A well worn topic - what to do about multiple posting. As of now there have been 342 blogs in June. 100 of them came from three men. That is nearly 30% of what has been blogged, and it's mostly not very good to put it mildly. I'm sorry if that offends anyone but it's time something was said - and, more important, done. I know of one person who has decided to stop posting and others who are fed up with it all, and read and comment on blogs less.

Blogs are important to WOL, and it would be sad to see them lose their way. Good stuff is still being posted, even though it quickly disappears under the other. Various ideas for limiting blogs have been put forward in discussion threads in the past. Can these be re-visited?

LOL - I think you are very brave to pull out and polish this old chesnut Dave!

I think Admin are aware of the need to create alternative spaces on WOL to satisfy those who want to blog more regularly and those who want to tap into a more selective collection of poetry.

I guess all these things take time. In the meantime it is a question of putting up with it. It is a great shame that the current state of affairs is turning off once prominent site members though. Let's just hope they come back one day.

It's about time ur chesnuts were given a rub Dave... your right on!


in the main a pile of tired old words ...

the charisma of a caravan site in Whitby on a dark Wednesday night in November comes to mind...

WHATPG?

BRAVO Dave : )

Hello Dave.
It's beginning to cheese me off in a serious way. Whilst I am not versed in the polemic/rant and often downright abusive/rude and filthy style of poetry I have to accept its existence. It seems to me (again sorry if this offends) that some work is just a swiftly collated jumble of words or statements thrown together before breakfast, dinner or supper every day.
Quality is poor and no-one wants to comment. I have to admit to not understanding half of it.
Elitism, elitism, elitism, I can here it all now, but quite frankly there is a lot of tosh being posted several times a day/week. I know no-one would vote for only one poem per member per month, but it would stop this mindless bumph cropping up time and time again.

Sorry just caught me on a bad day. Am going back to posting new work on my "sample" instead of the blog again.

Bet you feel a lot better now Dave don't you??

Regards and sorry for offence etc etc

I wouldn't worry about offending Graham or Dave or whoever. Those who post shite constantly don't worry about it.

I might as well announce here that I don't intend running WOLOP any more. How can I expect people to trawl through blogs looking for anything decent to vote on, when I can't be bothered? Anyone wanting to take it over is welcome. My advice would be to leave it until the necessary changes are made to the system.

So it's good night from me folks - do I hear a few sighs of relief? LOL xx

That is a shame but I know what you mean. The thing that attracted me to WOL was the quality of the words here. Now it seems to be harder to find them. As a poet not everything one writes is on the money, and a decent poet is hardly ever happy with a final version, at best, finding one or two lines that set off the rest of the work.
Increasingly, my opinion of some of the work here is that it is offered with about as much sincerity as graffiti. Shame.

oh dear...

Without going on like a dog minus a bone here, I can totally believe what Dave B says here and I know of two poets alone (who I don’t think Dave knows) who has pretty well stopped posting here because of this situation. One even said to me when they posted a poem on here recently after a absence had a look on the blogs out of respect and he felt the quality had dropped massive and said more damning that he felt the same few people
were chocking a lot of people’s work here (the good stuff) with sub-standard stuff.

I think I have mentioned this myself, if I wanted to, I could do something similar and submit 10 to 15 poems a month as I am always writing, but for me using the blog here is a process where everybody is given a chance
to assist each other with pieces they have wrote etc and I don’t think it is fair
I submit everything I write (this has nothing to do with the fact some pieces
I write as lil jokes for people I know and therefore too personal for publishing
and some are just rubbish I know).

I’ve had a discussion here with somebody on here (and I can’t remember who with which is typical me), but I told them as may be known, I go to a writing discussion group called ‘Poetica’ when I can (which has made the news on here for a few bits and pieces) and that can be a very helpful way of getting help with a new piece of poetry etc in a different way and the blogs here like I also use on facebook and to a lesser extend on myspace can be really helpful sometimes but
certainly I think W.O.L. does have a problem coming which I don’t think is going to go away and it isn’t something I would like to have to try to sort out.

Not someone who goes on the blogs here. Would you say that the more someone posts on the blog the less likely they are to be any good?

In theory muliple blogging and posting shite shouldn’t necessarily go hand in hand. By the same token, infrequent bloggers aren’t guaranteed to post great poetry.

In practise, multiple bloggers seem to post a lot of ill considered tosh. That may be because prolific poets capable of writing great poetry, also have the intelligence not to spam their audience.

The aggravation factor of bad poetry is that much higher when we are blitzed with it.
I hope this won’t descend into an ‘elitism’ argument again – it has been argued ad infinitum on other threads that that isn’t the issue. It is about putting our best foot forward and showing consideration to fellow poets of all standards.

Let’s be honest. The average poet (which many of us are) doesn’t create their best poetry sat on the toilet, or eating cornflakes. Most take time over it, to present it to their audience as best they can. Fine if poets don’t want to do that – but please spare us ten tons of unrefined twaddle.

Hmm. It is all true. Isobel's comments, and Cayn's, raise all the right questions, and lead us back to so many others on this same subject: too many blogs? ill-considered? rushed poems? lack of a clear standard on this website? what is the difference between a "reasonable standard" and elitism?
Whatever the responses, one thing is clear: the numbers are falling (easy to measure); and so is the standard of poetry (unfortunately that, too, is easy to measure). That is not to say that the standard of everyone's poetry is falling, but the general standard on this site is. With so many "rushed poems", that lowering of standards is inevitable.
It means the site become less interesting to its users, it has less to inspire us, and it becomes a fag wading through the "shite" (ref: Isobel, 2010) to find summat decent to read.
So we are having none of it.
We are going to be making changes which, fingers crossed, will help (I know we have said this before, but we are moving as quickly as we can afford to, which is not a lot!).
Our initial idea is to simply limit us all to, say, two blogs per month. We are also considering some way of weeding out the absolute crap, which reflects so badly on the site. OK, hard to judge, but somebody gotta do it!
And do keep giving us your ideas on how to do it, cos it aint, as many of you have said, easy.
keep your thoughts coming please, not least about how to win back some of the previously excellent colleauges who now no longer grace these pages.
Cheers.

I wasn't going to get involved in this again. However, can I say that if the lowering of the tone, dumbing down etc that you seem to feel is happening, why are there more hits each month? Why is the site more popular each month? Today I was overjoyed - I have had 5,000 hits - that is 5,000 times when people have looked at my stuff. I've never been published. I've never won any prizes. So I guess I'm crap then. But I consider myself both a poet and also lucky to have WOL as my shop window, if you like. Two poems a month? I'm buggering off then - maybe I'll take up crochet!

Am delighted to hear that change is still on the agenda but would like to clarify a couple of points

Not looking to get caught up in any major arguments here but - I think we originally said 2 per week Julien - or a max of 8 per month. Although I could cope with it, two per month does seem a bit extreme. After all - we do want some blogs to read...

