Toward better discussions
OK, I am human, too. Yes, I do get fed up with disputes on here that spoil the wonderful discussions and polemic that do generally provide an ambience of a Parisian cafe philosophe. It is interesting that some of the most – what shall I say? – intense, disputatious discussions on here have, at times, provided some wonderfully erudite polemic. So I don’t want rid of dispute per se, just the potential for individuals to take offence.
We work so hard trying to keep the whole thing going that, when such disputes arise it can be dispiriting for us. And, yes, I got fed up and behaved like the teacher I once was. So, sorry if that’s how it came across.
It is easy to blame individuals for the way things go awry on here; sometimes it is justified. Mostly things go awry for structural as much as human reasons. Such electronic communication relies on words alone – separated from the clues we otherwise have to help us understand the context and writer’s intention: facial expression, inflexion, etc. Opportunities to take exception to something well-intentioned are many (cf Roger McGough’s poem, You and I – I hand you an olive branch/you feel the thorns/I am placatory/you reel from the shock – if I remember it properly).
As it happens, we are aware of the limitations of our site and are deep in debate, backstage, about how we can improve the way discussions, comments, so forth are managed. If you would be kind enough to read on, I ask for your help below in making things better.
If you look at some of the discussions about running online fora (below), you will see that our concerns are shared by others running such sites; with diverse views as to how to solve the inevitable problems.
One error I seem to have made in responding to a recent problem was to assume that everyone subscribed to what we thought were commonly-held views about online etiquette. For a single example, that long posts are anti-social. This view sees such long posts as being not in the spirit of discussions, as they are a virtual equivalent of one person hogging the conversation. I also assumed that everyone had read the chat rules and interpreted them in the same way we do. Clearly not. Our fault, I suppose.
One of our difficulties is that we don’t actually have a moderator – or moderator team - which most people consider essential to the smooth running of such a site. I think we need to recruit such as soon as possible.
Another is – mea culpa – I don’t actually use the discussions myself as much as you guys do (good reasons I don’t need to elaborate on here). So what happens is Paul gets concerned about something happening, lets me know, I want to support Paul so weigh in and make a balls of it – usually.
One of the driving forces behind setting up Write Out Loud was precisely to show the world (as if it was interested) that poetry, literature and ideas are not the preserve of the poetrocracy; that we – ordinary people – have the right and capacity to discuss important ideas and share our emotions. Ian McMillan has gone on record as saying that he thinks one of the things wrong with this country is the lack of access to culture and art for ordinary people (I would add that it is also the lack of access for culture and art to us, the ordinary people. We (you, us) are proving the case that we have the capacity for extraordinary levels of art, through our poetry. We might never win the T. S. Eliot prize (we might) but we do write and share our words with each other through the nights that we, and many people, work hard to provide across the UK (and elsewhere). We all listen politely – even if we don’t like what we hear. We encourage each other and applaud. We support each other and see the positives.
The aim of the site is partly (it has other functions, too) to do some of that and provide the same ambience. It is rare for any of the disputes on here to find their equivalent at a poetry night; that is not a dare! Yes, some people are boorish, try to hog the mic, go on too long or take the piss behind their hands at times. But that seems to be a tiny minority and, often, forgetful rather than aggressive. Facilitating that encouraging ambience is the compere’s job. She/he is supported in that – usually - by clear rules set at the start, e.g. one poem each, or three minutes at the mic, whatever. We can adapt those on the night according to, for example, the numbers of potential readers.
Online, the only equivalent of that is to set ground rules. Policing those then has the potential to have us booed off the site at times: leave her alone! She didn’t mean it.
And we can’t win: damned if you do, damned if you don’t. We have witnessed times when people complained about an individual and then, when we reluctantly wade in, the same people rush in to defend the individual’s right to remain (though not silent).
The final reason we do get so much aggro is, I believe that many of us, by our nature, are quite sensitive souls. As writers, we are alert to nuance and subtext in a way that can make such easily-misinterpreted communication quite hazardous. Please remember: just because you think you have spotted a subtext, doesn’t mean it was meant. Some of you (all right, us) ARE very touchy.
Emmanuel wrote: don’t attach permanent reality to temporary things.
The reason we are getting anxious is because:
∗ For the first time since the site’s inception, numbers are declining, though the time spent on the site per person is rising.
∗ The decline seems to be in newcomers not staying around as they once did.
Informal feedback suggests that the nature of some people’s comments and discussion posts is off-putting to debutant WOL users. Things such as probably well-intentioned comments that are too long and detailed – off-putting to nervous newbies; too much chat rather than poetry; posts straying from the discussion topic; comments too directive/judgemental, etc.
