A call to action!

Will you put a caveat on the full crit option?

Something to prepare the poster for less than glowing reports, I mean?

There have been some severely deluded people posting in the recent past; one in particular seemed to be from another planet regarding the artistic merit of his work.

FTSE - I'm not convinced this is the right thing to do, I'm not sure what impact it would have on the rest of the unread list, what would happen if everyone wants detailed crit etc, etc. Have you spoken with Tony about it?

Anyway, if it were to happen I would be happy to pick up some of the work, although I wouldn't realistically be able to start till late Dec as I'm going to be spending a lot of time in aeroplanes between now and then.

Ewan is spot on about the caveat. I would want a further caveat about the standard of crit likely to be received. It would be given by fellow writers, (most likely) not professionals. Peer critiquing if you like. I'm no Mark Brown.

In fact, of the people who are capable of doing this, I'm quite low down the list of desireables. It would be great if people like Jude, Tim and Ewan would offer their services. (that's off the top of my head, there are lots of others around too of course).

I am however, happy to help - and I'm quite good at admin, so if this is to go ahead, I'd gladly do whatever virtual paper pushing is required.

Ewan - I'll certainly do that! In particular, I'll warn them that if they are having trouble with spelling, grammar and punctuation, this isn't the place for them to sort it out.

Enzo - we won't know until we try, will we? There are a lot of people on the site who want help with quite basic stuff, I should imagine. For the most part it's just a willingness to help people less able than yourself. God, that does sound dreadfully worthy, doesn't it? But that's about what it amounts to.

With a bit more work I could limit the length of the queue so that the 'critters' don't get overwhelmed.

The first draft of the warning goes like this:

Please be aware that critique can only be given to work of a sufficiently high standard. The comments you receive will not be flattering and, if you submit poor quality work, might not be at all polite. Only submit your work for critique if you are serious about improving your writing and can accept criticism, possibly harsh criticism. You have been warned!

Is that reasonable?

Not sure what you mean by 'critique can only be given to work of a sufficiently high standard'? Are you saying if something is particularly bad it will just be ignored?

I would insert 'necessarily' before 'flattering'.

As it stands the whole warning sounds quite aggressive. That might be no bad thing as it may well keep the numbers down to a manageable amount.

I think we probably need to wait for Tony to comment.

There are clearly a number of us who would be happy to be actively involved in some kind of postive change to the site - if that's what's required - and we just need Tony to provide the direction.

It does sound aggressive. It's not very good, in fact. We're trying to help, not insult them! Would anybody like to re-write it? (Thanks for your crit, by the way. I'll try to do better!)

"Critique is offered honestly and with a desire to help. It may involve unpalatable truths. Only submit your work for criticism if you feel capable of digesting and using it. Do not choose this option in search of unalloyed flattery. Please be aware that volunteers are providing this service."

???

Cor, you don't arf talk funny, mister!

It's better than mine, but I'm not sure about digesting unpalatable truths. There must be a more direct way to say it? I think your meaning might make a lovely whooshing sound as it goes above many heads! ;)

A pity that.

Don't pick the crit, if your teddy's leavin' da crib? We might be tell it like it is, we ain't gonna blow no smoke up yo ass, sucka. Don't no-one get no dollars for dis.

???

:-)

The thing is, if people don't already accept that crit will not always be entirely positive, then a wee note to warn them of this will not dissuade them from having a tantrum when they do not hear what they want to. We can all point to the sign and say 'see? you signed up to this' but deluded people will a) not have read it and b) won't really care.

I'm not convinced this is a great idea in its present form. I (like Ben) would be interested to hear what Tony thinks...

I'm taking it as read that Tony's decision/input is what counts and I'm sure FTSE is too.

We can bat the ideas about, I think, although I would like to feel that something will really get done!

Maybe a better idea is not to let all and sundry submit their work for crit, but just a group who are willing to criticise and be criticised? People join the group on the basis of good behaviour, or at least leave it pretty quickly if they don't take things in the right spirit.

I still think this will probably be a minority interest once people get the idea that critique doesn't mean flattery, but we can only find out by trying it.

Yes, batting ideas about is all part of the process, I agree. I think perhaps I am just a tad concerned as to what a new user would make of all this. We may view it as healthy, creative discussion but it could look like the site is in a state of flux to an outsider.

You're going to make someone say the nasty word again!

Not entirely convinced about that, FTSE old bean. I would prefer open house, but I would like any admin person to be brave enough to evict someone who clearly was having a tantrum.

Mmm... OK, I think that this is an interesting experiment and we should offer it in that spirit - as an experiment. Therefore the wording should be something like:

The ABCtales community has decided to test out an idea that we feel may improve our offering to writers.

We want to allow members to offer their work for serious criticism rather than the short comment they often receive at present. Anyone taking up this offer has to realise that the criticism may be harsh and should be prepared to accept some pretty plain speaking. It will be offered by other members, some of whom may be well qualified to offer it, others will not be so and the criticism should be accepted in that light.

And then some spiel on how they submit their work for this particular form of torture.

Let's give it a whirl over the festive season and see if people like it and if people are prepared to offer the time for serious criticism. I suggest that we only accept five pieces a week for this service - they go up for a week and then are replaced. They should be chosen at random from those submitted.

Does that make sense?

If I make this visible to editors only, we exclude Jude, amongst others. But it's all constructive, isn't it? No arguments going on here, just discussion of a way forward.

Nope, no arguments, all positive, agreed. Just that the only active threads on ABC seem to be about how ABC will survive. If I was a newbie, I might wonder what I had stumbled upon and whether it was worth sticking around. Just a thought...

