team members work harder, they will feel that it is worthwhile. And Literotica would not be in the business of erasing team votes.

For instance, if a team was formed by:

Angeline, Annaswirls, KOLKORE, Liar, unpredictablebijou, WickedEve​

I would follow its evaluations with some interest.

Team members would be free to evaluate any poem at any time (of course each person would vote on any poem at the most once). They would do it independently or after mutual consultations, it'd be up to them, but they would vote individually even after consultations. Then the average rating of a poem by the team would get updated each time. Participants would see the number of votes and the average vote on each poem by the team. Occasionally, a team would discuss a poem on this forum (without mentioning the actual votes). It'd be great.

 

[PandoraGlitters]

Guys, form teams, which will evaluate poems, and let Literotica publish these votes by recognized teams (in addition to the useless "deomocratic" vote).

Excellent idea!

 

[Angeline]

Guys, form teams, which will evaluate poems, and let Literotica publish these votes by recognized teams (in addition to the useless "deomocratic" vote). Teams should be formed by people who like and trust each other, so that they will have fun and a feeling that their team vote makes sense. Thus teams should be small but large enough to cover potentially all new poems and then some. The knowledge that team's ratings are taken seriously will make team members work harder, they will feel that it is worthwhile. And Literotica would not be in the business of erasing team votes.

For instance, if a team was formed by:

Angeline, Annaswirls, KOLKORE, Liar, unpredictablebijou, WickedEve​

I would follow its evaluations with some interest.

Team members would be free to evaluate any poem at any time (of course each person would vote on any poem at the most once). They would do it independently or after mutual consultations, it'd be up to them, but they would vote individually even after consultations. Then the average rating of a poem by the team would get updated each time. Participants would see the number of votes and the average vote on each poem by the team. Occasionally, a team would discuss a poem on this forum (without mentioning the actual votes). It'd be great.

Good morning my dear SJ. Lovely to see you here. I like this idea. I don't know that we could convince Laurel and Manu to add another voting stat to the ones they already collect, but we could certainly do it here. If I were on a team though, I'd want to believe that the other members (and the other teams) all had some standard criteria for evaluation. Then, it would be easier to believe that my team's averaged rating and your team's (for example) had some common meaning. What do you think?

I know some standard writing scoring rubrics that make sense to me, maybe others know some, too.

 

[champagne1982]

Most often my taste determines my judgement of a poem. Only after I have analyzed that process can I then concentrate on what devices triggered my reaction, if I gave a reaction at all. To do this sort of work on several poems on several days is exhausting and if that kind of effort is expended on poems and poets that don't want or appreciate it, isn't that the epitomy of foolishness?

There's a grossly underutilized subforum available where people are begged and welcome to offer comment and critique... Team up on stuff there.

 

[Senna Jawa]

Good morning my dear SJ.

Hi Angeline

Lovely to see you here.

Literotica years pass by and once again I am an old timer (you too! ).

... I'd want to believe that the other members (and the other teams) all had some standard criteria for evaluation. Then, it would be easier to believe that my team's averaged rating and your team's (for example) had some common meaning. What do you think?

It should be up to the team. Each team may operate differently. And different Literotica readers may value the teams as they please. One may pay attention to one team, and may disregard another.

I know some standard writing scoring rubrics that make sense to me, maybe others know some, too.

Certainly, and the objective (and non-judgmental) analysis of a poem is grossly undervalued by the general poetry discussing public, but... that's a separate topic.

Best regards,

Senna Jawa​

 

[Senna Jawa]

To do this sort of work on several poems on several days is exhausting and if that kind of effort is expended on poems and poets that don't want or appreciate it, isn't that the epitomy of foolishness?

It'd be work. In my opinion the strategy should be to stop at the first blood, meaning that the moment you see a major fault with a poem you give it a low mark and stop at that. It's a bit risky but it'd be perhaps the only way to cover a lot of poems without lowering the standards. You could even write in your comment: I saw "this" and stopped right there. Yes, it'd be nice if a lot of poems got meaningful comments. Not necessarily exhausting -- that would be totally unrealistic and counterproductive.

There's a grossly underutilized subforum available where people are begged and welcome to offer comment and critique... Team up on stuff there.