Again, subjective, but some no-longer-active users feel there has developed a clique on the site that tends to dominate the discussions. It sounds like that old challenge of how a well-functioning group can ensure it remains welcoming to newcomers. There is also concern about the numbers of blogs that people post. In fact the “blogs” are was meant for blogs, not poems, but that’s how people use it. Again, we are looking at providing a better area – or areas for posting poems and getting feedback. We obviously need to distinguish between poems in progress and finished work; which neatly brings us back to the start of the recent discussion, brilliantly initiated by Chris: when is a poem finished?
Hence our desire to try to remedy this.
So, please do your best to help us by sending us your suggestions, phrased in ways we can actually respond to please.
Of the site’s key areas, which need changing? How?
What needs removing?
What bright ideas do you have for the site?
How can we improve the discussions, comments etc?
Buttons next each post – complain about this post?
Better moderation?
Better corralling of discussion topics?
Better design?
More aggressive moderation?
How should we settle disputes fairly?
have a look at these articles: http://ask.metafilter.com/74147/Internet-Forum-Moderation-for-dummies
Please make practical suggestions.
Thank you for your forebearance
We work so hard trying to keep the whole thing going that, when such disputes arise it can be dispiriting for us. And, yes, I got fed up and behaved like the teacher I once was. So, sorry if that’s how it came across.
It is easy to blame individuals for the way things go awry on here; sometimes it is justified. Mostly things go awry for structural as much as human reasons. Such electronic communication relies on words alone – separated from the clues we otherwise have to help us understand the context and writer’s intention: facial expression, inflexion, etc. Opportunities to take exception to something well-intentioned are many (cf Roger McGough’s poem, You and I – I hand you an olive branch/you feel the thorns/I am placatory/you reel from the shock – if I remember it properly).
As it happens, we are aware of the limitations of our site and are deep in debate, backstage, about how we can improve the way discussions, comments, so forth are managed. If you would be kind enough to read on, I ask for your help below in making things better.
If you look at some of the discussions about running online fora (below), you will see that our concerns are shared by others running such sites; with diverse views as to how to solve the inevitable problems.
One error I seem to have made in responding to a recent problem was to assume that everyone subscribed to what we thought were commonly-held views about online etiquette. For a single example, that long posts are anti-social. This view sees such long posts as being not in the spirit of discussions, as they are a virtual equivalent of one person hogging the conversation. I also assumed that everyone had read the chat rules and interpreted them in the same way we do. Clearly not. Our fault, I suppose.
One of our difficulties is that we don’t actually have a moderator – or moderator team - which most people consider essential to the smooth running of such a site. I think we need to recruit such as soon as possible.
Another is – mea culpa – I don’t actually use the discussions myself as much as you guys do (good reasons I don’t need to elaborate on here). So what happens is Paul gets concerned about something happening, lets me know, I want to support Paul so weigh in and make a balls of it – usually.
One of the driving forces behind setting up Write Out Loud was precisely to show the world (as if it was interested) that poetry, literature and ideas are not the preserve of the poetrocracy; that we – ordinary people – have the right and capacity to discuss important ideas and share our emotions. Ian McMillan has gone on record as saying that he thinks one of the things wrong with this country is the lack of access to culture and art for ordinary people (I would add that it is also the lack of access for culture and art to us, the ordinary people. We (you, us) are proving the case that we have the capacity for extraordinary levels of art, through our poetry. We might never win the T. S. Eliot prize (we might) but we do write and share our words with each other through the nights that we, and many people, work hard to provide across the UK (and elsewhere). We all listen politely – even if we don’t like what we hear. We encourage each other and applaud. We support each other and see the positives.
The aim of the site is partly (it has other functions, too) to do some of that and provide the same ambience. It is rare for any of the disputes on here to find their equivalent at a poetry night; that is not a dare! Yes, some people are boorish, try to hog the mic, go on too long or take the piss behind their hands at times. But that seems to be a tiny minority and, often, forgetful rather than aggressive. Facilitating that encouraging ambience is the compere’s job. She/he is supported in that – usually - by clear rules set at the start, e.g. one poem each, or three minutes at the mic, whatever. We can adapt those on the night according to, for example, the numbers of potential readers.
Online, the only equivalent of that is to set ground rules. Policing those then has the potential to have us booed off the site at times: leave her alone! She didn’t mean it.
And we can’t win: damned if you do, damned if you don’t. We have witnessed times when people complained about an individual and then, when we reluctantly wade in, the same people rush in to defend the individual’s right to remain (though not silent).
