| Poem: Submit | Random | Best | Worst | Recent | Comments |
|
Suggestion:
Dovina @ 12.72.9.101
|
12-Apr-05/1:34 PM
|
Reply
A sever dearth of comments has plagued Poemranker of late. I count only 16 in the last 48 hours, after eliminating mine and zodiacâs, (which everyone knows are crap). We have already seen the fall of votes as any measure of a poemâs worth, for reasons already discussed to boredom. Now, comments are sliding away, and with them, the last vestige of purpose for posting poems here. The few comments we have often do not pertain to the poem, but express some unrelated angst, doubling the problem. I suggest we find some way to get the membership involved in commenting.
Replies:
make banners and make your personal website's layout rely on banner ads for poemranker...
Kill poetry.com... threaten everyone's grandmother...
How dare you! What's my grandmother got to do with any of this?
Maybe it'll spawn more poetry from you and unofficially start some weird debate about this months stupidity over sad, angsty poetry.
It kind[of] fights one of the ideas, but it's something. :-D
Dear Dovina,
The recent dearth in commenting is not completely unrelated to the level of parping that you have been menapausing around poemranker like a colossal frump. Poemranker used to be good until you started using it as your own personal HRT. Regards stephen
Dear Stephen
I merely comment more than most. Your opinion of my comments is no better than anyone else's. My opinion of yours is that they are mostly crap. Regards, Dovina
Dear Dovina,
You have made an average of 8 comments a day since joining poemranker; I defy you to identify one of them which has not been suffused with longing to confront a proper sized penis. Yours & C. Stephen
I propose:
1) People are leaving the site because they're bored with getting meaningless vaguely-complimentary comments, and mortally offended when they get anything else, as always. That's because the average person who comes here is Damien (http://www.poemranker.com/p...) - i.e., never going to post again after his first rejection and too self-obsessed to bother commenting on anyone else's posts, or else you (http://www.poemranker.com/p...) - and too thick to do about anything but what you're doing. 2) You're bored with the site because you're not getting meaningless vaguely-complimentary comments, and mortally offended by the criticisms you get, which (except for Stephen Robbins') focus almost entirely on your poems' logical, grammatical, poetical, and other errors. 3) You think the comments you get don't pertain to your poems because your poems are perfect and the comments are about imperfections. Want some helpful criticism? Stop arguing with everyone who tries to comment on your poems. 4) Your comments are meaningless.
5) You never comment on my poems unless I name them after you.
6) And check your recent poems. Your most continuously irrelevant commenters are Dan garcia-Black and al-naafiysh/blacksoul/jroday. That is, probably the ones you'd hold up as poemranker's paragons of good-criticismship.
You often say that I seek flattery and reject criticism. I accept any criticism directed at my work, but reject blatant slams having no bearing on what I have written or that ignore it. Your comments are mostly the latter kind. I also reject flattery that seems unrelated to what I have written or that seems not to understand it, though I seldom say so, so as not to offend the commenter.
I love the way your rejection of blatant slams usally extends to continuing to reply to them until the comment sheaths have run out of colours. -10-
Find the place where I've commented a "blatant slam" on one of your 20 recent posts. Here, I'll help:**
Homecoming - zodiac: "The third and last stanzas are well-written. The rest could use some poetry." Middle-Aged White Woman - zodiac: [The poem is ideologically errant and offensive to blacks.] Hard Rock - zodiac: [something more-or-less irrelevant.] Moments (or) Suicide - zodiac: [the last sentence is ambiguously worded, and the idea of evaluating life by moments seems facile and wrong.] And I'd like to add at this point that the parentheses around "or" in the title are totally unnecessary. Maybe you meant Moments (or Suicide). The Symbol - zodiac: [The cross is not commonly regarded as a symbol for gruesome execution.] Reasonably Good - zodiac: "Do you love Uranium 238? Why?" No Worries - zodiac: [it seems that either a) you believe yourself to be the pure-hearted, in which case you're mistaken, or b) you believe yourself to be pure-hearted in vain. Of course you mean neither of these. You mean nothing.] Sauvignon zodiac: [I don't believe a wine-fan would mistake a $2 bottle of wine for an expensive one.] (NB-I've found out recently this is untrue, that wine servers in New York couldn't tell a red from a white while blindfolded. So I withdraw this comment. Still, it wasn't irrelevant.) Apostrophetic Loss - zodiac: [you misused "colloquialism", "bow'ls" and "renegade poet comedians"; this poem is rife with logical errors.] Beetwen - zodiac [The statement 'you know a word by its first and last letters' is incorrect.] Advertising Says - zodiac: "why isn't different an adverb"? **=Note only original comments on your posts are cited here; everything after that is the direct result of your usual parps at nearly anything I say.