Will there be any alternative space made available to poets who want to blog more than that - like an excess baggage area...

Not sure I can get too excited about how many hits anyone gets Ann - after all - you do have to wonder how many of them come from the one person.

It obviously doesn't take much to get me excited Isobel! But to little old me, it was a very nice feeling. And we don't get many of those! ;-)

Yes I know what you mean Ann! I didn't know anything about that little counter for months but once I did, I couldn't take my eyes off it. In fact, I probably account for half of the hits, checking up to see where I am LOL! Sad but true - it's a habit I must break!
It seems to go up in such leaps though and you wonder just who is looking at you. Probably some unfit old man in outer Mongolia and not at all what we would both wish for... LOL
Shall we have a joint 10K party in a few months time? Mind you, at the rate you are going, you may get there before me - I joined the site last May...

Dear, dear Isobel - I was just logging on to delete my comments as I felt I was maybe coming across as a big-head loser - but you have cheered me up! Don't think I'll join in this thread again, it GETS to me! But yes, lets have a party - but we won't invite those dirty old men from Mongolia! xxxxxxx

interesting point raised by Juilian about numbers falling.. I had being thinking about that before considering there are some people on here who I don't recall seeing on here in ages and ages and ages - whether this is because of boredom or perhaps simply their lives have moved on here in different ways.

The same applys to the live circuit... I know when I first doing this stuff just over 2 years proper, there was a lot of people who I saw regularly.. Now there's some like the lovely Gus who I've seen maybe once this year..

Perhaps a survey could be sent out to people who are subscribed to W.O.L. to see if they can say why they don't use it to see what sort of answers you get back.

While 2 a month maybe harsh to some people - from my angle, I must admit I try to keep it down to a few a month no more to give other people space, but if it was going to be 2 a month - how would that affect things if you deleted that post after a week or even two weeks - would that count against your two?

Lots to discuss here, and I look forward to seeing what everybody else thinks.

Tricky and diplomatic.
Its difficult and I feel for WOL, especially if you are going to have to hack stuff.
Some people wont be happy.

Theres a compute simulation called 'life' its been around a long time at least since 1980s as I used to pay it on My ZX81 personal computer, these life forms breed etc and certain parts die off, other parts are sucessfull, sometimes webpages and forums remind me of this. Some systems that develop thier own ID, the blogs felt like that to me, im against hacking off as I think even junk is valid as it clears the way to the next classic, this of course soes not solve the issue but it raises the questions 'what is valid' etc. Some kind of cleansing implies superior, difficult and i cant suggest anything to help.

There are a lot of blog entries, but blog smog its just that, blog.

A sketchboard to bounce even junk off

Im no more clear

I write a good few poems a week, and have deliberate held back posting as it is so busy on the blogs, I speed read down for interesting titles, I go off the title- if it grabs me, maybe scan the first few lines.

I trust the decision of WOL anyway
however there still needs an outlet for all, even 'junk' heck i want a place to post my rubbish too.

:-)

2 a month seems too few to me. I think isobel is right that we said 2 a week, One a week would be ok for me as thats how many i post on average anyway. i vote 2 a week for a trial period to see what happens :-) we need change ASAP. Anyone visiting the site now seeingthe blogs for the first time would not see the blogs as a worthwhile forum IMHO.

I agree with all that Pete says here. I could cope with three poems blogged a week but four would be better! But the question of quality control - what a can of worms that would be! Even worse than Pandora opening her box! xx

I can understand a few people being concerned about the idea of ‘cleansing’ or censorship and would agree that it opens a can of worms.

I can also understand what would make Julien go down that route having seen several poems on here of late that I could quite happily blast to another planet. Whilst I have used the F word in a couple of my poems for dramatic effect and for a distinct purpose, time and time again you see it used as one would ‘and’ or ‘it’ in long and unintelligible ramblings. Also there have been some postings on rather vile sexual activities, that are neither funny, poignant or sensual. I know I am not in a minority in disliking these, since they attract no comments.

I don’t think it is worth going down the censorship route though. Once these poets are restricted to 8 per month rather than the 50 they are churning out now, they will be less noticeable. They don’t hold centre court on our home page or anything and will be lost in blogs. At the end of the day, every site has its nutters – or eccentric characters if you would prefer that word…

I'd vote for Isobel and Winston's idea of a trial period of maximum 8 blogs per month.

An overflow space where people could 'shoot from the hip' would help those who are addicted to blogging. The word is carefully chosen - it is sometimes something very like addiction that is the driver.

Because of the addiction factor, there may be attempts to get round any maximum limit using aliases. Some people use aliases routinely anyway. Julien's contribution was helpful, but have Admin taken this factor into account?

I hear what you are saying Jackie. I know some great poets who don’t like to refine once the poem is written. They reckon it kills the natural flow. I guess we all work differently – and some of us are more natural poets – in that it comes out as perfect poetry rather than having to be worked on.

The big issue here is getting the volume of our postings right – if an improvement in quality arises out of that, so much the better. I do think that when certain people are restricted, it will make them think more carefully about which pieces to post.

Another argument that always comes up when we discuss this issue, is how to decide which our best pieces are – not all of us seem to find that easy. That’s not an easy one to crack – I am not a prolific poet and would never have this problem. However if this is the only downside, I think it is a small one, vastly outweighed by the benefits to the site of introducing restrictions.

I think the idea of an overflow area is an excellent one. That way, people with time on their hands could check out the extra poetry written.

"however there still needs an outlet for all, even 'junk' heck i want a place to post my rubbish too."

Andy - the best place to post rubbish is usually the bin. That's where I post mine...

"I write my poems in a rush, they come from things I feel and have experienced, I don't believe in working on poems for weeks, days whatever, surely that isn't what poetry is all about, it should be about evoking emotions, to me if something is worked on it is contrived! Will I be crucified, you know I don't care!"

Jackie - that may not be what it's about for you - but others do take a lot of time over their work, and that's always been the way. I think of Elizabeth Bishop, with all the poems she worked on pinned to the noticeboard sometimes for years as she slowly found out what the poem was trying to say and the best way of saying it.

Others (Ginsberg, for instance) said "First words, best words", but it still took him a year to write Howl.

Poetry, in any case, is not just about "evoking emotions" - a quick trip to the psychiatrist could do that. It's also about finding the right shape for that emotion. And sometimes that comes immediately and sometimes it takes time. And sometimes it never quite comes at all so the poem gets abandoned.

I don’t believe that anyone would routinely post work that some people deem ‘shite’ just for the sake of posting ‘shite’. Most contributors to this site are under the impression that it’s still a site that encourages poetry in both its written and spoken form. The standard of that work is of course subjective, although it’s not too difficult to spot those who write as a means of ‘getting it off their chest’, ‘catharsis’, ‘therapy’ or whatever label we want to give it.

