no offense but..

Liana is right... one more time methinks... she is cool.

I noticed that too last week, i submitted something that was silly and not very good, someone gave it 2 stars straight away, so i checked other new entries and a lot either had 2 or 3 star ratings. So i don't think 'bad mood' i think a complete prat is at work.

alas! oh well. c'est la vie. Glad someone else noticed it tho, and I'm not just being pathetic coz my work got 2 stars. lol. thanx :D

I've been editing a lot of poems and when I put them back on abc all of them got 2 stars, thought it was just me.

i have heard it tell that there is a thing called Two Star Rage ... it happens sometimes to people and is inexplicable ... well actually it isnt inexplicable but i dont have the heart to explain it ...

Dear Prim Fish: suspecting who you might be, and having had, and having, a high regard for your work (if I'm correct) I must say your contribution is pretty shi.tty on this matter. Your wit is sharp, your sentiment mean. Auden decried negative, adversarial reviews, contending that poor work would vanish on its own.

quite right ... i stand ashamed ... all i can say is that i am getting in touch with my evil side ...

Well whoever it was liked your stuff then! ... I only got a one star. But I don't mind because it was only my diary waffle.

"Auden decried negative, adversarial reviews, contending that poor work would vanish on its own." However Auden was writing in a time before the Internet made it possible for poor work to not only fail to vanish, but to crop up time and time again and, more depressingly still, build up an enormous following of flatterers who hang off the authors every word and peroidically chime in with such constructive comments as "this r0xxoRz". Furthermore even within his own time, Auden seems to have made the assumption that a reviewer is writing simply in order to make the bad writing go away. He (or she) is not, rather he writes in the hope that it will go away and come back as good writing. A five star ratings system is limited at the best of times, and if you assume that one-star ratings are reserved for the very worst, and five-star for the very best, then there are a mere three ratings that can be given to most stoires. Start declaring a two-star rating beyond the pale and you render the entire system all but worthless. This being said I have not read the works that were given the offending ratings, and it is possible they were rated 2-star out of spite. It is however possible that in the eyes of a particularly critical reviewer 2 stars (which can, after all, be interpreted as merely "nothing to write home about") was all they deserved.

indeed *strokes goatie...discovers doesn't have one...* hmm.

Good post Morcar. I am amused by the way 2 starring is decried as spite when it might just be someone who is a tough scorer. I agree if you are going to have fives you have to have twos otherwise what is the point? I wouldn't give a good rating for "encouragement" and I think that someone who gives up due to a bad rating wasn't interested in getting better in the first place. I rate honestly. If that means ones and twos then I give ones and twos. I am not spiteful and I see no evidence for the bad writing on this site going away. Fish was harsh though. It's that kind of snooty attitude that gets my goat.

Morcar: Your response is phrased reasonably. Your points phrased so as to be points. But basically, who gives a shi.t. Relax. I was defending a young girl who probably needs no defense, Narcissa. And responding to a critic, who probably, (depending on mood, you know how women can be) would be a nurturer of said Narcissa, not a condemner. None of this is that serious, but inadvertent, or casual spite is. Or isn't.

Don't give a shi.t. on about wether anyone likes what I write find it all a bit elitist but love to see it up there anyway. Would like to see everyone who reads my stuff enter a star rating god or bad. Have just revised some pieces so ratings please - go on give em "one"

Don't give a shi.t. on about wether anyone likes what I write find it all a bit elitist but love to see it up there anyway. Would like to see everyone who reads my stuff enter a star rating god or bad. Have just revised some pieces so ratings please - go on give em "one". Sure your all nice people really just fancied a bit of a rant.

Oh. It's time for the Highland Games. What did I miss? Who throws the next discus?

My dear growl, so you wake. I've been sporting about, all the while thinking of you. Disci. Highland Games. Incongrous. How about log rolls. Peat topples. Lassie pinching. (The last not a reference to the colllie).

What kind of sporting about was this? Did it involve St. Andrews?

Of course, I was referring to saints. You and I, locked in a saintly embrace.

Er....well..... Nice to chat after such a long time. Just be aware your mask is slipping.

