The Next Level
Anonymous
admin said:
There is sort of something for this already, in that you can give a comment on a poem a "thumbs up". Not sure how many people use that feature, or if it needs a refresh/rebrand
I’d just like to chip in and say the thumbs up button is awesome and I often look at how many likes a poem has as a great gauge of overall response to a poem. A lot of people do use that button.
Has it ever been in the pipeline to show who liked a poem? That’s always something I’ve been curious about. I guess on facebook it will list who liked your post. I guess I’ve always wondered who took the time to press my like button so I can check out their work in return.
There is sort of something for this already, in that you can give a comment on a poem a "thumbs up". Not sure how many people use that feature, or if it needs a refresh/rebrand
I’d just like to chip in and say the thumbs up button is awesome and I often look at how many likes a poem has as a great gauge of overall response to a poem. A lot of people do use that button.
Has it ever been in the pipeline to show who liked a poem? That’s always something I’ve been curious about. I guess on facebook it will list who liked your post. I guess I’ve always wondered who took the time to press my like button so I can check out their work in return.
Miss_Sub said:
I’d just like to chip in and say the thumbs up button is awesome and I often look at how many likes a poem has as a great gauge of overall response to a poem. A lot of people do use that button.
Has it ever been in the pipeline to show who liked a poem? That’s always something I’ve been curious about. I guess on facebook it will list who liked your post. I guess I’ve always wondered who took the time to press my like button so I can check out their work in return.
The "like" button for the poem is a separate thing and is well used I think. It's historically always been anonymous, so I'd be a bit weary of changing that, but I'm not completely against the idea. One thing to note is that, when you add a poem to your reading list, it automatically registers a "like" on the poem (though you could remove the "like" if you were minded to do so).
I definitely try to consider changes from a usability point of view i.e. how can I make the site clearer and easier to use so more people engage with the existing functionality. It would be interesting to get some feedback from new members on what they struggled to find, notice or understand. I think those of us who have been around a while have just got used to the way things are
I’d just like to chip in and say the thumbs up button is awesome and I often look at how many likes a poem has as a great gauge of overall response to a poem. A lot of people do use that button.
Has it ever been in the pipeline to show who liked a poem? That’s always something I’ve been curious about. I guess on facebook it will list who liked your post. I guess I’ve always wondered who took the time to press my like button so I can check out their work in return.
The "like" button for the poem is a separate thing and is well used I think. It's historically always been anonymous, so I'd be a bit weary of changing that, but I'm not completely against the idea. One thing to note is that, when you add a poem to your reading list, it automatically registers a "like" on the poem (though you could remove the "like" if you were minded to do so).
I definitely try to consider changes from a usability point of view i.e. how can I make the site clearer and easier to use so more people engage with the existing functionality. It would be interesting to get some feedback from new members on what they struggled to find, notice or understand. I think those of us who have been around a while have just got used to the way things are
admin said:
I definitely try to consider changes from a usability point of view i.e. how can I make the site clearer and easier to use so more people engage with the existing functionality. It would be interesting to get some feedback from new members on what they struggled to find, notice or understand. I think those of us who have been around a while have just got used to the way things are
We have. There is always room for growth. DU has grown in amazing ways in just the last few years, i.e. - groups, etc. Hopefully one day there will be something to differentiate honest critique from friendly feedback, and a form of rating can be established.
Thank you for your answers and attention to this.
I definitely try to consider changes from a usability point of view i.e. how can I make the site clearer and easier to use so more people engage with the existing functionality. It would be interesting to get some feedback from new members on what they struggled to find, notice or understand. I think those of us who have been around a while have just got used to the way things are
We have. There is always room for growth. DU has grown in amazing ways in just the last few years, i.e. - groups, etc. Hopefully one day there will be something to differentiate honest critique from friendly feedback, and a form of rating can be established.
Thank you for your answers and attention to this.
admin said:
There is sort of something for this already, in that you can give a comment on a poem a "thumbs up". Not sure how many people use that feature, or if it needs a refresh/rebrand (for example, writing the word "useful?" on the button). I'm not keen to build in new functionality; the more different things there are, the more sporadic their usage is. Also, being that most people use mobile phones for the Internet these days, page real estate is at a premium and cramming pages with fiddly little icons and buttons is to be avoided wherever possible.