The issue, or so it seems to me, is the difficulty which comes when you attempt to accommodate every level of writer from beginner to experienced professional. Yes, there are professional writers on Write Out Loud! But it seems to me that because WOL attempts to include and diversify its target audience that over the years it has in effect become the ‘Glee Club’ of the internet poetry world. This is not meant as a criticism - most applications for funding have strict criteria which champion the cause of the all inclusivity of modern day Britain. This brings about its own set of issues. Do fellow writers comment on work that is (in their opinion) banal doggerel born from the loins of the evil Doctor Shite - or do they just hope that he gets zapped with rays of silence and indifference?

I don’t believe there should be an issue with the amount or the perceived lack of quality written in blogs - which, after all, are just blogs. The site is not being used to its maximum potential as it is - there are already links where if people want to write poetry and receive feedback they can do - but much of the benefit of receiving quality feedback and/or critique or what is basically an opinion has been lost because many of the inexperienced writers are not familiar with some writing techniques and how to change just the odd subtle nuance in their writing that can contribute to improving their work. Any sincerity of trying to help is usually lost in personal attitudes to poetry and the individuals concerned.

Some suggest that once they have written something they don’t wish to change it and post it as it ‘came out’. Usually, when I read this sort of statement my heart sinks. Purely from a personal perspective, this is the easiest part of writing poetry - getting the words out. The skill or craft of writing quality poetry is actually much more complicated than we imagine - but when we get it right (not that I ever have - although I feel I’ve come close on just two occasions in 20 years) the rewards are immeasurable - not ‘financially’ but ‘emotionally’.

We are all at different stages with our writing. Many who once contributed to this site have come and gone - often leaving a legacy of some description - but there are equally as many who fail to make any impression - on anyone - simply because they fail to interact or contribute beyond a quirky profile and a few glib deprecating comments about how bad a poet they assume people think they are. Like everything in life - there are those who I believe are innately better poets than others - that’s not to say that none of us cannot improve by reading and commenting on others work - wherever we deem we are in that great chain of poetic being. Usually, if I think something is shite - I turn over - or change my book - because I can - but it wouldn’t stop me buying a particular newspaper just because say, Vanessa Feltz wrote a column inside it, I know she’s shite - but the Sports’ writers are top drawer.

Pretty much agree with Darren. I have always been someone who says I just let my poems splurge out, but last weekend I suddenly felt I wanted to write about a particular thing in greater depth and really take time over it. I think this is something I will enjoy, like giving a dog a bone to knaw on! So maybe I am actually getting somewhere! Not sure whether I'll ever be like the poet with her poems taped to the fridge though!

The logo for Write OutLoud actually says "encouraging poetry performance." The word ENCOURAGE is so . . well, encoraging I guess! The idea of quality control and rationing our work does not appeal to me. But I do love this site and hopefully I appreciate the work that goes into running it.

And Steve, it wasn't Andy it was Pete who said that comment about needing somewhere to put his rubbish! Keep up! ;-)

Nice to have a substantial contribution from you Darren, even though I can’t agree with all of it…so what’s new, I hear you ask?

Though I would agree that ‘shite’ is subjective and one man’s shite is another man’s honey, I think you are just being politically correct. A very small number of poets on here post ten tons of rubbish. If you had the energy and inclination to read it all you might find the odd good one in it – but on the whole, it is not good by anyone’s standard. I agree that it is easy to side step it by moving on – but when just two people are capable of posting 100 poems per month between them, it gets rather hard to just ignore.

If you want to encourage and support that level of posting, then fine – go ahead. We are all entitled to our opinions and to our own vision of what WOL should be.

Steve and all;

As Ann correctly pointed out sadly that quote is nothing to me ‘"however there still needs an outlet for all, even 'junk' heck i want a place to post my rubbish too." It’s the lovely Mr Crompton I think but it’s a interesting thought over whether poets should take their time over their writing more or rush their poems out. I know when I was at university getting taught by Matt Welton some years back I used to argue the toss with him frequently as I felt poetry shouldn’t be altered when you get to the end off it. Nowadays I tend to judge from the piece itself, I’ve being known in the past to write a poem during the break of a night and stand up and perform it 15 minutes later and other times spend weeks or months working on a piece, as I feel some need teasing out slowly but surely to get the best flow of language.

Websites like this with it’s regulars of course will change in time, and the site I think
Although is designed to help encourage people with their work, all writers when they
Start of whatever age should improve. I know for me, I’ve being writing since I was a kid (a long time ago) and but only finally started to mature I think over the past few years. Write Out Loud has helped me a bit I would like to think (with other things)
But what worries me, in particular with some people who I see so much on here (and
This doesn’t include you Anne) I don’t see any improvement and it’s clearly having
An effect on the traffic on the website.

It’s not for me to worry about as I don’t run the website, but clearly from Julian’s email thought is going into the future of the website. I’ll be interested to see if the restrictions do help, (Two a week I think is fair and maybe a extra spot if they want more) although of course there is more than one way of getting round, but certainly it’s a interesting problem….

'it get's rather hard to just ignore...'

I can't see how ignoring anything can be THAT difficult. Although I'm also aware that some contributors find it hard to ignore just about anything and I'm also aware that the quality of some contributions border on the cusp of 'complete shite' and 'absolute shite' and 'talking shite' but it doesn't really affect the day to day running of how I feel about myself and my life. I try to put things into some sort of perspective and accept that in amongst the self-proclaimed deities of poetry there are those mere mortals who are nothing more than a step above those philistines we used to call beginners.

The very inclusive nature of WOL brings with it various conflicts and diverse opinions - much of which don't sit readily in the lap of our own. Many of the personalities on here hide inside or behind the smoke and mirrors of nom de plume for their own various reasons - many I don't agree with - but that's not to say I would actively discourage their use.

It does seem to smack of hypocrisy that many of WOL's squeaking gates - are those that demand the most oil - everyone is equal - but some are more equal than others, mentality.

Yes, of course there are people who post work on here who are hardly going to become successful in terms of their literary contribution to poetry - but what's more fascinating (and disappointing) is watching people discuss those who are both foolish or seemingly deluded enough to think they just may.


Poetry at any level is surely about having fun and emotional expression? I'd be more than concerned if some pencil necked whizzers or opinionated windbags fettered my linguistic creativity with their untimely but regularly tiresome moans and groans...


...and I cannot see how we can ALL have a vision of what WOL should be and it remain successful? Potentially that's at least 750 individual visions. We can share a particular vision with its founders and administrators but we can't allow it to fragment into a thousand pieces - which is what's beginning to happen now. There are far too many chiefs but not one who appears to want overall responsibility - and the indians are getting restless in the resulting chaos.

Steve has indicated he posts his rubbish in the bin.

Surely we need a bin then.
Where theres muck, theres poetry.

Some ideas can be resurected from the'bin'
even rubbish is valid.

this bin will self destruct in 10 seconds.