Just returned to the ABC site to see stars are being seriously debated by some. I am not a great believer in the serious nature of Cherries but do support Stars in a way. If I like a poem I like to email and say “good poem, I really liked it because….” If a poem disturbs me ditto. But when I can’t contact the poet I will use the star system to vote on a piece, it’s a bit like a short hand comment! Therefore the low star ratings are valid. I found that when I received a low star rating it was quite exciting because I really wasn’t sure what it was that was so bad. Was it the content, structure or the sentiment the reader was objecting to? It does make you think about the reason behind the low rating. I re-read the poem that received a low star rating and decided that it was the message that the reader didn’t like and that thought was intriguing and exciting! But I won’t really know without an email comment and that was frustrating! Generally I follow the Dali Lama’s advice “If you can do no good, do no harm” I’m almost with Auden on this one, the worst thing you can do to a poem or piece of work is ignore it and let it fade away, unread, unfulfilled! Stars? They are a little more useful than a cherry!

I noticed that Spack put a piece up: one reader, one star. Who marked that? Simon Cowell? I gave it a five. ("Math's (sic) Problem" it was called.") But as some people have said: the stars don't matter, really. Until you can cash them in at a Spud-U-Like, or something, they must be seen as just a bit of fun, like counting plum stones. d.beswetherick

I think, without question, there are people who give two stars out of spite, calculated wickedness (they imagine the author's upset and can't stop themselves,) and a rather arrogant belief in their abilities as critics - imagining they're stamping out 'bad art' or wothaveyou. "Furthermore even within his own time, Auden seems to have made the assumption that a reviewer is writing simply in order to make the bad writing go away. He (or she) is not, rather he writes in the hope that it will go away and come back as good writing." I would suggest, firstly, that it depends on the individual, and secondly, that such an attitude towards criticism is pretty obnoxious anyway. I'm amazed at how confident people still are at their ability to judge good art, and understand the intentions of the artist, when there's a whole discipline, some might say art-form, built around the possibilities for interpretation and deconstruction of literature, and when so many clever critics in the past have had their judgements overturned by popular consensus. When you're talking about "good writing", who's right? The masses who routinely vote for 'Lord of the Rings' as best book, or the individual academic who puts the third act of Kind Lear, some passages of Dostoyevsky and Rilke's fifth elegy at the top of the tree? Most people seem to think the answer is "me, of course." But the critic can only report his reaction and puport to examine the book - appointing himself the task of getting rid of 'bad art' and replacing it with 'good art' is the ambition of a tyrant.

"I think, without question, there are people who give two stars out of spite, calculated wickedness (they imagine the author's upset and can't stop themselves,) and a rather arrogant belief in their abilities as critics - imagining they're stamping out 'bad art' or wothaveyou." Ironically I would say *that* attitude toward criticism is pretty obnoxious. The precious little assumption that the only person who is qualified to judge art is the artist themselves. It speaks to me of a rather arrogant belief in ones ability as an artist, imagining that those who criticise you are acting out of "calculated wickedness" when I would hazard that more often than not they are simply giving their honest opinion.

"The precious little assumption that the only person who is qualified to judge art is the artist themselves." Never said that. Your inference. The incidences aren't a product of my imagination either - people have confessed on this very forum to 1/2-starring people in order to 'discourage' what they don't like, and there are quite blatant rampages now and then, including incidences where a piece receives ten times as many one stars as it does views. If you feel this is just an over-zealous way of giving helpful feedback to the author, I would suggest you need to think again. And I don't count a 1/2 star rating as criticism anyway - 'criticism' is too grand a word for such a pointless gesture. It's like talking loudly during a movie you don't enjoy in order to try and put other people off it. If you genuinely wish to help the author, a personal email should be fine - the star system is abused because people know it primarily influences other readers, and that's what many 'critics' really want to do - control other people's reactions. Hence, tyrants.

One more thing - I've been back five minutes, and already people seem to be trying to turn a debate about something else into a debate about me ("It speaks to me of a rather arrogant belief in ones ability as an artist..." can be nothing else, since it's completely unrelated to the issue of criticism versus spite.) Once and for all, I don't want to talk about me. If I did, the word 'Hen' would be in the subject line. So stick to the argument at hand please.

I apologise, I assure you I was speaking as much in the general as you were. Just as you have seen a lot of people who will give things poor ratings out of spite, I have seen a lot of people who are unwilling to accept a poor rating as anything but spite. The truth, as ever is somewhere in the middle. I fail, however, to see how you can call giving something a rating of 1-2 stars as a pointless gesture unless you are also willing to call giving something a rating of 3-5 stars a pointless gesture. It's not like talking during a movie, it's like giving a movie a rating between 1 and 5, just after you've seen it, because somebody specifically asks you to give that movie a rating between 1 and 5.