Does receiving a like on a comment translate into anything other than a liked comment?
New functionality such as we suggested would potentially lead to more serious participation as far as critique for poets requesting it - more whole-hearted voluntary as opposed to half-hearted to zero-hearted obligated.
And making it reward based would increase the likelihood of more consistent usage.
Just something to consider.
Even moreso when you evaluate the current critique group that has some directors performing an average of 1 critique every 3 to 6 months. They seem to be lacking incentive.
There is sort of something for this already, in that you can give a comment on a poem a "thumbs up". Not sure how many people use that feature, or if it needs a refresh/rebrand (for example, writing the word "useful?" on the button). I'm not keen to build in new functionality; the more different things there are, the more sporadic their usage is. Also, being that most people use mobile phones for the Internet these days, page real estate is at a premium and cramming pages with fiddly little icons and buttons is to be avoided wherever possible.
Does receiving a like on a comment translate into anything other than a liked comment?
New functionality such as we suggested would potentially lead to more serious participation as far as critique for poets requesting it - more whole-hearted voluntary as opposed to half-hearted to zero-hearted obligated.
And making it reward based would increase the likelihood of more consistent usage.
Just something to consider.
Even moreso when you evaluate the current critique group that has some directors performing an average of 1 critique every 3 to 6 months. They seem to be lacking incentive.
That’s me - on a tIny little iPhone screen, so less clutter is appreciated. And I use the thumbs-up constantly, and really appreciate when other members do too. There are those who have been here years, and those much newer, who never do, so it’s impossible to know if they’ve at least seen you were there and left them an encouraging word so to speak.💌
Ahavati said:
Why can't they be limited for each account? Especially if said accounts are not violating guidelines nor taking advantage of perks? Again, how would it amplify their preferences? Can you provide an example of what you're referring to so that I may better understand what you are attempting to say?
Some of us with multiple profiles truly don't take advantage of perks nor violate guidelines. I know that may be difficult to imagine with the same group of members gunning to have them done away with for purported guideline violations, or inferring they will take advantage of perks by having more than one account. But there are honest people who have multiple accounts that actually focus on WRITING and helping others become better writers through critiques that are requested.
My accounts are a warehouse for different genres of poetry. I don't want my psychological posts interweaved with my spiritual ones; or, my bi-sexual mixed with scientific ones. Some of these accounts I barely post to ( much like your own ) - but I have healthy catalogues in each now, and the poetry genre is there when I want to add at any point without intermingling. I feel the same about critique and what angle I would like to critique from.
It seems that no matter what comes up, someone from the same group has to throw the potential evils of multiple profiles in the mix. I am permitted by site ownership to do what I am doing as long as I am not violating guidelines ( which I am not ). And I, as well as others who have open multiple accounts, should be allowed to do that without constant inferences or blatant accusations we aren't honest, or are secretly violating guidelines and are not being punished for it by site admin.
NEWSFLASH: We aren't.
News at 5:00: We STILL aren't.
Upcoming Documentary: How a potential resolution for improving reading list adds and differentiating between honest critiques and friendly comments was reached.
oh. Didn't know I was being unclear 😋
simply put, people are not unbiased creatures -- if some have more points to give out than others, then they assert greater influence over the final result, ie., who the top critiquers are.
but I could be wrong, dunno
anyways, that's all I was trying to get across and feel like Blaze already addressed my concerns a while ago
-------
edit: in regard to the rest of what you've said, it seems beside the point.
I'm in no way a seasoned debater, but the phrase "strawman argument" comes to mind, ...not sure if it applies here, but I feel like it would be helpful to post the definition... (in order to avoid strawmaning.. if that's a word 😅)
"A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."
Why can't they be limited for each account? Especially if said accounts are not violating guidelines nor taking advantage of perks? Again, how would it amplify their preferences? Can you provide an example of what you're referring to so that I may better understand what you are attempting to say?