I have followed this thread since it started and there has nothing any different been said that hasn't been said so many times before in the last year or so in relation to blogs and poetry.

If i'm being completely honest, this thread only serves to show we are going over the same ground again and again, stopping occasionally to jump on another rickety roundabout.
It makes me wonder how many others who don't appear to be using the site any longer feels as i do and can't be bothered even attempting broaching new topics for discussions.

I've said all i'm going to say about the blogs in previous ones. I just wanted you all to know that i still read some of the poetry and stuff regardless of the fact that i'm less active at present.
I can fully understand where Ann and many others get a buzz from it because i've been there too. Now i like to come on here just to browse, post the occasional poem and comment on others occasionally too. That way i can enjoy what little time i spend here... and yes, this bit is all about me simply because this is only MY opinion. I cannot speak for how others feel or think about WOL.

Blogs anyone? How about a nice cup of tea! ;-)

I've been watching this thread evolve for a while now, with my fingers stapled to the desk in an effort to resist adding my two penn'orth. Unfortunately the staples have worked loose and my bloodied digits are now worrying the keys.

This is such a complex and emotive subject; and one that puzzles me somewhat – for reasons that I have gone into before – and make no apologies for going into again. Poetry is seemingly many things to many people, as Darren has so eloquently pointed out. However, there is surely a common purpose in publishing poetry; and I include posting on the fair blog of WOL in that domain, in that it is exposing one’s writings to a wider audience.

Let’s step way back in time for a moment. In those dim and distant days of long ago when our prehistoric ancestors were not long out of the primeval sludge it must have become apparent that cooperation was a useful survival tool. This was difficult without a means of communication so we developed out “ugs” and “grunts” and gestures into speech to enable us to share ideas, which previously were only thoughts. Although this was a revolutionary step in itself, at some stage that language developed first into pictograms and eventually into writing, publishing etc. That is the purpose of writing surely – the sharing of thoughts, information and ideas? Unless, as has been said before, one is writing a diary. (Trust me, you really wouldn’t want to read my diary.)

And yes I know there are those out there who will go on to insist that “they write only for their selves” – so why the need to share it with potentially anyone with access to t’internet? And this applies to the “performance” poets too – if it’s for you, why the need to inflict it on an audience? What’s the hope here – that people will ignore it, or if you are honest that you might get some positive feedback? It must surely follow that if that’s the case that anyone publishing anything owes it, A. to their audience and B. to their self, to do a least a little self-censorship and editing in an effort to make a positive response more likely?

Or, if those diehards wish to go on insisting that their writing is “automatic” and purely self-centred, what are they hoping to achieve in publishing? I find it almost impossible to believe that anyone can go on stage and recite their poetry not caring or considering what their audience’s reaction will be. I’ve seen the pics – you dress the part (consider your appearance) there are features on WOL alluding to techniques of delivery (consider how it sounds) I guess you rehearse too, I know I do if I have to read something. Isn’t it then perhaps a little arrogant not to consider the material itself?

We’ve all read and heard what we consider to be poor (or s***e) poetry. You know the stuff – boring, unintelligible (except to the writer) uninspiring and frankly a little pointless. Is that what any writer should aspire to? Shouldn’t we aim to be better – for ourselves as well as our readers?

If I didn’t want anyone to read what I write I wouldn’t post it – and yes of course I want to get a positive reaction and am delighted when that happens. We have evolved this wonderful tool with which to communicate with each other over millions of years. The WWW has given us a platform on which to use that tool to reach (potentially) an infinite audience – so let’s all write s***e.
I would suggest that anyone who has an interest in poetry and sharing that poetry with others, whether on page, stage or pixels ought to really think about the reaction of their audience. I would also suggest that most of us are doing it subconsciously anyway, to a greater or lesser degrees. If one is writing (even a diary) one is potentially communicating – i.e. turning ideas/thoughts into words. Communicating with oneself is usually, I believe, called meditation. Perhaps it is wise not to meditate out loud. (Maybe an idea for another site though – how does that sound MEDITATEOUTLOUD!)

Of course I’m waiting to be shot down in flames again (what do I know, I’ve never even entered a competition or submitted anything for publication) but I get a buzz when someone says they like something I’ve written – doesn’t everyone?

It seems so obvious from what’s been written here that no one wants to be booed off stage or told their poetry is awful, and that no one wants to listen to or read awful poetry. But I’ll bet there are still those out there who will still say, “I write for me.” Good for them, let them write for their self - but if they choose to share it then they shouldn’t expect readers/listeners not to have an opinion. And isn’t it better if that opinion is largely positive?

On the subject of blogging I think two/week is adequate for most, anything beyond that can go on their profile page. I would still like to see informal etiquette suggest that for each blog entry posted one should be prepared to leave at least three comments.

p.s. Humble apologies for inflicting this s***e on you.

Hi Anthony - I too was hoping to restrain myself from this thread - didn't work! I think your thoughts are measured and fair. I don't agree that the multi bloggers feel that they are writing their poetry just for themselves though. I don't see your connection between that idea and this thread. Wanting to communicate is very important to me, anyway, and it combines with wanting to blog. I think this is true of many others too. Also, I can't get to any open mic gigs so my audios are my open mic slots. And I do take care over them, hoping that someone will like them. As a new(ish) poet, there is still something of the "look at me! Look at what I can do!" about blogging, but I do think that I am becoming more thoughtful about what I write - I hope so anyway. But if I hadn't had the chance that blogging on WOL has given me, and the kind feedback etc, I wouldn't be so hopeful of improvement. But I think when we write, us new poets, we feel that we are producing the best we can at that time, hopefully to get better later!

I think the point Anthony is trying to make Ann, is that there is no point in posting poetry if that work is going to be ignored as much of the work of multiple bloggers is. If we are just writing for ourselves, why bother posting?

I was going to comment on Darren’s earlier posting but see that he has since edited what he said, which makes that difficult…
The brunt of Darren’s unedited posting seemed to be suggesting that I was the source of discontent, along with some dig about women LOL – I’m waiting for the mother in law jokes next – do keep it coming Darren…
I am a little bemused by this. Whilst I have obviously made my opinion crystal, I do think there have been significant contributions from several male poets on the site. In fact I am probably the only woman to fight this corner…

I would like to quote a comment someone left on one my better poems on this site – can’t for the life of me remember who it was now…

“The difference between this poem and some of the other 'poems' that have appeared on this site recently is measureable.

To spend 'blummin ages' on poetry is worth a writer's pain - otherwise the pain is transferred onto the reader.”

In essence, me, Dave Bradley (who initiated this thread), Graham Sherwood, Andy N and many others are saying exactly the same thing - a little more vociferously, on a discussion thread.

I'm not arguing for censorship even - I enjoy poetry of all qualities and I accept that many are on a learning curve. I just want a reduction in personal volume.

