Help | About | Suggestions | Alms | Chat [0] | Users [0] | Log In | Join
 Search:
Poem: Submit | Random | Best | Worst | Recent | Comments   

Suggestion:
wilco @ 24.92.74.122 | 29-Nov-05/7:54 PM | Reply
Hello, and welcome to Poemranker. Now piss off:
THE unOFFICIAL POEMERANKER SURVIVAL GUIDE




So, you’ve run across Poemranker while surfing across this wondrous imaginary landscape that we call the internet. You’re probably thinking that you’ve found a place where you can post your poetry for the entire world to appreciate. You are wrong.

What you’ve found is a place to dump all of your mindless drivel and have countless people make fun of what an illiterate hack you are. That’s right. YOU are not an expert poet. If you were, you’d be publishing these poems, not posting them on a web site. Still with me? Good, because what you have also found is the only place on the internet that can actually help you get better at writing. That is, if you let it. I have created this guide to help you get the most from your Poemranker experience. It worked for me (Seriously, read my poems). I’ve gone from Crap to Ass in just under two years. Another couple of years on The Ranker, and I might be Dick. By the way, if that last sentence offended you, then you should leave now.

Let’s get started.

1. First, check your ego at the door. People are going to critique your poems. That’s why you’re here. If you want to have people gush over you, then I suggest you go to Poetry.com (I guarantee that they will publish you, no matter how good you are). Poemranker is a place where you can learn what you’re doing right and what you’re doing wrong. If people are “mean” to you, then that’s just their way and you either need to accept it or leave, because it’s going to happen. If everyone is giving you low votes, it probably means that it’s not very good and you need to work on it. You think they’re wrong. Good for you! You’re wrong. The poem needs work. I’ll say it again to make sure you got it: IF YOU DON”T WANT PEOPLE TO CRITIQUE YOUR WRITING, DON’T POST IT.

2. Vote. This is PoemRANKER.com, not poemreaditandmoveon.com. If you read a poem, take that extra two seconds and give it a vote (If you don’t know how to vote, then you’re retarded and don’t need to be reading poetry). If you look at the majority of poems on this site, you’ll see that many have 100 views and 4 votes. This should not be. If you want people to take the time to read your poem and vote on it, don’t you think that you owe them the same courtesy? Every time you post a poem, you should read and vote on (at least) every poem on the “20 Most Recent Poems” page. And don’t just give them all 10’s or 0’s. That’s just crap. Worried that people will get mad at you if you give their poem a 3? Who cares? What are they gonna do…come kick your ass?

3. Actually try to get better. What’s the point of writing if you’re not going to try to get better? Read other poetry…both here and that of actual real, live (or dead) poets. What’s that? You’re writing because it helps you cope? Fine and dandy. Understand this, though: Nobody wants to read that. Don’t post it if that’s all you’re in for. No one wants to read about how your girlfriend/boyfriend broke up with you. However, they might like what you write if you write in an interesting way. You’ve probably heard this: “Show, don’t tell” (That’s true). You’ve also probably heard this: “It’s good if it comes from the heart” (That is a lie). Make you’re poem interesting and someone might actually like it.

That’s about it. The Poemeranker isn’t that complicated. Actually, there’s probably more, but I’m too tired and growing bored with this. Rankers that have been here a while, please feel free to post addendums to this (I know you will).