Some of us with multiple profiles truly don't take advantage of perks nor violate guidelines. I know that may be difficult to imagine with the same group of members gunning to have them done away with for purported guideline violations, or inferring they will take advantage of perks by having more than one account. But there are honest people who have multiple accounts that actually focus on WRITING and helping others become better writers through critiques that are requested.
My accounts are a warehouse for different genres of poetry. I don't want my psychological posts interweaved with my spiritual ones; or, my bi-sexual mixed with scientific ones. Some of these accounts I barely post to ( much like your own ) - but I have healthy catalogues in each now, and the poetry genre is there when I want to add at any point without intermingling. I feel the same about critique and what angle I would like to critique from.
It seems that no matter what comes up, someone from the same group has to throw the potential evils of multiple profiles in the mix. I am permitted by site ownership to do what I am doing as long as I am not violating guidelines ( which I am not ). And I, as well as others who have open multiple accounts, should be allowed to do that without constant inferences or blatant accusations we aren't honest, or are secretly violating guidelines and are not being punished for it by site admin.
NEWSFLASH: We aren't.
News at 5:00: We STILL aren't.
Upcoming Documentary: How a potential resolution for improving reading list adds and differentiating between honest critiques and friendly comments was reached.
oh. Didn't know I was being unclear 😋
simply put, people are not unbiased creatures -- if some have more points to give out than others, then they assert greater influence over the final result, ie., who the top critiquers are.
but I could be wrong, dunno
anyways, that's all I was trying to get across and feel like Blaze already addressed my concerns a while ago
-------
edit: in regard to the rest of what you've said, it seems beside the point.
I'm in no way a seasoned debater, but the phrase "strawman argument" comes to mind, ...not sure if it applies here, but I feel like it would be helpful to post the definition... (in order to avoid strawmaning.. if that's a word 😅)
"A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."
Anonymous
JohnnyBlaze said:
Even moreso when you evaluate the current critique group that has some directors performing an average of 1 critique every 3 to 6 months. They seem to be lacking incentive.
Are you in our critique group? No.
We run our critique group in a friendly way. Different to yous. And for your information, I run two groups and a podcast. As well as holding down a full time job. I think I do pretty damn well under the circumstances.
We are all out here doing our best and I reject your need to try and belittle not only the work that I put in, but the hard work that other members do in groups. Who also have lives and jobs and other stuff going on.
Critique does not require you to be an oxford scholar. You wanna know why people don’t critique on this site? They’re scared, because they believe they can’t do it. That’s the legacy of elitism.
Our group runs on the premise that everybody is equal and appreciates that people are individuals who have their own styles and voices. It is not a group of directors telling people how to do poetry. That is not who we are and that is who we will never be.
It may shock you to know that not everyone is you.
Even moreso when you evaluate the current critique group that has some directors performing an average of 1 critique every 3 to 6 months. They seem to be lacking incentive.
Are you in our critique group? No.
We run our critique group in a friendly way. Different to yous. And for your information, I run two groups and a podcast. As well as holding down a full time job. I think I do pretty damn well under the circumstances.
We are all out here doing our best and I reject your need to try and belittle not only the work that I put in, but the hard work that other members do in groups. Who also have lives and jobs and other stuff going on.
Critique does not require you to be an oxford scholar. You wanna know why people don’t critique on this site? They’re scared, because they believe they can’t do it. That’s the legacy of elitism.
Our group runs on the premise that everybody is equal and appreciates that people are individuals who have their own styles and voices. It is not a group of directors telling people how to do poetry. That is not who we are and that is who we will never be.
It may shock you to know that not everyone is you.
Miss_Sub said:
We run our critique group in a friendly way. Different to yous. And for your information, I run two groups and a podcast.
And if I might I say, the podcast is ridiculously awesome
Further to this point, the current critique group is a different flavour to the old one, and Johnny your criticism of it is not welcome or helpful.
I understand that people spend a lot of time leaving detailed critique, and can feel it's unappreciated sometimes. However, we know the computer system hasn't got the AI to determine how much merit a critique has. So it is left to the user, and even if there was a button to allow people to flag a particularly good critique, this is once again subjective. I believe we wouldn't solve this discussion; we would still have differing opinions believing one critique deserves it and another doesn't.