The final reason we do get so much aggro is, I believe that many of us, by our nature, are quite sensitive souls. As writers, we are alert to nuance and subtext in a way that can make such easily-misinterpreted communication quite hazardous. Please remember: just because you think you have spotted a subtext, doesn’t mean it was meant. Some of you (all right, us) ARE very touchy.
Emmanuel wrote: don’t attach permanent reality to temporary things.
The reason we are getting anxious is because:
∗ For the first time since the site’s inception, numbers are declining, though the time spent on the site per person is rising.
∗ The decline seems to be in newcomers not staying around as they once did.
Informal feedback suggests that the nature of some people’s comments and discussion posts is off-putting to debutant WOL users. Things such as probably well-intentioned comments that are too long and detailed – off-putting to nervous newbies; too much chat rather than poetry; posts straying from the discussion topic; comments too directive/judgemental, etc.
Again, subjective, but some no-longer-active users feel there has developed a clique on the site that tends to dominate the discussions. It sounds like that old challenge of how a well-functioning group can ensure it remains welcoming to newcomers. There is also concern about the numbers of blogs that people post. In fact the “blogs” are was meant for blogs, not poems, but that’s how people use it. Again, we are looking at providing a better area – or areas for posting poems and getting feedback. We obviously need to distinguish between poems in progress and finished work; which neatly brings us back to the start of the recent discussion, brilliantly initiated by Chris: when is a poem finished?
Hence our desire to try to remedy this.
So, please do your best to help us by sending us your suggestions, phrased in ways we can actually respond to please.
Of the site’s key areas, which need changing? How?
What needs removing?
What bright ideas do you have for the site?
How can we improve the discussions, comments etc?
Buttons next each post – complain about this post?
Better moderation?
Better corralling of discussion topics?
Better design?
More aggressive moderation?
How should we settle disputes fairly?
have a look at these articles: http://ask.metafilter.com/74147/Internet-Forum-Moderation-for-dummies
Please make practical suggestions.
Thank you for your forebearance
Sun, 21 Feb 2010 04:28 pm
<Deleted User> (7164)
While making a few suggestions here, i'll try to also stick to the original topic,
ie; toward better discussions.
I think it would be a great idea to nip in the bud any contributions which have the slightest whiff of personal insult, placing a stress on the word personal.
Disagreements concerning the nature of a discussion will naturally occur depending on a person's knowledge and experience as a matter of course.It's when people resort to the blatant abuse and calling of names and obvious elitism is executed that discussions get out of hand often resulting in one or another leaving the site in a huff or are upset when they state their objections and those objections seemingly go unnoticed.
Maybe some kind of regulator or mediator is necessary at times like this and i do appreciate the admin team are busy. Perhaps when someone/anyone notices things getting out of hand when Paul can't be everywhere, that someone could send a polite email to admin asking them to look in on it?
It's so easy to misinterpret, as many of the regular people in discussions also know each other away from the site and their particular brand of humour and/or level of acceptable sarcasm/pedantry towards each other might not be as obtuse as an onlooker might suppose it to be. This occurs in some comments too.
Unfortunately, some of the newer poets, with respect, might not have observed the site from the sidelines before venturing in or galloping in with all guns blazing wanting to strutt their stuff or showcase their work.
Bearing this in mind, perhaps a short note on the posting of all work, in progress or not might be relevant to say whether advice/critique or generous/subjective comment would be welcomed. Poets do have an option to disable the comments now but surely it's up to the individual to decide if these measures are applicable for them.
Maybe some note to that effect can be included in the welcome email sent to all new users.
This is going off topic again but i did notice that the blogs section is recommended in the welcome pack(so to speak) to get their work noticed and commented on.
It might be a good idea to review the welcome email and what it says to a newcomer? :-)
Simple measures to my mind usually have the greatest overall effect. Of course there will always be exceptions.
ie; toward better discussions.
I think it would be a great idea to nip in the bud any contributions which have the slightest whiff of personal insult, placing a stress on the word personal.
Disagreements concerning the nature of a discussion will naturally occur depending on a person's knowledge and experience as a matter of course.It's when people resort to the blatant abuse and calling of names and obvious elitism is executed that discussions get out of hand often resulting in one or another leaving the site in a huff or are upset when they state their objections and those objections seemingly go unnoticed.
Maybe some kind of regulator or mediator is necessary at times like this and i do appreciate the admin team are busy. Perhaps when someone/anyone notices things getting out of hand when Paul can't be everywhere, that someone could send a polite email to admin asking them to look in on it?
It's so easy to misinterpret, as many of the regular people in discussions also know each other away from the site and their particular brand of humour and/or level of acceptable sarcasm/pedantry towards each other might not be as obtuse as an onlooker might suppose it to be. This occurs in some comments too.
