Steve hello.
I have three "draft" folders set up on the poetry file in Word on the computer.

I write any ideas (what I think of as any clever words or phrases) down in the folder even if they make no sense at the time.

When I think its done I then compose.

I never post straight away but always revisit and cull inappropriate words and improve others.

I try not to never waste a word.

Then I publish and never change after that.

I tend to just write it as it comes, have a read through when i think i have finished and add or remove as i feel necessary. That's usually it.
I rarely change afterwards.

it varies with me, must admit. sometimes the beginnings of a piece can lead to being wrote and completed quickly.. sometimes it can be the oppositee where i can work on pieces for months and years if needed, but certainly i have folders of draft pieces, so i guess i'm in the same boat as graham, although i do blog pieces sometimes where i have problems with pieces for feedback etc.. a

Most poetry can benefit from a lot of this - some more than others depending on the natural ability of the poet. Some poems are just too wordy and often it is the eradication of little words that make it sound so much better.

I adopt a 'sounds right' policy. It has to read aloud well and flow - well enough to perform at any rate. I think that often the metre is done by ear rather than by counting.

I can see why poets who write from a stream of consciousness might not want to alter afterwards. I guess the beauty in such work is its rawness. At the end of the day we are all different, as is our work.

I agree Is. and am a fan of reading/writing streams. well edited work can make all the difference however to a finished performance and/or page piece.
I usually ask another poet to listen, read and offer advice what to leave out (although against the bukowski, leave it till it explodes theory which has some credit) especially for performance, alhough i dont always agree, it gets me thinking. I think its more important for performance work as there is a different type of audience to consider and outside input invaluable as an audience representative.
I love reading streams of consciousness, especially if written by gifted authors whose imagination flourishes this way. I would hate them to chop bits out to create soundbyte and i think striving for 'perfect art' is for me a waste of time. It naturally progresses and one long piece might lead to a brilliantly succint other piece. i say blog the lot :)
Well edited page poetry is also a pleasure to read and keeping it simple is an art form in itself.
But yes, we all have different styles which is the beauty of the thing.

I'm reading 'A Moveable Feast' by Ernest Hemingway at the mo. Not really enjoying it, but one thing he does say is that one of the lessons he learnt as a young writer was to restrict the use of adjectives. This fits with what Izz says about little words - often they are unnecessary adjectives which it is better to leave the reader's imagination to supply.

For myself, editing actually varies from poem to poem. There is no one method. Each poem demands its own way of being tweaked.

yes little words, i find i remove the word 'and' a lot but some words are good to get your flow going. i say edit as you go, blog when you like. im all for reducing perfectionism in this art or any other.
adjectives/adverbs are alright by me, sometimes the author wants the descriptive suggestion. but there is a sense of contemporay style to consider which is for minimalism. i dont consider it much. be free, write how you like, just write.(direct contradiction of bukoski's explosion theory but hey im bored of that)

When I said little words, I really did mean little words - connectives/pronouns i.e. it, but, and, he, she, etc There is often an unnecessary repetition of them all and the poem could sound much better without it.

I take the point about adjectives - it could also be extended to adverbs. Sometimes you see poems that are dripping in them and it weighs you down, suffocates you. I prefer a balance - space to read the bones of the poem and absorb the feelings.

It is a fine balance to my mind this editing lark, for sometimes I edit, then edit some more and end up putting back some of the connective words!

I guess it is all subjective on what you want to say within your poem and how, it is a very individual thing, personally I don't go for too many 'ings' heh..dunno why though but that's me.

I think it was Oscar Wilde who 'was working on the proof of one of my poems all the morning and took out a comma. In the afternoon—well, I put it back again.'

Samuel Johnson: 'Read over your compositions, and where ever you meet with a passage which you think is particularly fine, strike it out.'

While not going to those extremes, beware of claims of spontaneity. Allen Ginsberg's 'Howl' - 'I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving, hysterical, naked' and so on - is probably the best known example of a spontaneous blurt of a poem. Ginsberg fostered that notion. The Ginsberg Archives, however, show that he took six years of slog to produce it.

And Joyce's 'stream of consciousness' was very carefully constructed.

Regarding editing,I'm by no means an expert in this,but have found it really helpful to be part of a couple of writer's groups and have my work listened to then feedback given. This helps me to go away and look at the poem in a new light.
I'm finding that the old saying,'less is more'is sometimes true also,and often go back over my stuff,to prune what is superfluous.

I tend to write when I feel one coming (literally, wherever I happen to be at the time). It depends on what potential I see: if it's something I really like I'll often redraft many times over (my current record is 9 redrafts for "Sugar") but if it's something I'm not as keen on, I tend not to make as much of an effort. I know these are the ones that probably need the more work if anything, but I just don't like working with poems I don't get along with.

Thank you, Mr Whitworth, for truth. It was much the same for Elliot and Pound, etc. etc. I edit a lot - diction, grammatical construction, order, cadence etc. over days, weeks and years. Most of my poems have something to say from the first draft, and not badly either. But I like my own fresh eyes ten times over - or thirty. An original 'good' idea can usually be better with further thought, and recitation. I'm striving for POWER. If genuinely concerned, I enlist a second or third opinion which always proves to be wise, providing an added element to communicating clearly with the reader.

The late, great Michael Donaghy wrote an article called 'May I make a suggestion? Five rules for the newly enrolled poet' He says of these suggestions 'I advise the the inexperienced to follow [them] for six months. After that, I tell them, drop them and follow your instinct.

If you can get hold of a copy, it's worth a read - like everything else he wrote. Meanwhile, here's an outline.

1. READ IT... He means poetry.

2. SAY IT... Use ordinary word order. Test your poem by reading it aloud. I'd add, try it with a tape recorder; get someone else to read it out to you.

3. SHOW IT... Image rather than explanation.

4. LISTEN... Follow where the poem leads you.

5. SHAPE IT...

And as Jonboy Walton says, joining one or more writing groups can be a big help in looking at your poem from the reader's point of view.

Don't forget, though, it is your poem.