Editors, Nepotism, Lies and Rebellion

Come out with your true name I think you should, Yoda.

Voting always produces the a victory for the best candidate, Hitler, for example. Or for a more plebeian angle look at the winners of the talent shows, it's not always a case of the best winning, is it?

I believe there is a place for voting on ABC, but can you guarantee that it will be completely devoid of nepotism? Take a look at how the results on Authonomy have been manipulated in the past by people whose friends have the time and inclination to take up membership and vote for their no doubt talented friends.

I read this this morning:

http://www.abctales.com/story/spartarcad/a-circle-of-reading-ink

My own opinion is that this is better than say 'Cheap Decorative Candles', but what does that prove? They're all subjective opinions, that's why I believe there is a place for voting, I'm just not satisfied that it won't end up as credible as an Afghani Election.

Good luck.

A lot depends on what you believe the value of a cherry is.
If it’s as a pointer to a good, or a great, piece then if you don’t have similar tastes to the current editors use the TRACK function to follow other ABC users whose tastes are more in keeping with your own.

As for voting; I’ve noticed that the modern fad is to complain of voting irregularities as soon as your preferred candidate loses.
It’s obviously a sign that people are becoming so certain that they are backing the best horse that if it loses they are convinced that the race was fixed.
What hope democracy?

While I’m at it...
I might as well mention that voting might be fun if a list of the voters and how they voted was made available.

As you’ve probably noticed, legion (he who shall not be named)… has a multiple personality disorder and it would be very interesting to see if the votes of his many different characters reflected any obvious bias ;O)

It always amazes me how few requests I get to reconsider a piece for a cherry. I always go back and take another look - and sometimes change my mind. I think that voting will just lead to more nepotism, cliqueism, whateverism.

I am quite new to ABC and some of my poems have been cherrypicked, I do not know any of the editors or even fellow writers, I simply take it that someone (who reads a lot of poem's) like's what I have written, a positive comment from my peers has the same meaning, (the crap ones tend to be ignored!)
Voting? who would bother? ABC addicts only I suspect.

I'm with Shoe on this one - I also assume that all submissions are checked asap to ensure nothing libellous/discriminatory/inappropriate/etc gets through. Being new, I figure that's why mine were read so quickly and why I got the opportunity for cherries. For the record, being objective, I am well aware why the rest didn't get cherries as well. It's because they didn't deserve them. Hell, i'm not sure any of them deserved cherries...

One general observation though - http://www.abctales.com/forum/2009/12/31/re-vitreous-ill-humour - Why so disaffected, Spartarcad?

We had dead people voting here in our last election. Dead people have probably been voting for ages here....we just didn't know it until we elected a black president.
Perhaps...we might even do better with the Cherry Picking system...then at least....some of us might read the crap that government writes.

I suppose you are all quite right, it was just an idea; possibly a bad idea - even bad ideas may sometimes have positive consequences.

Although in this case possibly not! I have absolutely no idea how the logistics for a voting system would work, could even work?

I'm more interested in the 'intimate exchanges'.

It sounds a little like 'dangerous liaisons' to me.

I see from spartarcad's original post that those qualified to award cherries are:

a) Tony, provided he is an English Lit. graduate,

and

b) Popular vote - presumably not excluding those who write in upper case, can't spell or apply simple grammatical rules, and think Pam Ayres is a poet.

Anyone see an inconsistency here?

In my opinion, cherries should be awarded either by Martin Amis or a cage of monkeys. It's only fair.

Oooo ooo oooo aahhh aaahhh aahhhhhh aaahhhhH!

So if an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters would inevitably write Shakespeare, presumably a finite number of caged monkeys with typewriters would regularly produce scripts for Eastenders...?

But would the monkeys award Shakespeare a cherry? Or are they in league with the international ABC conspiracy? The people have a right to know.

I've been posting on here since it started and I can honestly say I know none of the editors, or cherry pickers. I think the spirit of abctales is to look at others work, comment, post some of your own and if it is good, it will get a readership. The most important thing for a developing writer is feedback, and I admit as an abctales member I should tell the authors more when I read a piece I like.

So it seems simple to me, that you should just write your best, and put it out there, rather than coming up with conspiracy theories over cherries!

I live on the other side of the bloody world and haven't travelled any further north than Cape Tribulation in Queensland so what chance have I to meet and get to know any of the cherry pickers. Yet I've received more than a few (some maybe even deserved).

I think voting would only create the very thing I don't like about other sites of such nature. Don't mess with the formula!

Who ARE the cherry pickers? An endangered breed of hobbitt?

shoe - They're the shadowy people who, for their own mysterious and arcane reasons, keep locking up monkeys with typewriters...

Jaws - honestly, I suspect they'd be more likely to eat the cherries than anything.