You mean Poetry Discussion Circle? As I've written at the time, it was doomed from the beginning because it was just another thread, with all its drawbacks. I also made a suggestion at the time which was going along the same line as Angeline's in this very thread. To make such a subforum lively and meaningful you need certain common understanding of poetry (even if you disagree with it), certain strategy for the discussion, certain criteria. (In particular, the accent on the author's wishes should be secondary, not primary).

Best regards,

Senna Jawa​

 

[annaswirls]

I would do it but there would have to be coffee involved, and a babysitter.

Maybe 2 babysitters.

And I couldn't defend my position. I have grown crotchety in my old age and stingy with my time. I would be dragged out by my ear for saying "this sucks" and being too tired to say why. I would suck as team player. Unless, of course, we were meeting at the coffee shop down on Main St. and you know, two babysitters.

This is a good idea, SJ. But truth is, that is more like a literary journal. You could just go find one whose editorial team you like and read it...no?

Is that what you are thinking of? Making a bit of a literotica select journal here in the forum? Interesting.....

 

[ishtat]

Disagree

This idea reminds me of my time as an academic when colleagues would muse how much better the(ir) world would be if was played by their rules.

Firstly this idea will lay you open to (probably quite unjustified) charges of elitism. Secondly I tend to the view that criticism by committee is an oxymoron - I know you don't intend that but that is how it will be perceived. Any scoring system is ultimately a consensus and therefore of limited value.

The most useful criticism I have seen here was on a thread started by Patrick Carrington called "not for the faint hearted" or something like that. Informally it achieved your objectives in that the best poets and critics contributed . Its only drawback was that some very good poets find it very difficult to see their work publically discected.

The obective is sound but the method perhaps flawed.

 

[Equinoxe]

I don't participate much on this forum, but I have always found the voting system at Lit questionable, so I can certainly appreciate an alternative. I am not sure, however, how well this system would work in practice and I feel that there might be several potential flaws.

I agree with Angeline that the uniformity of a team's critical criteria would be important to the meaningfulness of a given team's critique. If there are many disparate critical philosophies (perhaps even meaning that formally), the meaning of the vote becomes unclear at best. In that vein of thought, I'm not sure how formal anyone's critical background is and without that formality, I think that philosophical differences will necessarily plague any reviewing team, or some on various teams will simply acquiesce to the ideas of others and render themselves useless.

I'm inclined to think that will be an inevitability. In the end, I'm not entirely sure how this ends up being substantially different from a group of respected poets voting on a poem in the normal voting system, which happens for most of the established posters here.


Now, for something more like suggestions than comments: I don't think it would merely be nice if a lot of poems received meaningful comments—I think it would be absolutely necessary that any and all poems to be voted upon receive meaningful comments for this idea to be of merit. As was pointed out, though, many people don't want or care about meaningful comments. To that end, I think it would perhaps be best to limit the focus and instead of trying to be a meaningful supplement to the voting system, it would be better to go with the happily elitist literary journal on the forum idea.

I think that stopping at the first sign of a poem gone wrong renders the value of any judgement questionable—and for several reasons. Does one atrocity of a line spoil an otherwise lovely poem? There would undoubtedly be disagreements between members of a reviewing team as to where, if anywhere, a poem went awry. Most importantly, however, it renders this all an exercise in critical vanity (which I don't necessarily have a problem with, so long as we're honest about it). Without a meaningful comment, even one explaining why a poem is the worst poem in the history of poesie, a vote is not especially worthwhile for anyone. If a team can't be constructive, I personally prefer the advice from a cartoon bunny that the New Poems Review thread takes.

P.S. I'm not sure why this is incompatible with the Poetry Discussion Circle, either; it seems a better supplement to the ordinary workings of that than to the voting system, at least to me.

 

[pointless]

i wish this site would adopt something like the three point voting system they have at stories online where you vote technical, plot and appeal for ten points each with no average. of course, that wouldn't necesarrily work for poems i still think it's better.

not that that as a whole lot to do with this. just thought i'd throw it in the mix for the fuck of it. i've hated the lit voting system for years now.

 

[Anschul]

My two cents...

On the other hand, who's keeping score? And are writers about keeping score? I thought it was about the poetry, the art, the craft, creativity, catharsis, self-improvement, entertainment, a laugh, a cry, empathy, sympathy, camaraderie, lovers (occasionally), titillation, communication, and fun. At least it is for me.