I said that I accept any criticism directed at my work, but reject blatant slams having no bearing on what I have written or that ignore it. I also said thart your comments are mostly the latter kind. I appreciate the time you have spent pointing out your constructive comments. I believe I could point out three times as many irrelevant blatant slams, but will not take the time.
I think you're confused. I comment three ways:
a) genuinely critical, usually slightly silly, almost never saying something like, "hey, great idea, though!" b) irrelevant or semi-relevant c) enraged at someone's (usually your) complete failure to get some point I was making with a perfectly decent a) comment. If you're only talking about my comments on your poems, you're doubly wrong. Even when I'm angry with you, I'm still usually trying to explain my original point (like here: http://www.poemranker.com/poem-details.j Maybe you've got me confused with other users who are hardly ever topical. I know you can't be bothered to check, but please try here: http://www.poemranker.com/comment-recent
PS-Are comments like these what you'd like to see more of on poemranker?
"If I knew this was written by someone who could not speak, Id say it's sensual and meaningful to a reader who can. If I didn't know that I'd say the same." "Sometimes paper cuts."
Those are obviously silly comments, made by someone with no taste.
You can't be serious.
Incidentally, I didn't scour your past comments for silly, worthless ones. I picked the first two I saw on 20 Most Recent Comments. Check and mate.
I hope you have admired the artistry with which I have lulled damien into thinking I'm a nice guy. The trick is when to give him the shock of his life.
I just thought you were trying to seduce him.
I noticed only a bumbling attempt.
Don't be too hard on damien I feel he may be good sport. Christ alone knows why Dovina hasn't got the message yet.
It doesn't help that poemranker is being flooded with Teenage girls who post about 8 poems a week, and don't comment/vote on anything. I think that if you forced people to vote on 20(since there are 20 recent, 20 best, and 20 worst) poems in order to be able post another poem(On top of the so many days/hours), more comments and more votes would be going out. It'd also incourage the use of the previous 20 poems tab, and holy shit, maybe even random.
<3 Jason
It might encourage more truly helpful comments like, "Parp" "Dimtard" "idiot" . . . Whatever it takes for the right to post.
Just because your forcing a vote doesn't mean your forcing a comment. It just means you force someone to actually click on more poems. Your not forcing them to vote on every one of them, or any in particular. Just a certain number. Whether they'd say anything would still be up to them, and much as the "truly helpful comments" aren't very nice, or well intentioned, there is still a nifty little thing called, the free speach. Some of the funniest things I've ever read were arguements between ranker members(Even some of the horridly stupid ones between me and -=D._A.=- just littered about).
So your suggestion is to count the number of hits a member makes to poems, and allow him/her to post only after a sufficient number of such hits, say 20. That sounds good.
No, my idea is to count the number of votes that you have, against your number of poems. If you have a quota of a said ratio of actual votes added to you post required, then you'll vote more often, and with this increased voting, be more compelled to leave comments. The reason being, you're actually going to be reading more(Unless you are a regular who already has a higher vote than post rate). Hits don't count for shit. You could just randomly click through about 90 poems without so much as even looking at one of them, if it was based on hits. The only huge gapping flaw to my proposed system? You might just get people who randomly toss out zeros just to get that quota.
Or toss out 10's. Hits are as good as votes for this purpose.
No they aren't. As Previously stated, you could just sit there and hit random 90 times, to collect the hits you'd need. Voting at least requires you to do something more than just hit the random button.
Agreed, but a trifling little it is. And it would pervert the voting beyond the mess it already is.
I agree with Dovina. Anyone who's going to subvert the hit quota would also subvert the vote quota.
A valid point, now can anyone think of how to get rid of the subversion? Otherwise, hits would indeed be easier and leave the voting system(As pointless as it really is), intact.
no one's ever come up with a way to get rid of the subversion, in the history of the internet. Except dictatorial moderation by one person, which is fallible and partial anyway.
But user moderation + some sort of meta-moderation (like slashdot's karma system) does definitely improve the signal-to-noise ratio. |