In a serious moment though - the simple truth is that it's a subjective matter and therefore the luxuries of 'right' and 'wrong' never apply. Voting would be an administrative nightmare first of all, which would stifle the creative efforts behind this site and likely bore the poor soul lumbered with it to tears. The cherry pickers seem to (from what i've seen) look at unknown people's work and judge to the best of their ability which is all we could hope for from them. Despite my sometimes loud and drunken protestations to the contrary, no-one (not even me according to my girlfriend!) can be correct all the time about stories because it depends on who's reading it.

My faith remains in the pickers basically, even if I think they've get it wrong.

I whole heartedly support the cage of monkeys!

Support the monkeys just get rid of the cage ;O)

I don't know any of the cherry pickers. I am also an ocean away from same. When a cherry is awarded something of mine, I take it to mean that the piece was of interest. It doesn't mean all of my other work is awful, just that at a moment in time someone read and liked something that I wrote. I appreciate the effort it took to read and review my work and am pleased that it was found enjoyable.
I also realize that we posters don't pay for the right of posting works on this site and that all the many valuable hours, that reviewers put in, are not compensated for.
My Thanks to those who are gracious enough to read and review a piece of my work. Your input is appreciated and valued.

J.X.M

"As you’ve probably noticed, legion (he who shall not be named)… has a multiple personality disorder and it would be very interesting to see if the votes of his many different characters reflected any obvious bias"

So name him/her then, you chickenshit coward.

or are you afraid of being wrong?

Don't forget, if you are wrong, you are in a whole legal nightmare 0:)

OH!

as Nessa would say

Hahaha ;O)

Does he have legionnaires' disease? The public should be told.

A bit egotistical, but here goes....
The current Editor Pick system baffles me, I would give greater credibility to the ones I have recieved were it not for the sudden application of a piece of fruit in 2009 to a poem that had languished here, unedited, since 2005.

Given that I now write with decreased concentration, poor short term memory and dreadful eyesight due to chronic illness, the flurry that I have received since returning in late 2008 causes me endless mirth. Especially as some of them were written in 2004, in the same style.

Having said that, I've now developed Cibophobia, specifically, a fear of fruit...what does it all mean...I need to lie down!

So, who am I writing for, this shadowy Brahmin award system?

Ah, you speak of the random cherry elf, the slip of the mouse, drunken editor syndrome and the 'is it show don't tell or tell don't show?' confusion. You can cherry some of the people all of the time and all of the people on Tuesdays, but you can't chew a cheese straw for longer than necessary, most of the time. If more people knew this, it would be known by a lot more people.

Mark Brown was the main picker in 2004 and I am the main picker now. We have different tastes! Others will look at your work from time to time. Sometimes we do go back into the archives and if we come across something that we like then we will cherry it.

No conspiracy, no nepotism, no problem.

Aha! time for a song, because I like it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeWITeExEy4

Different tastes? I know Tony tastes of cheese, but what does Mark Brown taste of? What of the other pickah wallahs? What brand of inexpensive chutney should accompany them? The public must be told.

What a lovely [very early] Valentine's thread!

Ok, point taken, no going back and looking at old stuff. God forbid people should take an interest. Really, sometimes I just fucking despair.

Me too. Are people really bothered about this? The point is to get your writing critted, and to get it out there, surely? Not just to post it so it gets cherried?

Hi Hellen, excellent point, but there is not much room for experimenting with style or structure if the immediate pictorial reward sys is the goal or measure of a writer.

Which pieces deserved cherries and didn't get them? Which undeserving pieces got them?

If there are no examples of the above then all who deserve cherries get them, all who don't don't, and the system is working perfectly.

I don't really understand how the system could be defined as working well or badly when the extent of the system is some people flagging up bits of writing that they like.

There's a widespread belief amongst writers that there exists such a thing as objectively good writing. There's certainly such a thing as bad writing (!) but once the obviously flawed works are removed, is it possible to order the remainder by objective quality? If so, the job of the cherry picker is to choose those at the head of the list. If not, the job of the cherry picker is to choose those he likes.

"There's certainly such a thing as bad writing (!) but once the obviously flawed works are removed, is it possible to order the remainder by objective quality?"

No. But in many instances people make clear the terms on which their subjective judgments are made.

So, for example, it's possible to judge the quality of poetry or fiction against a set of criteria: originality, technical competence, strength of plot, effectiveness of imagery, message, entertainment value, marketability - any of these and many others may or may not be appropriate depending on the situation.

And it's also possible to judge whether some writing works relatively better than some other writing with similar intentions.

Cherry-picking doesn't purport to involve either of these processes or other similar ones. It's just bits of writing that Editors (in most cases, Tony) say they like.

Not sure how that system could fail on the terms that it operates. (I'm not suggested this happens but) even if Tony was cherry-picking stuff he hadn't read because he liked the title, it would still be fair enough.

Just popped in to say Happy New Year and...

Chuffin Nora! It's still the cherry debate!

For what it's worth, I would say that...

There will *never* be a system that suits everybody.

The present system is conducted with the best of intentions.

The system is objective to a point, but still necessarily subjective (regardless of how many Eds you have).

Cherries aren't that important *anyway* because the site has been set up to encourage detailed, constructive feedback from other directions.