Darren is quite right to say that shite is subjective. I am not always capable of producing top drawer poetry and have quite likely posted much poetry that some might consider facile or prosy. The difference is that I don’t bury people with it, show some restraint and hopefully discernment. Clearly not everyone is capable or willing to do that and some guidelines need introducing for the greater good of the site. Ultimately what I, Darren and everyone else thinks is immaterial. As Andy N points out, the statistics will prove what many of us suspect and decisions will probably be made based on this.

oh nooooo.... deary me diddums ... blogging without a licence, soiling the precious homeland again, don't get me wrong, but has somebody been perverting the course of rhyme?..

Quick

call the arts council -

[...so ok its's only a rough and it doesn't rhyme this time .. but f'ks sake ... you should have seen what I deleted ]

: )

Had a chat to Paul at Sale last night and was encouraged by what he was saying. Admin are aware of the situation and have constructive plans. They need us to be patient - WOL is run on a shoestring with voluntary help and changing anything takes time.

Well it looks like wol has lost another new member who tried contributing by including her thoughts in discussions. We are a sensitive bunch aren't we! Me included.
It just seems such a shame to me that some people are generally made to feel they are doing something wrong by posting what they consider to be poetry on a poetry website. When you look at some other sites such as Poemhunter, then you would know how impossible it is to keep up with all the new postings by prolific poets and you would also see a load of sh***, but then again, it is only subjectively sh@@. Most of them get comments anyway from people who actually like their sh***.
OK, so there are poets of many different levels here too, some of them have even had their poetry published. I can't say i enjoy all their published poetry and some is not to my taste at all.

As with all things, we have choices here on WOL.
We can choose to read posted poems or not.
We can choose to comment on poems or not.
We can choose whether it is appropriate to give critique or not.
We can choose how we react to other peoples points of view.
We can choose to discuss a problem when anyone upsets us or not.
etc... etc....

Most, if not ALL of the above are things i have learned in the time i've been a member here. Sometimes our emotional responses override common sense. Hopefully once we realize our errors in judgement, these things can be ironed out in time. The thing to remember is, other parties also have the same choices and/or sensitivities and emotions. I'm far from perfect in any way and i cannot promise that my emotions will not get the better of me some time in the future. All any of us can do is try to take others feelings into consideration when we make our choices.

I am sorry that Jackie has left too. She posted some good stuff and seemed like a really nice lady when I chatted to her.

It was unfortunate that she should join during this period of turbulance. Comments taken out of context and without any historical background can often be misinterpreted. If she were to join the site in 6 months time, she might have a very different experience.

One thing that has always struck me and could be an idea for streamlining the site. There are about 750 members of WOL. Just a relatively small proportion are actively taking part. And before I get told this is all due to their being put off by multi-blogging, I would say that often in life we try something, realise it's not for us and let it go. Of couse, the thing to do is to remove yourself from the site if you lose interest and really don't want to take part any more. But it's so easy to just forget about the whole thing. So maybe when WOL gets revamped they could send an email to everyone and ask "do you still want to be a member?" If there were fewer poets profiles, they would each get more attention. I am happy to flip through the blogs, but the sight of all those poets profiles is very daunting. Where do you start? And that's a shame cos that's where so much of the good stuff is. I was a "meeter and greeter" for a while, and welcomed loads of new members, as I'm sure most of us have - where they gone then? And PLEASE don't say it's the multi blogging that's put them off. In some cases, yes. But I think some people join hoping for instant recognition, or hoping it will change their lives, whatever, I don't know. But they get dissapointed or just move on. I remember one new poet who I welcomed saying how supportive the site is and I encouraged her to post a blog. She did. She got one comment from an old hand on here who said something like "Didn't think much of this" and she quickly disappeared. And I felt slightly responsible for encouraging her. Though, I have to say, everyone is generally very kind on here!
And regarding good blogs being lost in the plethora of poor ones. Perhaps they don't get all the recognition they deserve but look at Anthony Emerson's recent one about the caver, and yesterday's John Togher poem. They stand out and they did get noticed. And a good blog can lead you to the poets profile.
(Hey! Isobel -when WOL is revamped - we could be the new vamps! I love that word! xx)

Janet & Darren - voices of reason, I think.
For me, WOL is a wonderfully eclectic, all inclusive virtual place to meet, talk with, and share poetry and ideas with a wonderfully eclectic and diverse mix of people from all over the world, young and old, and from all walks of life ... and long may it continue to be so.
To be all things to all men is no easy feat, and yes – there are quite a few who come and look and decide it’s not for them, but many stay. And many more than the 750 or so registered poets too – we have around 2 million hits a month.
That’s potentially anything up to 2 million people reading your comment or remark about somebody else’s work. To put that in perspective – it is roughly 3 times the populations of Bolton, Wigan, Liverpool and Stratford-upon-Avon combined! That’s a lot of people!
Some of those will be potential new members, some of them may be potential future financial contributors to WOL, or maybe people who can contribute as volunteer writers or organisers or technical experts, or perhaps help us grow in some other way.
And how many are put off when they see we’re not as all inclusive and accepting as we like to think we are? Look what in-fighting does to the election prospects of any political party; the damage is far worse than just having awful, unfair or expensive policies.
Calling someone else’s work shite (why bother with asterisks? Shite is a dirty word – try getting it off the bottom of your shoe if you don’t believe me) diminishes us – there is room for every taste, every ability, if it isn’t to your taste or doesn’t meet your standards then skip over it. Cyberspace is, pretty much, infinite. Room for everyone! Changes will come eventually, but it all costs.
I love Anthony’s idea of an unwritten agreement to give 3 comments in exchange for every poem you post; and Darren’s suggestion that we move back to saying what does or doesn’t work in a poem, rather than just congratulating each other – something I’m guilty of, I know. It can be done – even harsh criticism can be given in a constructive and non-offensive way – Darren’s comments on blogs are a good example actually.
I think whether posting a blog or a critique or a comment on a discussion thread, Charles Kingsley’s character in ‘The Water Babies’ had it about right. She was called Mrs Doasyouwouldbedoneby.
Cx

One of the reasons why many of these discussions either end in what it seems a complete chaos or a conflict that festers and lingers is down to several reasons. First of all, ALL internet discussion is ultimately futile - and WOL’s discussion threads are no exception.

Secondly, poets and/or writers are much more emotionally sensitive than, say, litmus paper -which brings its own problems into any type of discussion let alone a discussion where a participant can keep re-reading previous comments until they decide that some words in certain contexts are either a sleight on them or another individual.

People will ultimately interpret what they read how they wish - which, unfortunately, may be a long way away from what the writer intended.

And generally these discussions digress into an issue that bares little or no relevance to the original question or remark while promoting casualties of some description - as we’ve already seen.

That was one of the reasons why I had ceased contributing to discussions. People from every walk of life used to contribute on here but now it seems that the contributions are becoming marginalised not least because people appear afraid to say what they actually feel or think in case it offends a minority of the once most active contributors.