I'm sure that when leaving a well though out in depth critique, very often the poet responds personally to say thank you and show appreciation. I believe that would be the greatest accolade a person could receive for such a thing.
“We make a living by what we get. We make a life by what we give.” ― Winston S. Churchill
We run our critique group in a friendly way. Different to yous. And for your information, I run two groups and a podcast.
And if I might I say, the podcast is ridiculously awesome
Further to this point, the current critique group is a different flavour to the old one, and Johnny your criticism of it is not welcome or helpful.
I understand that people spend a lot of time leaving detailed critique, and can feel it's unappreciated sometimes. However, we know the computer system hasn't got the AI to determine how much merit a critique has. So it is left to the user, and even if there was a button to allow people to flag a particularly good critique, this is once again subjective. I believe we wouldn't solve this discussion; we would still have differing opinions believing one critique deserves it and another doesn't.
I'm sure that when leaving a well though out in depth critique, very often the poet responds personally to say thank you and show appreciation. I believe that would be the greatest accolade a person could receive for such a thing.
“We make a living by what we get. We make a life by what we give.” ― Winston S. Churchill
I have added the helpful prompt to the comment thumb up button. I have also removed the ability to thumb up the poem author's comments. I believe this will make the feature clearer and more useful.
One thing worth mentioning is that the Top Critiquer benefits and awards are for those members who contribute their time to the site, in terms of giving feedback or critique. In some cases this could be leaving a detailed critique of a poem, in another instances it may be leaving a heartfelt response showing solidarity with the author. For example, sharing a similar experience they've had, or posting an uplifting or motivational reply. Such a response has the ability to help someone grow as a writer and a person, albeit in a different way to a critique. That's why I think "helpful" is a good word for the button, rather than something specifically related to critique.
One thing worth mentioning is that the Top Critiquer benefits and awards are for those members who contribute their time to the site, in terms of giving feedback or critique. In some cases this could be leaving a detailed critique of a poem, in another instances it may be leaving a heartfelt response showing solidarity with the author. For example, sharing a similar experience they've had, or posting an uplifting or motivational reply. Such a response has the ability to help someone grow as a writer and a person, albeit in a different way to a critique. That's why I think "helpful" is a good word for the button, rather than something specifically related to critique.
All sounds rather good, Lady
Terms of critique and feedback be it friendly or in-depth. It all helps, certainly helped me and still does
remember also you can gain great insight into stuff by reading other people's critiques on other people's poetry. simply go to a poet's profile and click on comments. you'll figure out who can help you grow
i would recommend looking at some of Hemiheads/ deathproof, Silly Sibyl, Mr Alputram to start then dig around from there
I understand some people take this very seriously, I'm a bit more laid back. If i wanted to be in college i'd probably be in college
don't let this stuff put you off. critiquing a poem isn't that difficult:
say how it makes you feel. say what worked for you, say what might not have worked for you. don't be a dick about it
Its all subjective sans spellings and technique. ypu're basically giving your opinion
anyhow, probably enough said on that matter in this thread
Terms of critique and feedback be it friendly or in-depth. It all helps, certainly helped me and still does
remember also you can gain great insight into stuff by reading other people's critiques on other people's poetry. simply go to a poet's profile and click on comments. you'll figure out who can help you grow
i would recommend looking at some of Hemiheads/ deathproof, Silly Sibyl, Mr Alputram to start then dig around from there
I understand some people take this very seriously, I'm a bit more laid back. If i wanted to be in college i'd probably be in college
don't let this stuff put you off. critiquing a poem isn't that difficult:
say how it makes you feel. say what worked for you, say what might not have worked for you. don't be a dick about it
Its all subjective sans spellings and technique. ypu're basically giving your opinion
anyhow, probably enough said on that matter in this thread
Umm said:
oh. Didn't know I was being unclear 😋
simply put, people are not unbiased creatures -- if some have more points to give out than others, then they assert greater influence over the final result, ie., who the top critiquers are.
but I could be wrong, dunno
You weren't or I wouldn't have asked you for an example. I realize people are biased and never said otherwise; however, what I asked is HOW they could be biased in relation to this topic. I have touched base on the only two scenarios I know in order to garner more understanding of what you are saying, but you responded to neither.