Anyway - Happy New Decade Everybody - whatever we end up calling it.

~
www.fabulousmother.co.uk

Before I actually joined this site, I had a look at some of the work posted here. I had never considered myself a 'writer' but felt that I would like to 'have a go' at expressing myself through this medium.

I don't consider myself a serious poet/writer but I do Enjoy it. I read and write pieces that I realize will never get 'cherry-picked' but I find them to be entertaining and enjoyable. Other people seem to enjoy some of the stuff that I produce; not because it is a masterclass in writing or a lesson in great rhythm or style but because it makes them laugh, think, cry, or sometimes - I am sure - cringe.

There is no doubt, some serious talent on this site and it never ceases to amaze me, as to just how good they are...but the beauty of the site for me is that anybody can join, join in, and enjoy the place.

The other, maybe more sobering point is; no one is forced to join the site, nobody is press-ganged into offering their work for scrutiny and no one is kept here against their will.

In short if anybody is not happy with the way things are done here, or feels that everything is basically shit because it does not work the way that they think it should...there is no lock on the exit door - just close it on the way out please.

If anyone wants to read some of my offerings and then pull them apart because they are not up to English degree standard; feel free, I couldn't give a toss.

...Oh and Happy New Year to all ;)

'There will *never* be a system that suits everybody.
The present system is conducted with the best of intentions.
The system is objective to a point, but still necessarily subjective (regardless of how many Eds you have).
Cherries aren't that important *anyway* because the site has been set up to encourage detailed, constructive feedback from other directions.'

'the beauty of the site for me is that anybody can join, join in, and enjoy the place.
The other, maybe more sobering point is; no one is forced to join the site, nobody is press-ganged into offering their work for scrutiny and no one is kept here against their will.'

I agree with 2Lou and threeleafshamrock. Who I do not know, intimately or otherwise. I am more concerned with Lenchenelf's Cibophobia - hope the lie down helps and that you feel better soon!

I'll add though that I love cherries, real and virtual, and the fact that they are a good indication (yes indication, whoever's it is) of an interesting piece of writing, and that - for me - they are often well worth reading, either to help me improve my own writing or to get a flavour of current trends.

That's my 2 pence' worth anyway.

Cheers!

Surely the measure of a writer is that they write what they like, and what interests them, and if it's good the rewards will come? And like I said, if you're on here for the prospect of a cherry and nothing but, then you're in the wrong place!

Perhaps it just needs some new classifications of fruit? Pineapple for sweet and refreshing; lemon for sharp and vital; cranberrie for dry; banana for solid and filling; peach for something that seems soft but has a hard core from which new ideas grow; and, of course, the heady heights of a fruit salad for something that does all of the above!

And the Ugli Fruit?

Crabapple?

I can't understand why this has not been given a cherry!
http://www.abctales.com/story/kate-emily/ellipsis

This has ;O)
Fergie Freestyle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLL4i7m5NJk

Because I had such a bad cold when I first read it that my brain wasn't working properly.

See - if you point up ones I miss then sometimes they will be rewarded!

It must have been a bad cold and I'm pleased that you're over it Tony!
I give you a cherry for your welcome revision.

I got a cherry for one of my pieces and I was very pleased by it. That isn't why I write though, I write because I can't help writing. I love writing and I love reading. I have no idea how cherry-picking works but I'm glad I don't have to do it. There are a lot of good pieces on here and it must be a hard job to pick between them. Shit! I'm pleased that some people are reading my work. That's mainly what I want as a writer, after all. And no, I don't know any of the pickers.

I did go strawberry-picking once, in my youth, but I got the sack for eating all the best strawberries. They were nice, though, straight from the field. Yummy.
Carole

"Trust me, when a certain long time member of abc tales and I, had intimate exchanges, peculiar how many of these ‘ridiculous, meaningless, non authentic’ cherry picks I got!"

I meant to post about this ages ago, then forgot.

Here's the thing:

I just took a look through Spartarcad's old pieces and for what it's worth, there's no evidence the point above is correct. If it were, we'd expect that most of the cherries would have been handed out by one editor. Not so.

Four pieces, for example, cherried back-to-back in 2006 were selected by 3 different people.

Looking through, the 9 cherries given to Spartarcad were dished out by 4 different editors - which may well have been all - or most - of the active editors at the time.

Maybe Spartacard thinks he should have had more. Or less. Or for different pieces from the ones chosen.
Or maybe he wants to take away the pleasure people feel when they get cherrypicked. Who knows - the world is full of peculiar people.
Carole

How can anyone think that cherry picking is not subjective - the pickers are humans, aren't they? So they have individual likes and dislikes (even people with Eng Lit degrees). Even if the cherry picking robot were really a robot he/she would've been programmed by a human with their ideas of what is good and what is bad, based most likely on what they LIKE. And as far as currying favour with editors go, does everyone except me live next door to Tony? I've never clapped eyes on him and I've had some cherries. Maybe Spartacard has a really bad case of sour cherries.