Replies:
zodiac @ 212.118.19.91 | 30-Nov-05/1:05 AM | Reply
Nope, that about covers it. Except if you've read this far, you're already a ream look at a fast pull and don't need it. What, you didn't read this far? Enjoy your life, homo.
Dovina @ 69.175.32.104 > zodiac | 2-Dec-05/10:47 AM | Reply
That's not clever.
zodiac @ 217.144.7.195 > Dovina | 2-Dec-05/1:31 PM | Reply
The whole point is that the typical four-post-and-vanish poemranker user doesn't deserve cleverness. The poemranker user who does deserve cleverness doesn't need a manual.
Ranger @ 62.252.32.15 > zodiac | 28-Apr-06/1:45 PM | Reply
How about having two sites then? poemranker for the 'four-post-and-vanish' sorts, and poemeranker for the more enlightened users. That way it could be set so that you only gain access to poemeranker-dotte-com by proving yourself on poemranker.com first.
Dovina @ 69.175.32.104 | 2-Dec-05/10:54 AM | Reply
At one time kaolin was receptive to my writing a user's manual. It would cover basics that confuse a lot of new users - like the little red x. But it would also deal with issues you raise. I gave up on it because of opposition. Some users like having the newbies uninformed and easy pray. Anyway, go for it; I'd like to see a bold HELP tab with meaningful help.
zodiac @ 217.144.7.195 > Dovina | 2-Dec-05/1:33 PM | Reply
Ibid. People who need to be told about the red X (or hitting 'Reply' rather than replying in a completely new or different string) are mental retards and can't be trusted to use a help tab. People who could conceiveably use a help tab don't need one.
Dovina @ 69.175.32.104 > zodiac | 2-Dec-05/2:23 PM | Reply
We want good poets and good commenters of poetry. We don't necessarilky want people who snap around on computers with graceful ease. I've seen some good poets driven away because they had trouble getting started. All we are saying is that a bold HELP tab might help. Also, the help screen could come up immediatly after a new user signs up. There could even be an ACCEPT button so he has to click it before using the site. Then there's no excuse.
anonymous @ 24.92.74.122 > Dovina | 2-Dec-05/2:47 PM | Reply
I beg to differ. Poemranker is not difficult to use. If they can figure out how to sign up, they can figure out how to post a poem and how to leave comments and vote. Whether you're computer saavy or not, you should be able to figure this out.
anonymous @ 69.175.32.104 > anonymous | 2-Dec-05/4:13 PM | Reply
Thank you. wilco, for illustrating my point. How many new users would be able to identify an anonymous comment on the suggestions list? How many even know what an IP is? About as many as know what the little red x is for, I'd say. By the way, how did you learn about that x? Was it like I did, by clicking on it to your regret?
zodiac @ 217.144.7.195 > anonymous | 3-Dec-05/6:18 AM | Reply
How many new users check the suggestions list anyway? I'm with wilco. The users who haven't been able to figure out the red X are dangerously stupid. If you were one of those, I don't mean you, of course.
Dovina @ 69.175.32.104 > zodiac | 3-Dec-05/10:09 AM | Reply
Then, because you are not dangerously stupid, you figured it out before you inadvertently deleted someone's comment?
wilco @ 24.92.74.122 > Dovina | 3-Dec-05/1:32 PM | Reply
So..maybe you delete the comment? So what..you learn from it and you go on and don't do it again. Most people know that a red X is going to mean something negative. It's just common sense..I mean, what else is the red x going to do?

Also regarding the comment above...if they're run off because they can't figure out how to use Poemranker, then I don't particularly want to read their poems.

Why don't we just explain everything to people in explicit detail so they never have to think for themselves.
zodiac @ 81.10.123.209 > Dovina | 4-Dec-05/2:34 AM | Reply
I don't believe any poemranker user has ever inadvertently deleted a comment. Have I claimed to do so? I was lying.
Stephen Robins @ 84.13.136.50 > Dovina | 4-Dec-05/3:27 AM | Reply
You fat trout. Is everyone who uses poemranker a disabled who needs "help" from an overbearing middle aged saggy uterus? I think not - if they are then poemranker will continueto be populated by lesbians and christians who secretly frottage over print offs of peoples pleasant comments on their "poems".

anonymous @ 167.219.88.140 > Stephen Robins | 8-Dec-05/8:38 AM | Reply
What's "frottage"?
zodiac @ 69.132.67.140 > anonymous | 9-Dec-05/7:24 AM | Reply
To produce a cottageful of manfroth.
zodiac @ 69.132.67.140 > anonymous | 9-Dec-05/7:27 AM | Reply
To freshet cottage cheese.
zodiac @ 69.132.67.140 > anonymous | 9-Dec-05/8:59 AM | Reply
An homage to filthy rot.
Ranger @ 62.252.32.15 > anonymous | 28-Apr-06/1:55 PM | Reply
"1. The act of rubbing against the body of another person, as in a crowd, to attain sexual gratification.
2. A method of making a design by placing a piece of paper on top of an object and then rubbing over it, as with a pencil or charcoal.
3. A design so made."