I cannot understand what the gripe is in relation to contributions that are deemed excessive or of poor quality? Is it the quality AND quantity of individual submissions that causes such controversy? - if it is then it seems the offending authors are in a lose-lose situation. And where do you draw the line? Ok, so we can only post 8 poems a month - but what about contributions to discussions? Why not sanction this too?

"Actually, Poet X your contribution to this discussion has forced you to exceed your monthly ration of words". If only.

Let’s not ration submissions - let’s ration a writer’s words. The flappy-lipped, loquacious cretins (myself included) amongst us would be much more mindful on what to contribute if we had to decide between proactive words used on the likes of our poetry or reactive opinion that often waivers from poetry and leans more toward comments likely to be construed as an insult.

Of course, I’m only thinking out loud - not writing out loud.


At its basic level - people will pick and choose who and/or what they want to read. Navigating the site is not too difficult. That’s often part of the attraction - discovering bit and pieces hidden away amongst the various links.

Of course, there may be other reasons that contribute toward traffic to the site decreasing. I can think of several possibilities…



Maybe we should just get back to what we did best. People post poetry. People make constructive comments while at the same time they substantiate those comments. Writers either take on board some of what's said or dismiss it. No one gets upset. No one gets offended. They simply use this site as a potential learning and entertainment tool.

Leaving the tools to entertain.

Chris – I agree that ‘shite’ was a naughty word to use on a public forum and I will take your rap on the knuckles with good grace. I could have been a lot more politically correct – sometimes frustration does that to you. As for being Mrs Doasyouwouldbedoneby – I think I also do that. Everyone’s opinion on how they should be done by is different though…

I am possibly the only one who doesn’t like Anthony’s idea of 3 enforced comments per posting. To me commentary has to be voluntary for it to mean anything. I want to think that I have touched, amused, or entertained someone in some way. I’d hate to think they were just trying to get their quota up. We all get to know the poets who are selfish with their comments. We can either choose to overlook it and still comment on theirs, or stop commenting back. For me it depends on how much I enjoy their poetry. If I’ve really enjoyed it, I just have to comment.

Darren - I shudder to think of a time when discussion is rationed. It would be one way of ending conflict though – and discussion.

Here Here Chris and Darren :-)
Now we appear to be seeing some sense.

I can say that now i've become more accustomed to accepting informed and useful critique/advice from them in the know ;-)

Not advocating forced comments, forced restrictions, forced anything - that was kind of my point.
Cx

Sorry Chris - no you weren't. It's just that 'I love Anthony's suggestion...' ended up being a long way from your concluding point, with an appraisal of Darren's excellent commenting skills in the middle. I see what you were saying now LOL

As part of my all too real job I came across this piece of research .
The full paper can be viewed by following this link. Hope it helps
http://psychology.csusb.edu/facultyStaff/KaufmanSexton_why_doesnt_the_writing_cure_help_poets.pdf

You are so funny Alvin!
Interesting article... Curious how I was just mentioning this exact thing
last night to a very dear friend of mine... ; )

Perhaps we should adopt the slogan

YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE MAD TO WRITE HERE BUT IT HELPS...

As dear Hovis used to say,
"You don't have to be mad to work here...but I am!"

I think you're getting thin on top...

The off-shoot 'reservoir' of multiple blogs might be called 'Personal Notebook'. (So many comments are repetitious I'm not loath to reissue this one.) If a reader becomes interested in a certain poet's work, or progress, he/she accesses the poet's PN. The PN concept retains an element of dignity, not rejection. I absolutely support only two poems per week per poet. I think that obligatory comments is a bad idea; 'quotas' of anything generally become unrealistic if not even subversive. Restriction to two poems monthly is a limitation, not a quota. Gets complicated, doesn't it?

I expect I have misunderstood but surely two poems a week is as much of a quota as the three obligatory comments suggested?

Ann, you jumped in so fast, and rightly too, of course. That is why I immediately clarified my point, before I saw your comment.

Hey! Hold on a minute - whoah! If you read my previous post carefully:

"informal etiquette suggest that for each blog entry posted one should be prepared to leave at least three comments."

No compulsion here! I hate rules for anything. Wasn't that clear? I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to "suggest" that those who hog the blog, and indeed those who make no other contribition than posting their own work might like to give a little something back? Pricking a few consciences so to speak. Perhaps some would be more happy to have their PC screens replaced - by mirrors.

Regards,
A.E.

I wasn't going to post any further on this thread since it seems that everything you say just opens another can of worms and it seemed to all be dying down. Since the box is open again, I'd like to add one thing.

Dave B mentioned earlier that he had chatted to members of Admin at Sale. I also chatted to them. They made it very clear that they did not want to alienate or lose any valued members of WOL on either side of this fence.

As far as I could deduce, there would be no restriction to how many blogs anyone could post, just a cosmetic adaptation to how these are presented. I was heartened to see that they were looking for solutions to suit all.

Anthony, I hear what you are saying. Some people don't appear to have a conscience or if they do, it isn't pricked by the same things that might prick ours.... LOL

I'm so glad I'm not in charge (of anything at all!) "Informal etiquette" - for people who ain't got none, or any concience, or maybe any interest in anyone else's poems but their own, it's a problem. It is possible that some people don't feel they have the experience or confidence to comment on others work. It's easy to get into a tit-for-tat situation, commenting on poems by people who comment on your stuff - I am guilty of this I know. I think it is good to encourage new poets by reading and commenting too, and I try and do this, as I know many of us do. Their are a few hi-falutin poets on here who only comment on their friends stuff I feel.

Comments, comments, comments???
The trouble with comments are that they can range between a friendly "that was a nice poem Bob" or "Oh! that so resonated with me as my pet hamster also died last year" type of stuff, to considered, sensible and constructive comments on the theme, its contents, pathos, irony etc and clever wordplay.
If one had the time to assess all the comments made in a month, I am willing to bet that a very large percentage of comments come into the "dead hamster" category or the "nice" category, I would guess 80%+
These comments do diddly-squat for anyone's creative journey (sorry slipped into X Factor jargon there) and merely massage one's ego.
No-one will ever convince me that writing a dozen poems a month produces good work, it will not. Using the WOL blogs as a personal notebook is insane. Buy a bloody personal notebook and write them in there. Please, please,please post only what you really think is good work worthy of being read and commented on.

Comments are a totally personal thing – I don’t think you can regulate them cos they are driven by the personalities of the individual.

Sometimes I leave comments to be supportive of someone who has been supportive of me – I think we all do that – because we build up friendships on line and that is how we interact with our friends. I hope that I am honest in my comments though. Commenting on how a poem has touched you (albeit re your dead hamster) is an alternative to praising its techniques or damning its failures. I only rave about poetry that has really inspired me.
Only rarely would I give critique or suggest ways of improving and when I do so, I tread carefully. In general people don’t tend to welcome it. It also opens the floodgates for others to go in – not always tactfully. Our poems are our babies – we love them warts and all, it seems.