Two, do I care, only to the point at which it undermines credibility. Yes some of my poems may well only be worthy of two, who knows perhaps the editor who originally cherried 2 of them was wrong, perhaps the publisher is wrong, perhaps its just not someone's pint of vodka. I guess its a matter of perspective. What erodes credibility is having all the poems rated in one swoop. Its as common as a fruitarians order in a fast-food restaurant, if you know what I mean If giving two stars is encouraging 'better' writting then surely the followers of this creed would be 'better' served emailing the authors, thus forwarding the application of 'better art', unless of course they were just being spiteful. I reckon it would be helpful to see exactly who is reading/rating work. That way the grains of wisdom they obviously possess will no longer scatter on barren ground, but flourish on the fertile and productive borders of a shared understanding... yeh I've had emails from another poet which I found extremely helpful, sometimes when its in your face its finer points are the vaguest, or perhaps I need glasses. As for Auden I don't believe there is poor art, just unfinished personal master-pieces. Constructive criticism serves everyone, silently undermining credibility, only serves its master.

I apologise too - my posts were partly kneejerk reaction. My view that 1 or 2 star ratings are pointless...Well, think of an archery target. A four or five star rating tells the archer he's hit the bullseye - a five signifying that he's gone that little extra distance in the mind of the reader. Anything less signifies a miss, but that miss could be anywhere - there are no accompanying instructions telling the archer how to adjust his aim. Without any idea of what he's meant to have done wrong, knowing that he's missed can only frustrate the archer, without helping him. Ergo, I don't think the star rating system as a request for feedback of any kind works. There's another site (I forget which,) where you only respond if you think a story is 'very good' or 'excellent' - the logic being that if you didn't like it, it probably wasn't for you. On UKAuthors, even a 1 rating means 'Needs improvement'. Essentially, I think 'good art' depends on the reader as much as the writer - it's the reaction between the signal and the receiving mind. No reader is objective; there's no such thing as a 'model reader', so it's likely that the reactions of a number of readers is not only unhelpful, but counter-productive. The artist ends up trying to please everyone, rather than sticking with specific aims.

"As for Auden I don't believe there is poor art, just unfinished personal master-pieces." Great quote! I agree. Not that there isn't stuff I think is appalling, but if I'm that averse to it, then I believe I should simply step aside.

All I can say is that those people who got two stars can consider themselves lucky. My latest piece has been awarded one star by two readers and this despite the fact that the same piece was 'picked' on another site. I suppose it is 'horses for courses'. Or should it be donkeys?

Funny business this 'star rating' idea. It means different things to different people. I personally always give a star rating to any piece of work that I read. (Unfortunately I never seem to have time to read enough postings). I'm no critic. It's the overall impression I get from reading a piece. Technical expertise, perfect rhythm and rhyme and grammatical structure probably come fairly low in my list of priorities when reading some one's work. Having said that, I think I can recognise a superior piece of writing when I see one. I also recognise the fact that if some one has been so moved by life (or imagination) to actually convert their thoughts into written text - then that work becomes rather special to my way of thinking - regardless as to whether they are a budding Shakespeare or not. I've never rated any piece of work as a 'one'. I've given a couple of 'twos' but mainly I rate a 'three' 'four' or 'five' - and sod anyone who says my thinking is not right.

What an interesting discussion! But aren't we back to "Do you like it?" Some of the longest critiques I have read seem to avoid that one simple point! In that respect one star is better than two because there can be no doubt that the reader didn't like it. But perhaps the managers of this site could take these points into consideration and provide a free text box for comment to be left on the poems page. Could be anon if you didn’t have the backbone to say who you are! Now that would be interesting!

Well interesting is one way of looking at it... i would be concerned as to the vile flaming that would undoubtedly occur, as evidenced at Thought Cafe a while back. Not everyone is as decent as yourself Creekend. You only have to look at the rash of 1*'s that happen after ridiculous "forum wars" to see the potential for harm. It cant be really possible that someone really hates a persons work enough to go through it giving a score of one, over and over again - its happened to me, fairly recently. I prefer the option to contact the author for feedback thing, which we do have on abc, if the said author allows that - some prefer not to be contacted, as is their right.