Just who are the site editors these days? It would be nice if they were more visible. (Perhaps update 'Meet The Team'?)

I have editor privileges but am not a site editor, by the way.

Another side to critique may be to explain the awarding of cherries. Sometimes I am mystified by the choices. It may be more positive to indicate why certain pieces of writing are examples of relative excellence.

Agree with Wilky. There were a small number of editors once who didn't want to be named (because of the flak you sometimes get) and since then, no editors have been named. I don't know who is editing right now. I did a load in October, and will be doing more soon.

I've always been happy to be named. I am guilty of not being clear when I've given a cherry that it was me, I've assumed it was implied; because I *always* leave a comment if I cherry a peice, (I just don't necessarily say 'I cherried this' - maybe I should)

It's important to name editors because, as highlighted in a thread Jude posted yesterday, it's fair to say a cherry from one editor may mean more to you than a cherry from another editor.

As I said yesterday, I think now is a good time for an editor recruitment round.

Tony / FTSE - As we're bouncing ideas around, what if the 'marked as read' and 'cherried by' items were made viewable publically?

The awarding of cherries has been, inevitably, the most debated of topics on here. I do most of it and I know that some days I am more generous than others. it's inevitable. After reading more than 100 pieces I am sometimes so punch drunk that I miss good ones and reward ones I shouldn't. But I can only edit when I can edit - and I struggle to keep up.

It's been stated many many times that cherrying is a subjective thing. I am always open to suggestions for a cherry if there's one I've missed - just flag it up on the Discuss Writing from ABC forum. I am also open to nominations for Story and Poem of the Week which I state each time in the forums when I paste them up - and I get about four nominations a year!

I am happy that site editors are identified - but we will need to check with the editors that they don't mind that!

Tony - I know this rubs against your philosophy, but I really think it should be compulsary to be identified. I also think eds should have some responsibility for welcoming new members and getting forum conversations moving. It's too much for you to do alone.

What is the difference between having editor privileges and being a site editor?

(which am I?)

I agree that it shouldn't be a 'one man band'.

As Magazine editor, I used to trawl for potential content by reading everything that was submitted, but it became soul destroying after a while.

There's nothing to stop an editor having a different ID for their own subs if they fear reprisals.

Two accounts is a great idea. People could remain 'anonymous' as editors but still be visible and contactable.

Dan- I guess if you read, cherry/don't cherry, you're an editor.

If not, you just have editor privileges that you don't use.

The point I was making about cherries was not to criticise their being awarded, but to suggest making them a more effective tool for positive reinforcement.

Critique is often perceived as someone saying 'you're shite - and here's why'.

Cherries offer an opportunity to say 'you're brill - and here's why'

Following Tony's posting on the suggested wording for the crit service, I think (in keeping with the topic) it should be simpler and more direct:

The ABCtales community is testing an exciting new service for our writers.

Members who want their work to be seriously assessed can ask our panel of editors to do so. They must be prepared to accept that what they hear back will be from people who have varied levels of expertise – and it may not mince words! No writer ever got into print through soft soap.

And another thought, to allay the idea that this is elitist/cliquey:

If you want to apply to be a member of the panel of editors yourself, you can also do so.

I'm not so sure about that last one. It could all go a bit Pete Tong then! But I do like the wording for the critiques.

If you have editor privileges then you are an editor - it's just that I do the vast majority of it. I'd rather not - I'd like to use my ABC time to do other stuff for the site but the editing needs to be done. If the existing eds just did an hour a week it'd be wonderful! I do appreciate that it's entirely voluntary and that it soon palls - it also stops you writing a lot yourself - but a few stories or poems every now and then would be very welcome! I've spent most of yesterday and a good part of today trying to catch up after the weekend - I was up to date last on Friday at 4 pm. I'm just up to midday yesterday now!

I haven't done any in ages. I shall try and get back in the habit.

Wait, wait, wait, the crit doesn't have to be done by an editor! There are probably people who would like to discuss someone's work in detail without necessarily wanting to take on all else that the editor's role entails. And there are people (like me) who are happy to help out with the editing when the going gets tough, but who aren't really the ideal people to offer critique.

This might be a good time to sort out the roles on the site, since there are currently 15 editors, not all of whom do any editing! Hell, there are 11 administrators who, as far as I can tell, are just editors who have been given (useless to them) admin privileges as a kind of loyalty bonus. I don't recall ever having had any help with the admin, and the stuff that Tony probably regards as admin doesn't require, and isn't helped by, site admin permissions. So that's 26 editors if we count the mock admins.

Do you really want to name names here?

People initially approach editing with great enthusiasm - hell, it's just a bit of reading, isn't it? - until they discover just how much work is really involved. We burn out new editors within about three months! After that they just sit in the corner rocking gently back and forth and counting their toes.

I don't think we need more editors, we need a way of dividing the work fairly between those we already have. One or two people usually end up doing it all. Would a workflow system (each editor has their own queue of stories to read and attend to) smack too much of - er - work?

Should we keep the editing function separate from the crit function? There will be some who do both but that needn't be the case for everybody.

Too much for one post. Never mind...

I promise to help out more... but admin-wise, apart from booting off the spammers I manage to spot, I doubt I can help you much, Alte Bohne.

The way to go is to give spam-booting permissions to editors, which could be done in seconds, not to make editors into admins!

We have a serious security issue here since anyone with a grudge against the site and admin permissions could lay waste to the place in minutes. Kill it for good. Come to that, a careless click of the mouse could do quite a lot of accidental damage.