If PsycoticMastermind critiques AgentStarling, and she awards him so many points for that critique, how does he capitalize or profit from my other accounts? Can Ahavati, TwoSpirit, or Ex-Machina award points as well? I would think not.
Or, are you inferring that we who are upfront and honest about our accounts would post four or five different critiques under each account simply to receive critique points? LOL! That is as ludicrous as it is a waste of time when one critique would suffice.
I was honestly attempting to understand what you were referring to when I asked that.
-------
Umm said:edit: in regard to the rest of what you've said, it seems beside the point.
No, it was forthcoming because of your inference that open accounts were biased and could take advantage of the system.
Umm said:
I wasn't strictly speaking about secret accounts. but okay xD
This isn't the first thread in which you've publicly inferred such. And perhaps it is a viable concern, especially for members who don't understand the system. Thus, the knowledge I provided regarding the tracking of account actions by Mods and Webmiss was substantial to negating any inference that non-secret accounts violate guidelines.
Thank you for the information regarding straw men. But, there would actually have to be a fallacy in order for it to apply. My response to your inference regarding multiple accounts was neither fallacy nor a straw man. It was clarification.
But then again you did say "it seems". . .
Thank you for your response. It all seems a moot point now anyway.
oh. Didn't know I was being unclear 😋
simply put, people are not unbiased creatures -- if some have more points to give out than others, then they assert greater influence over the final result, ie., who the top critiquers are.
but I could be wrong, dunno
You weren't or I wouldn't have asked you for an example. I realize people are biased and never said otherwise; however, what I asked is HOW they could be biased in relation to this topic. I have touched base on the only two scenarios I know in order to garner more understanding of what you are saying, but you responded to neither.
If PsycoticMastermind critiques AgentStarling, and she awards him so many points for that critique, how does he capitalize or profit from my other accounts? Can Ahavati, TwoSpirit, or Ex-Machina award points as well? I would think not.
Or, are you inferring that we who are upfront and honest about our accounts would post four or five different critiques under each account simply to receive critique points? LOL! That is as ludicrous as it is a waste of time when one critique would suffice.
I was honestly attempting to understand what you were referring to when I asked that.
-------
Umm said:edit: in regard to the rest of what you've said, it seems beside the point.
No, it was forthcoming because of your inference that open accounts were biased and could take advantage of the system.
Umm said:
I wasn't strictly speaking about secret accounts. but okay xD
This isn't the first thread in which you've publicly inferred such. And perhaps it is a viable concern, especially for members who don't understand the system. Thus, the knowledge I provided regarding the tracking of account actions by Mods and Webmiss was substantial to negating any inference that non-secret accounts violate guidelines.
Thank you for the information regarding straw men. But, there would actually have to be a fallacy in order for it to apply. My response to your inference regarding multiple accounts was neither fallacy nor a straw man. It was clarification.
But then again you did say "it seems". . .
Thank you for your response. It all seems a moot point now anyway.
admin said:
And if I might I say, the podcast is ridiculously awesome
Further to this point, the current critique group is a different flavour to the old one, and Johnny your criticism of it is not welcome or helpful.
I understand that people spend a lot of time leaving detailed critique, and can feel it's unappreciated sometimes. However, we know the computer system hasn't got the AI to determine how much merit a critique has. So it is left to the user, and even if there was a button to allow people to flag a particularly good critique, this is once again subjective. I believe we wouldn't solve this discussion; we would still have differing opinions believing one critique deserves it and another doesn't.
I'm sure that when leaving a well though out in depth critique, very often the poet responses personally to say thank you and show appreciation. I believe that would be the greatest accolade a person could receive for such a thing.
“We make a living by what we get. We make a life by what we give.” ― Winston S. Churchill
Just making suggestions to perhaps improve "the entire site" is all.