So sayeth dictionary.com
ALChemy @ 24.74.101.159 | 6-Dec-05/5:19 PM | Reply
None of it matters anyway. Sooner or later the teeners are gonna take over, they always do at these sites and no amount of nasty commenting is going to stop them. Don't get me wrong it'll slow'em down a little like using shotguns on zombies.
anonymous @ 69.132.67.140 | 10-Dec-05/8:28 PM | Reply
4. Poemranker is not a 'game' to 'win'. Or if it is, it's an absurdly easy one. All you have to do is multiple-vote yourself a million times, then get bored and leave because you can't think what other purpose this site could possibly serve. It's not exactly Game Genie here, pinkbunnyofdoom.
Ranger @ 86.140.66.84 | 19-Apr-06/2:22 PM | Reply
Spot on. I'm still wondering how long it'll take many users here (some who post poems regularly) to figure out that they need to give feedback if they want to get any in return. It's got to the point now where I know who will give me comments, and so me commenting on anyone else's poems is almost redundant. Yet I still do in the (probably naive) hope that the non-commenters will work this out.

Also, we ought to have a generic Pimple critique on here to copy and paste so that we don't have to spend hours writing a full-length critique which will most likely be ignored. I've done this several times, and I've seen you write them too. Every one has said essentially the same thing. I didn't go back to see which have been acted on. I didn't want to be disappointed.
Ranger @ 86.140.66.84 > Ranger | 19-Apr-06/2:34 PM | Reply
Oh yes, and another appendix to the intro:

Poemranker, not Poetranker. Certainly take into account the poet's style, if they have a favourite, and other aspects which will help you understand better the poem. But don't score according to whether you like or dislike the person.

Scoring: a good vote for a good poem speaks for itself. But if you're going to leave a low vote, it would be nice if you gave a reason for voting low, and preferably suggestions for improvements.

And please take the time to properly read each poem. Try to work out metaphors and messages. Don't just skim the piece. You wouldn't skim a musical score, would you?
anonymous @ 167.219.88.140 > Ranger | 20-Apr-06/7:21 AM | Reply
Wishful thinking aside, to some degree it's always been Poetranker and always will be. Good critiques were never the strong point of Poemranker--not really. There are much better sites for that kind of thing. What we had once upon a time was ace snark and good variety and the best poems about shit on the Web. I agree with what you say here, but it don't see it happening. The biggest problem, IMO, is the scarcity of users now.
Dovina @ 12.72.36.75 > anonymous | 20-Apr-06/10:23 AM | Reply
Name a website where critiques of poetry are better.
anonymous @ 167.219.88.140 > Dovina | 20-Apr-06/11:14 AM | Reply
Just one? There are plenty, but okay, here's one: Eratosphere. One of many.
anonymous @ 81.178.249.71 > anonymous | 23-Apr-06/2:25 PM | Reply
are you on eratosphere. Who as?
anonymous @ 167.219.88.140 > anonymous | 24-Apr-06/6:53 AM | Reply
On occasion. Does it matter?
anonymous @ 81.178.249.71 > anonymous | 25-Apr-06/7:18 AM | Reply
no. Excuse my impertinence. :(
Stephen Robins @ 213.146.148.199 > anonymous | 25-Apr-06/8:28 AM | Reply
Just look for the ginger poetry, it stands out a mile.
anonymous @ 167.219.88.140 > Stephen Robins | 25-Apr-06/9:08 AM | Reply
Richa: You weren't impertinent; I was being cranky. Also, I have a quaint liking for the little anonymity I have left here.

Master Robins: I am NOT a Ginger, sir! How dare you! I am as pink and gold as any English rose. (And as sweet smelling.)

To the rest of you: I'm not suggesting an exodus to erato or any other sites, though it's nice sometimes to get different opinions. The 'ranker has its idiosyncratic pleasures that you'll probably not find elsewhere.

We could use fresh blood though. Not sure how to make that happen, but more participation, as Ranger suggests and exemplifies, would help. Sending Kaolin alms now and then couldn't hurt either.
Ranger @ 62.252.32.15 > anonymous | 24-Apr-06/2:18 PM | Reply
Looks promising.
anonymous @ 167.219.88.140 > Ranger | 20-Apr-06/7:26 AM | Reply
Re: Pimple critiques, isn't that what the Mediocrity Checkliste was created for? (It's pretty comprehensive.)
Ranger @ 62.252.32.15 > anonymous | 28-Apr-06/1:50 PM | Reply
I was thinking more on the lines of a list of things which the poet needs to do in order to improve (not using a million pronouns, not using trite imagery etc.). I'd never be so crass as to think that the Checkliste could be improved upon.




Track and Plan your submissions ; Read some Comics ; Get Paid for your Poetry
PoemRanker Copyright © 2001 - 2024 - kaolin fire - All Rights Reserved
All poems Copyright © their respective authors
An internet tradition since June 9, 2001