What I do, professionally, is write and get paid for it. That's the only way keeping score matters to me. Here, I write because the muse makes me do it. I've never looked at my "votes," and quite frankly, couldn't care less. I read the comments because I often find gold there. But I don't feel let down if someone whose opinion I value doesn't comment. Life (at least MY life) is too short to spend every day reading the day's submissions, thinking about them critically, and then composing a comment that will have meaning to the poet.

I think we are all taking this place way too seriously. Does anyone really need feedback from people who probably found this place originally while looking for porn?

C'mon, folks, lighten up.

Okay. Rip me a new one...

 

[champagne1982]

My two cents...<snip>
Okay. Rip me a new one...

<grin=evil> Bend over darling. </grin>

 

[Anschul]

<grin=evil> Bend over darling. </grin>

Hey. I'm on YOUR side. But can we do this in the other room?

 

[Rob_mDear]

My two cents...

On the other hand, who's keeping score? And are writers about keeping score? I thought it was about the poetry, the art, the craft, creativity, catharsis, self-improvement, entertainment, a laugh, a cry, empathy, sympathy, camaraderie, lovers (occasionally), titillation, communication, and fun. At least it is for me.

What I do, professionally, is write and get paid for it. That's the only way keeping score matters to me. Here, I write because the muse makes me do it. I've never looked at my "votes," and quite frankly, couldn't care less. I read the comments because I often find gold there. But I don't feel let down if someone whose opinion I value doesn't comment. Life (at least MY life) is too short to spend every day reading the day's submissions, thinking about them critically, and then composing a comment that will have meaning to the poet.

I think we are all taking this place way too seriously. Does anyone really need feedback from people who probably found this place originally while looking for porn?

C'mon, folks, lighten up.

Okay. Rip me a new one...

I think the one reason that scores do matter is that the sheer volume of stories on the site, and added each day, has gotten out of control. It's hard to attract readers. Basically, your story or poem gets noticed for two days while it's on the first page of the "New" page, and then that's it.

With that said, below is a slightly revised copy of a post (idea) I already made on another thread, where people sadly quickly became more interested in their own personal banter and the idea was never really discussed. I still think the idea has a lot of merit:

I'm a "problem solver" in real life. I work with computers and systems, and always look for systems as solutions, so...

Literotica runs contests for authors. Why not contests for readers, for most comments and most votes cast? You want to encourage votes, and useful, non-anonymous comments, and this would be one way to do that, because an anonymous reader obviously couldn't win.

You could have various rules... such as the fact that one reader's average score, for all stories, must be in a certain range, so they can't be all happy, giving every story a 5, nor a totally evil scum, giving every story a 0. To qualify, the reader must cast a certain minimum number of votes and leave a certain number of comments, either in a particular genre or across all genres.

In the simplest contest, the winning reader is whoever casts the most votes that are close to the final average score for each story (e.g. they voted a score of 4 for a story that finished between 3.5 and 4.5, but only counting scores for people eligible for the contest... throw everything else out).

For comments... and here's the part I really like... authors (and maybe readers, too) could vote on and comment on the quality of the comments!

[I would love to be able to respond to posted comments... NOT to argue with them or flame back, but for the useful comments I see, telling them that I value their opinion, good or bad.]

With the votes on the quality of the comments, you award the reader prize. The prize could be cash, but maybe a better prize would be something I've done frequently for my editors... give them a custom story, written around whatever parameters they supply and by a volunteer author of their choice.

Non-anonymous comments would help make readers tailor their comments more kindly... although even a registered user really is still anonymous, and could flame away. But this method encourages non-anonymous comments to which an author can at least reply.

It would also be very interesting to see what a story's score would be if you only considered "serious" votes, that is, votes from people that qualify for the reader's contests. You could also develop a "trusted voter" score, consisting only of the scores of readers that have come in the top 10 (50? 100?) of a month's reader's voting contest.

I do have some other ideas, but I'd like to see what people say about this one, first.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

Okay. Dammit, I do try to avoid forming opinions, but I have a couple here.

Opinion number one: It might be a stellar idea, but it also looks to me like it would be a shitload of work. That's certainly something to consider, when the volunteer reviewers are already rather overloaded

Opinion number two, and one I had to say a lot this weekend in a completely different context: I am a pirate. Pirates do not work well on committees. You do not want me on a committee, or in charge of anything.