And if I might I say, the podcast is ridiculously awesome
Further to this point, the current critique group is a different flavour to the old one, and Johnny your criticism of it is not welcome or helpful.
I understand that people spend a lot of time leaving detailed critique, and can feel it's unappreciated sometimes. However, we know the computer system hasn't got the AI to determine how much merit a critique has. So it is left to the user, and even if there was a button to allow people to flag a particularly good critique, this is once again subjective. I believe we wouldn't solve this discussion; we would still have differing opinions believing one critique deserves it and another doesn't.
I'm sure that when leaving a well though out in depth critique, very often the poet responses personally to say thank you and show appreciation. I believe that would be the greatest accolade a person could receive for such a thing.
“We make a living by what we get. We make a life by what we give.” ― Winston S. Churchill
Just making suggestions to perhaps improve "the entire site" is all.
Miss_Sub said:
Are you in our critique group? No.
We run our critique group in a friendly way. Different to yous. And for your information, I run two groups and a podcast. As well as holding down a full time job. I think I do pretty damn well under the circumstances.
We are all out here doing our best and I reject your need to try and belittle not only the work that I put in, but the hard work that other members do in groups. Who also have lives and jobs and other stuff going on.
Critique does not require you to be an oxford scholar. You wanna know why people don’t critique on this site? They’re scared, because they believe they can’t do it. That’s the legacy of elitism.
Our group runs on the premise that everybody is equal and appreciates that people are individuals who have their own styles and voices. It is not a group of directors telling people how to do poetry. That is not who we are and that is who we will never be.
It may shock you to know that not everyone is you.
So many ridiculous inferences, so little time in the day to bother with addressing them all.
Are you in our critique group? No.
We run our critique group in a friendly way. Different to yous. And for your information, I run two groups and a podcast. As well as holding down a full time job. I think I do pretty damn well under the circumstances.
We are all out here doing our best and I reject your need to try and belittle not only the work that I put in, but the hard work that other members do in groups. Who also have lives and jobs and other stuff going on.
Critique does not require you to be an oxford scholar. You wanna know why people don’t critique on this site? They’re scared, because they believe they can’t do it. That’s the legacy of elitism.
Our group runs on the premise that everybody is equal and appreciates that people are individuals who have their own styles and voices. It is not a group of directors telling people how to do poetry. That is not who we are and that is who we will never be.
It may shock you to know that not everyone is you.
So many ridiculous inferences, so little time in the day to bother with addressing them all.
admin said:
Further to this point, the current critique group is a different flavour to the old one, and Johnny your criticism of it is not welcome or helpful.
I'd like to interject here and say, for the record, I don't feel he was criticizing the group as a whole. We understand groups are run according to their directors; therefore, I'm not sure they could be criticized. He was stating a fact. And he stated such because of the numerous messages and emails we've had about how many members miss our form of critiques, and feel the current group falls short of that. We help as many as we can with the time we have without ever having brought that public in a negative way. Johnny was attempting to assist in developing some sort incentive measure for more site critiques.
I don't appreciate being called elitist in reference to the legacy of critique. Or that people don't critique because of us. We were nothing short of supportive and thorough in what we did. We are good at what we do, just as Missy is good at what she does. That does not make her an elitist. On the contrary, it makes her experienced and a go-to person regarding spoken word and podcast.
We are the same except in regards to critique. That does not make us elitist either. The podcast IS awesome - but so is what we do.
admin said:
I understand that people spend a lot of time leaving detailed critique, and can feel it's unappreciated sometimes. However, we know the computer system hasn't got the AI to determine how much merit a critique has. So it is left to the user, and even if there was a button to allow people to flag a particularly good critique, this is once again subjective. I believe we wouldn't solve this discussion; we would still have differing opinions believing one critique deserves it and another doesn't.
I'm sure that when leaving a well though out in depth critique, very often the poet responds personally to say thank you and show appreciation. I believe that would be the greatest accolade a person could receive for such a thing.
“We make a living by what we get. We make a life by what we give.” ― Winston S. Churchill[/color]
Someone showing their appreciation is all the reward I need. Afterall, it's not us who laughs at the monthly "Top Critiquers" or uses the term loosely.
admin said:
I have added the helpful prompt to the comment thumb up button. I have also removed the ability to thumb up the poem author's comments. I believe this will make the feature clearer and more useful.