I like to think that I am receptive to critique. I have only had it offered on a handful of occasions. On the whole I am happy to concede if improvements suggested are not major and don’t involve a rewrite.
If I am really unsure about a piece, I send it to a friend whose opinion I value, before posting it on WOL. That way I have opportunity to get a reaction and mull things over before inflicting it on the wider world.

That’s my ten penneth anyway…

Reading back through all that I appreciate that there are too many Is in it - sorry folks, can't be bothered to go back and make it more general.

Good critique is a great thing to have on the site. We are all hopefully on a quest to improve. The difficulty is in getting critique from the right people and delivered in such a way that it is acceptable....the flat medium of the internet often leads to us getting that wrong and poets getting upset.

Good critique takes time - we should be grateful that anyone is prepared to take it. Many of us are too lazy to bother - 'nice poem' is a much easier option than even saying why a poem touches us...

Hello everyone just added my first blog and its more or less a bio on myself and my work and a little insight to me reading my Poetry live on the BBC.
Enjoy

Sorry Lee - but I think you are taking self publicity to new heights - either that or you are taking the piss out of all of us...

Hi all, I miss WOL. Not because I can't always get on it, sometimes I can and I don't comment, sometimes because it's really busy and I haven't the time, other times I don't have anything to say, and the odd time I think whoa (is that how they write it when they jump on a horse and try and reign it in?) Don't laugh, my brain chemistry is a little disfunctional at the moment and some of my words come out back to front or in the opposite of what I am saying.However, I do once remember that julian said that WOL was a site for all and freedom of speech was of the optimum importance - before I joined. I have just read the whole of this thread after just reading Cynthia's poem 'Clever People'. Most of you I know, some I have met, some I respect, but apart from the odd comment I refrain. I think basically everyone has gone to far with this. The site is changing and it's all because of us, and to be honest it's a bloody damn shame. Because all the spontaneity is gone. How can newcomers to the site be blamed for their enthusiam towards something that has made an impact on them, an impact that was effected by all of you that are commenting and many more others besides.I have been weighed down by multiple blogging also, but it is a burden of your own success, all of you who have made this site something in it's initial years and have enjoyed the site and reaped the benefits, owe something back. You all gave me a boost when I first started, welcomed me, read my 'poetry'. I know I'm a bit of an outsider now because of pregnancy, new baby in special care, hormones, and generally just dipping in here and there and putting up a couple of underwritten, 'shite' poems just to try and keep writing.Does anyone not think it's time to take a step back and stop and maybe teach multiple bloggers yourselves, like you did with me? I have watched this topic evolve until it has become them and us. I would like to say that it is more than a damn shame to see X's at the side of poetry, but I may get reprimanded for bad language.lol.I feel quite ashamed to have felt this way, but after a writing absence of nearly a year, I want people to read and constructively criticise what I have written, even pieces that in that time I may have re-written. If there is an X sat lurking at the side of everyones name, what's written doesn't get read. Is that fair when they are reading what you write? What's it going to be next? Should we block people out of discussions as well?

Read Cynthia's poem and just think who the 'clever people' are? And how stilted you will be in little cliques of a few people on the net, remember not everyone can get to a venue and this may be there only chance of getting feedback. AQ limit on blogging I can understand, a fee to help maintain the site yes, but an X at the side of people that have actually had the confidence to put their poem on a site to be scrutinized..... well I am sorry but that is beyond my comprehension.

Hello Nicky - well said! My love to you and the baby.xxxxxxxx

I've seen a number of comments on the 'X' against a poet's blog/contribution. Perhaps it's the 'X' gives the wrong negative impression of what this feature is about maybe a tick would have been better.

The idea is to give you a tool (and hopefully more tools) to help any viewer to navigate the huge number of blogs more easily not to simply permanently hide stuff you don't like.

A choice to hide one or more poet's contributions should rather, I think, be seen as a temporary way to cut down the number of blogs to view at any one time. This should (hopefully) mean that one actually reads more work from a wider variety of poets.

For instance, you could temporarily hide work from your online friends & regulars, as well as the multiple bloggers and those whose work you don't like (at the moment maybe).

Doing this would help you discover the work of newcomers or poets who post infrequently whose work you may have previously missed.

It is very simple and easy to unhide the blogs you have hidden any time you want to. Indeed, if you don't log in you see all the blogs any way.

I hope this helps you view this tool in a more positive way.

That was very tactical response paul, and thank you. But now the die has been cast I do not think it will matter either way, wonder if you can actually monitor the ticks/crosses to see if they change ?

Some writers will not even realise what the cross or the tick is about half the time and may not realise that what could be their hard work is not actually being read read by people, because buy the by the tap of a key on the keypad they are blocked, or if they disagree with someone on the discussion forum they are blocked, people come to WOL because it's always aired, ht happened to the freedom of speech policy that everyone loved and enjoyed. Why don't we all just put our innermost thoughts and take these discussions to facebook.( of which I am not a member, one of the rare few?? )

I understand paul, that you and the people who run this site are only trying to keep eveyone happy.

I know that a few people, some good poets and constant readers have left WOL in the past year and it is sad to see them go, and you can all X or tick me if you like, but I know what it is like to be a newcomer and multiple blog, and get hairy, and swear in discussions, and fall out with people and then make friends. However, you all helped me, and guided me and showed me what was 'acceptable' and what 'was not'.

Does noboby else but me feel that newcomers to the site maybe need a guiding hand and that they may actually may have something to offer. Why don't at least some of you offer to pair up and guide new members, like you all did with me, and probably other new members at that time instead of just complaining and opting to stunt the growth of newcomers, by blocking them, because all a new writer to the site wants to do,in the main part, is post, and talk and make friends.

I am not preaching, but I know that when you write something it is a lonely time, and your writing may be good or bad but no-one, even the closest people to you understand it better, give criticism better, appreciate better, or even dislike better than another writer.

Failing that, we give everyone the X factor, they will take over the site and we will be the dinosaurs. Extinct clique, and will eventually die out. There is so much talent, and poetry is like pop music - think they call it chart music these days, because there isn't a set genre - according to my teenage son, and my six year old who both write.

Hi Nicky

Sorry to hear your baby is in special care - all of this is fairly trivial compared to that.

I'm sorry you feel so strongly about what is, in essence, an innocuous change. The change is not about encouraging or failing to encourage newcomers. That happens (or doesn't happen) anyway, and more power to Winston and others who do so much to encourage newbies.

It is about giving choice, and choice is a good thing surely. Now WOL members can choose to filter out the work of multiple bloggers who were (and still are) swamping the blogs, usually with stuff not worth reading. There are only a few of them. They are not newcomers and they are very thick skinned - if it was a question of being discouraged they would be long gone.