Opinion number three: the point raised about giving review and critique to people who don't necessarily care about it is a good one. I try to stay away from the "Lit Should Do..." construction, but if I were in charge (and let's all just take a moment to thank Jesus, or Loki, that I'm not) I'd probably put in a little button on the poem submission form that says "would you like a review of your poem from the Poetry forum?" That would at least cut the number of pieces that any reviewer had to wade through.

those are my only opinions on that.

but it's a nice little idea, anyway.

bj

 

[champagne1982]

editred dot com already has commentor ratings. It works well.. the better your comment to post ratio, the more comments you get since other writers seek you out to reciprocate...

 

[Anschul]

Okay. Dammit, I do try to avoid forming opinions, but I have a couple here.

Opinion number one: It might be a stellar idea, but it also looks to me like it would be a shitload of work. That's certainly something to consider, when the volunteer reviewers are already rather overloaded

Opinion number two, and one I had to say a lot this weekend in a completely different context: I am a pirate. Pirates do not work well on committees. You do not want me on a committee, or in charge of anything.

Opinion number three: the point raised about giving review and critique to people who don't necessarily care about it is a good one. I try to stay away from the "Lit Should Do..." construction, but if I were in charge (and let's all just take a moment to thank Jesus, or Loki, that I'm not) I'd probably put in a little button on the poem submission form that says "would you like a review of your poem from the Poetry forum?" That would at least cut the number of pieces that any reviewer had to wade through.

those are my only opinions on that.

but it's a nice little idea, anyway.

bj

AAAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!!!, Matey...

 

[Tzara]

Both of these proposals (by Senna Jawa and Rob m_Dear) are interesting ideas. I suppose if you think votes matter, you might consider one or the other of these as alternatives to the admittedly messed-up voting on Lit. Either would probably be an improvement over the current system.

But why should I care?

Think about the concept of voting on poems—on poems, not stories, where the sheer volume of votes might reflect some kind of audience appreciation of the submission. Poems get damn few votes, so the meaningfulness of a score is called into question if for no other reason than the sample size.

But forget that. Let's think about the concept of voting on poems in general. So let's say, as a Gedankenexperiment, that we have set up an accurate rating system for poems and that Yeats' "The Second Coming" scores a bang-on 5.00 and his rather unpleasantly smutty (as judged by our tip-top reviewers) "Leda and the Swan" scores a (relatively) lackluster 4.00.

The conclusion to be drawn would be that "The Second Coming" is a twenty-five percent better poem than "Leda and the Swan." That's what the numbers would say. Does that mean anything?

Not to me.

OK. We're talking about Yeats, after all. And, while many of our contributors think he's a suck-ass Romantic and probably would rate him like in the 2s someplace, the argument holds.

Pick a poet you like: Li Po, Shakespeare, Pessoa, Montale, fill-in-the-blank. Pick two poems by this author. Rate them ever so slightly differently—say, 4.9 vs. 4.8. That tells you that the 4.9 poem is 2.08% better than the 4.8 poem.

Does that mean anything? Yeah, it's a statistic, but is it a meaningful statistic? What would it mean that a poem was two percent better than another poem? It's like two percent more truthful? Accurate? Artistic?

Does it have any real referential meaning, in fact?

Obviously, I think not. Votes don't tell you much of anything. Much of anything useful, anyway.

So why do I leave voting turned on? It's entertaining.

And that's all.

 

[hmmnmm]

do not work well on committees. You do not want me on a committee, or in charge of anything.
bj

You make my heart pitter patter.

One of those old pioneer photographers said a similar something (Steiglitz? sp?).

Oh, I just noticed you snuck in too-kind word on one of my pieces. Meant to get back to you on that.

Yeah. Committees. Blah!

 

[BooMerengue]

I agree with you about the voting, Tzara, but your last line says it all. I know a lot of my stuff got voted up to Hot cuz 10 of my friends rates it a 5. And thats nice to see; I'm a sucker like the next guy.

But those who know me know I want critique. And my skin is thick. Even a lousy (maybe MOST importantly,) critique meaning my poem was thought bad is good cuz it makes me take a harder look.

Whatever the decision I think I'd like to be on a team. I don't like doing critique cuz I write by instinct and maybe some primordial memory. I know nothing about poetics. Nothing.

But with the team thing I sure will learn. And thats what I want. I'm just waiting for a plan.