One thing worth mentioning is that the Top Critiquer benefits and awards are for those members who contribute their time to the site, in terms of giving feedback or critique. In some cases this could be leaving a detailed critique of a poem, in another instances it may be leaving a heartfelt response showing solidarity with the author. For example, sharing a similar experience they've had, or posting an uplifting or motivational reply. Such a response has the ability to help someone grow as a writer and a person, albeit in a different way to a critique. That's why I think "helpful" is a good word for the button, rather than something specifically related to critique.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and for constantly improving the site. I know you, too, can feel unappreciated or that it's not enough - just know that it is appreciated. What you are able to do is enough.
Further to this point, the current critique group is a different flavour to the old one, and Johnny your criticism of it is not welcome or helpful.
I'd like to interject here and say, for the record, I don't feel he was criticizing the group as a whole. We understand groups are run according to their directors; therefore, I'm not sure they could be criticized. He was stating a fact. And he stated such because of the numerous messages and emails we've had about how many members miss our form of critiques, and feel the current group falls short of that. We help as many as we can with the time we have without ever having brought that public in a negative way. Johnny was attempting to assist in developing some sort incentive measure for more site critiques.
I don't appreciate being called elitist in reference to the legacy of critique. Or that people don't critique because of us. We were nothing short of supportive and thorough in what we did. We are good at what we do, just as Missy is good at what she does. That does not make her an elitist. On the contrary, it makes her experienced and a go-to person regarding spoken word and podcast.
We are the same except in regards to critique. That does not make us elitist either. The podcast IS awesome - but so is what we do.
admin said:
I understand that people spend a lot of time leaving detailed critique, and can feel it's unappreciated sometimes. However, we know the computer system hasn't got the AI to determine how much merit a critique has. So it is left to the user, and even if there was a button to allow people to flag a particularly good critique, this is once again subjective. I believe we wouldn't solve this discussion; we would still have differing opinions believing one critique deserves it and another doesn't.
I'm sure that when leaving a well though out in depth critique, very often the poet responds personally to say thank you and show appreciation. I believe that would be the greatest accolade a person could receive for such a thing.
“We make a living by what we get. We make a life by what we give.” ― Winston S. Churchill[/color]
Someone showing their appreciation is all the reward I need. Afterall, it's not us who laughs at the monthly "Top Critiquers" or uses the term loosely.
admin said:
I have added the helpful prompt to the comment thumb up button. I have also removed the ability to thumb up the poem author's comments. I believe this will make the feature clearer and more useful.
One thing worth mentioning is that the Top Critiquer benefits and awards are for those members who contribute their time to the site, in terms of giving feedback or critique. In some cases this could be leaving a detailed critique of a poem, in another instances it may be leaving a heartfelt response showing solidarity with the author. For example, sharing a similar experience they've had, or posting an uplifting or motivational reply. Such a response has the ability to help someone grow as a writer and a person, albeit in a different way to a critique. That's why I think "helpful" is a good word for the button, rather than something specifically related to critique.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and for constantly improving the site. I know you, too, can feel unappreciated or that it's not enough - just know that it is appreciated. What you are able to do is enough.
JohnnyBlaze said:
Just making suggestions to perhaps improve "the entire site" is all.
I do appreciate your suggestions when they come from good place and I know that you want to help improve the site. I absolutely want this to be a place where serious writers can develop their skills and exchange quality critique.
I'm also mindful that this should be a welcoming and inclusive environment, where people at different writing levels and stages of their lives can be supported.
Also, that some people are simply more laid back in their approach.
Just making suggestions to perhaps improve "the entire site" is all.
I do appreciate your suggestions when they come from good place and I know that you want to help improve the site. I absolutely want this to be a place where serious writers can develop their skills and exchange quality critique.
I'm also mindful that this should be a welcoming and inclusive environment, where people at different writing levels and stages of their lives can be supported.
Also, that some people are simply more laid back in their approach.