The statistics speak for themselves. By X'ing just 4 people I now normally only need look at just over half the blogs I used to. Which means I'm more likely to actually look at them.

People were leaving because they were fed up with what was happening with blogs. I do hope you stay - your stuff was very worth reading and you were a very positive presence. It is, after all, a simple change that doesn't hurt anyone - no one knows that someone else has X'd them.

I was quite surprised to see this subject was still rumbling along. Every time it dies down someone seems to pitch in there with a different view point…

Well Nicky, it doesn’t take a great stretch of the imagination to see that you tar me with the meanie beanie clever brush that Cynthia speaks about – but do you know something? I don’t give a toss.

I acknowledge that the management of burgeoning blogs could have been done in a more subtle way than red X’ing poets but since it has greatly improved my enjoyment of the site, I’m not going to complain. Earlier ideas included restricting poets to 2 blogs per month which was far too radical and a very definite restriction of personal freedom. Under the current system, everyone gets to show their work to the world – the world just has a little more choice over whether it views it.
I agree with you that if more guidance were given when poets first joined the site – as to blogging etiquette, maybe the need for red Xing wouldn’t be so pressing. But having said that – I’m not at all sure that certain people would follow guidelines or care about what is or isn’t a turn off for other site users.

By red Xing just a handful of multiple bloggers, my blogs in August reduced from 340 to 210 – a great advantage even if just used at the end of the month when I want to trawl through and see what other comments have been placed on poems I was interested in. I still get to look at the occasional poems of multiple bloggers because most of the comments on current activity (home page) relate to them. The red Xing doesn’t seem to have had any affect on the number of comments multiple bloggers get on their work either – so it seems like a win, win situation to me.

I would disagree with Dave Bradley about multiple bloggers posting inferior work. Some of them post good work and many are improving – I just resent the volume of that work – in fact I don’t even resent that anymore – because I have no need to.

Amongst some of my favourite poets, there are prolific poets whose work I like immensely (so I don’t red x them) – also I love the work of many long distance poets who I have never had the pleasure of meeting on the performance scene. Cliques are an inevitable fact of any society – certain types of people just click whether they live close or not. I think it is fair to say that cliques exist amongst multiple bloggers also – just take a look at the bulk of commentary that goes on.

I’m sorry that the changes made have impacted on your enjoyment of the site Nicky – hopefully that is something you can get over.
Best of wishes with the new addition to your family – I hope you are over the worst of your anxieties now. x

Ooh, I have been very guilty of prolific blogging and then at other times I hold back...it depends on my mood. I have to admit that there are weeks, months when the biggest thing in my life (and yes I understand this marks me out as sad) is that email saying someone has commented on your blog, yes I obviously have things a bit skewed but there you go. I try to hold back and sit on a poem for as long as poss before posting...you guys generally only get the stuff I want an opinion on, the really dire stuff lives in my harddrive forever and the stuff I instantly suspect is special (one so far) is hidden away to trot out and send to competitions. I write like a photographer, 100 rolls of film for one half decent shot but I lack quality control or confidence or both to determine for myself what is good so turn to this place, cos I trust you for an honest and kind response. All that said, if there is a particularly prolific poster who I have not much interest in I simply don't look at their blog entries...please excuse as I have had wine and a stressful day... Thank yew!

If you offer freedom of expression to all, which this site and the internet generally do, then there is a paradoxical outcome, in that people will post verbal and sometimes pictorial diarrhoea (without necessarily being able to spell diarrhoea, or even simpler words, let alone having any understanding of grammar and punctuation).

If you extend freedom of expression to all, that’s fine in theory and it ought to be good in practice.

But every positive has a negative. Extending freedom in this way has necessarily meant killing a most valuable thing – editorial control.

We (in Britain at least) are living though a period of systemic failure in education and in other important functions that affect adversely the transmission of human identity (no trivial problem). If we allow freedom of expression to thrive in such circumstances (and actually I think we should) we must not be surprised at the results … much political and philosophical naivety, displays of low emotional intelligence, and barely literate writing among people who style themselves as poets.

well i have blogged regularly on wol for a few months...i was inspired by it, and needed to write some work for our book. i blogged it all and at the time did not think this was a concern...i do use the blog facility to notebook my work. i dont want to be precious about it.
I did get fed up of reading blogs that dont personally interest me and i have withdrawn from the site but I think thats mainly because I ve lost interest in poetry..I had over-involved myself with it. I dont agree with censoring work unless it is inciteful to hatred...restricting number of blog entries I think is a good idea to solve over-blogging problem, but i dont agree with setting a standard or expectation of other people contributions.I agree 'one mans rubbish is anothers treasure.'I think conventions of writing are broken by a revolution in style and sometimes rubbish is a part of the process,the classics of the past would no doubt abhor the work of some of our celebrated contemporary poets, without the context of the evolutionary change. change doesnt happen smoothly.
Also Ive never paid too much attention to correct grammer and spelling...sometimes new words are invented and new concepts appear from otherwise chaotic writing and is encouraged as an writers tool...sometimes the act of publishing drafts allows a writer the real experience of the outside gaze and therefore stimulates further editing/ development
We should write what we like and feel free to post it. this is not a competition publication. we might post piles of rubbish to discover one cool gem at the end.
some of the bloggers i dislike and dismiss as rubbish occasionally write a great piece...and maybe i only saw it cos my mind was receptive to it that particular day. "if thine own eyes offend thee, pluck them out..." worth a thought.
if one has to consider whether work is acceptable to whatever unlimited amount of people read it on this worldwibe web,a task so huge it is impossible,then I imagine I wouldnt be the only amateur writer to decide not to bother. So the site would then fail to encourage the creation of new work and the self confidence of aspiring writers. If these 'offenders' are so arrogant I imagine theyll blog relentlessly and elsewhere. a crushed poet misunderstood could put away their pc blog forever. this space is for all styles and experience..we like a poem/we dont. we can move on to the next, its made clear theres enough to read and a tool facility to navigate them.
I was not aware this site existed to prepare for publish..this is a workshop as far as I see it, a place to be unafraid of making 'mistakes' in writing...if work is not good enough for a reader and moves them to anger, why not they express it in a direct comment on the work instead of bearing resentment to it and allowing that to affect their own work....if its shit tell the writer you think it is and why. I dont see anybody doing that.If I were bombarded with negative criticism then i would certainly stop posting.
This is clearly a difficult topic. I dont offer my opinion as an answer...just a contribution.

Paul, your last comment is excellent, reminding me of how the 'X factor' could be used in ways that I had not considered. I think many people overlook that all poems are there to view until you actually log on. You simply can't comment. Yes, a tick probably would have been better. But I think the solution you and your mates have incorporated is really good.

Just to point out: my recent poem called 'Clever People' is generic, inspired originally by a teenager.