 

[normal jean]

Both of these proposals (by Senna Jawa and Rob m_Dear) are interesting ideas. I suppose if you think votes matter, you might consider one or the other of these as alternatives to the admittedly messed-up voting on Lit. Either would probably be an improvement over the current system.

But why should I care?

Think about the concept of voting on poems—on poems, not stories, where the sheer volume of votes might reflect some kind of audience appreciation of the submission. Poems get damn few votes, so the meaningfulness of a score is called into question if for no other reason than the sample size.

But forget that. Let's think about the concept of voting on poems in general. So let's say, as a Gedankenexperiment, that we have set up an accurate rating system for poems and that Yeats' "The Second Coming" scores a bang-on 5.00 and his rather unpleasantly smutty (as judged by our tip-top reviewers) "Leda and the Swan" scores a (relatively) lackluster 4.00.

The conclusion to be drawn would be that "The Second Coming" is a twenty-five percent better poem than "Leda and the Swan." That's what the numbers would say. Does that mean anything?

Not to me.

OK. We're talking about Yeats, after all. And, while many of our contributors think he's a suck-ass Romantic and probably would rate him like in the 2s someplace, the argument holds.

Pick a poet you like: Li Po, Shakespeare, Pessoa, Montale, fill-in-the-blank. Pick two poems by this author. Rate them ever so slightly differently—say, 4.9 vs. 4.8. That tells you that the 4.9 poem is 2.08% better than the 4.8 poem.

Does that mean anything? Yeah, it's a statistic, but is it a meaningful statistic? What would it mean that a poem was two percent better than another poem? It's like two percent more truthful? Accurate? Artistic?

Does it have any real referential meaning, in fact?

Obviously, I think not. Votes don't tell you much of anything. Much of anything useful, anyway.

So why do I leave voting turned on? It's entertaining.

And that's all.

I have to agree with you on the votes not meaning anything. Almost every poem I have had published outside Lit was a poem that people here did not like, didn't vote on or rated it low.

I leave my voting on because if I turn it off after it got an H, then well, the H doesn't go away and I figure someone, some day might not agree it was H worthy and so I'm giving them their equal chance of voting me down. When I first came here, it hurt, but now that i know how things work, well, I don't give a frog's bottom ( about the numerical score). The comments/ FB are important to me....

and Boo, yes, your friends love you hon but don't you think we love you enough to be honest about your work? I always have been, and we who love you know how you feel about FB and well, we don't vote you up to make you feel good, although that is not such a bad motive outside the poetry world, but it would be unfair to you knowing how much honesty means to you. I wouldnever give you a 5 just cuz I love you.



NJ

 

[normal jean]

OMG, my last post was # 666, heres one to neutralize it

 

[Tzara]

I agree with you about the voting, Tzara, but your last line says it all. I know a lot of my stuff got voted up to Hot cuz 10 of my friends rates it a 5. And thats nice to see; I'm a sucker like the next guy.

But those who know me know I want critique. And my skin is thick. Even a lousy (maybe MOST importantly,) critique meaning my poem was thought bad is good cuz it makes me take a harder look.

Whatever the decision I think I'd like to be on a team. I don't like doing critique cuz I write by instinct and maybe some primordial memory. I know nothing about poetics. Nothing.

But with the team thing I sure will learn. And thats what I want. I'm just waiting for a plan.

We're all suckers for praise, Ms. Boo (welcome back, by the way. We've all missed you.)

But you picked up on the important thing I was trying to say and, somehow incompetently, did not--that the voting isn't important; intelligent commentary is.

I got kind of wrapped up, as I often do, in some thematic thingie. Some team roving around giving intelligent comment would be a good thing.

Lot of work, though, as Champie pointed out.

Did I say it's really great to see you again?

I did?

Well, it is. Great to see you again. Or, I guess, not actually "see" you, since I am just looking at words you've typed and that isn't at all the same thing but, well, you know what I mean.

Even if I don't.

Welcome back.

 

[BooMerengue]

Well, thank you, darling! It's nice to be back. Should I say that twice?
Well, thank you, darling! It's nice to be back.

How many poems are we talking about doing? ALL of them? Eenie meenie mynie mo's? Specifically submitted? 'Cuz you're right. (Well, hell. Champ always is!) That could be a lot of work.

'Splain, please.