Unfortunately, some of the newer poets, with respect, might not have observed the site from the sidelines before venturing in or galloping in with all guns blazing wanting to strutt their stuff or showcase their work.
Bearing this in mind, perhaps a short note on the posting of all work, in progress or not might be relevant to say whether advice/critique or generous/subjective comment would be welcomed. Poets do have an option to disable the comments now but surely it's up to the individual to decide if these measures are applicable for them.
Maybe some note to that effect can be included in the welcome email sent to all new users.
This is going off topic again but i did notice that the blogs section is recommended in the welcome pack(so to speak) to get their work noticed and commented on.
It might be a good idea to review the welcome email and what it says to a newcomer? :-)
Simple measures to my mind usually have the greatest overall effect. Of course there will always be exceptions.
Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:20 pm
Perhaps I live in a bubble but I haven't seen any rude blogs and unkind comments! I went to the first WoL gig last february and have found the site really interesting and creative. People are refreshingly honest but always constructive even if critical.
Tue, 23 Feb 2010 06:20 pm
<Deleted User> (7790)
Jane - you've been living in a bubble. Hatta - you're living up to your name - LOL.
Admin - I think you can write rulebooks till you are blue in the face. The problem is, getting people to read and remember. It's like going on a first aid course. Who on earth remembers enough to give resuscitation 6 months later? I think I'd be more in danger of killing someone with all that chest compression...
You also have the problem of renewing membership. For every one person who 'adapts' the way they play the game - another one joins, who may not be conversant with the rules.
I think it was Darren who said that argument, blood and gore was a natural part of WOL - it is an inevitability maybe. Sorry to sound fatalistic...
Without doubt some of us need to hone down our criticism, others need to be less sensitive, others need to agree not to even meet and there are so many grey areas within all this. I keep meaning not to comment and not to discuss but I find that hard. Someone chop my right hand off!
If I had to hazard a guess as to why new members are leaving Julien, it would be more to do with the sheer volume of blogs posted. Like it or not blogs is where people choose to post their poetry. Blink and your poetry just disappears now. Maybe you should think along the lines of restricting people to so many per month. That might also have a knock on effect on the quality. Or maybe, the route you are pursuing for separating poetry blogs from 'work in progress and advertising' may help. Having said that, I don't think the latter account for a very high proportion of what is posted.
Admin - I think you can write rulebooks till you are blue in the face. The problem is, getting people to read and remember. It's like going on a first aid course. Who on earth remembers enough to give resuscitation 6 months later? I think I'd be more in danger of killing someone with all that chest compression...
You also have the problem of renewing membership. For every one person who 'adapts' the way they play the game - another one joins, who may not be conversant with the rules.
I think it was Darren who said that argument, blood and gore was a natural part of WOL - it is an inevitability maybe. Sorry to sound fatalistic...
Without doubt some of us need to hone down our criticism, others need to be less sensitive, others need to agree not to even meet and there are so many grey areas within all this. I keep meaning not to comment and not to discuss but I find that hard. Someone chop my right hand off!
If I had to hazard a guess as to why new members are leaving Julien, it would be more to do with the sheer volume of blogs posted. Like it or not blogs is where people choose to post their poetry. Blink and your poetry just disappears now. Maybe you should think along the lines of restricting people to so many per month. That might also have a knock on effect on the quality. Or maybe, the route you are pursuing for separating poetry blogs from 'work in progress and advertising' may help. Having said that, I don't think the latter account for a very high proportion of what is posted.
Mon, 1 Mar 2010 02:40 pm
<Deleted User> (5593)
Some good point there Isobel.
I agree that 'blood & gore' is probably inevitable though, oddly, this doesn't seem to switch people off. Sad to say, most people seem to enjoy a bit of a ding-dong.
From the feedback we get, the main reason for people leaving the site is the increasing amounts of intimate conversations between two people, particularly in 'Comments'. People should remember that every comment they make may be read by tens, if not hundreds of readers who they do not know (i.e. it's not like chatting with friends on Facebook). Ask yourself the question, 'Would I be happy for this to appear in a newspaper?' because that is what you are effectively doing when you post anything on a site like this.
We are thinking of ways of accommodating this kind of intimate messaging without it hitting the public view.
As to the number of blogs. Admin has done an analysis of Blogs and determined who has posted what in both December and January. It is clear from this, that the vast majority of members are posting less than 5 blogs per month. Only 2/3 people are posting over 10 blogs. So restricting the number of blogs per person would not help that much.
We are thinking of different ways of organising Blogs - not limited to, but including, the split as Julian suggested (below).
Maybe this will develop into different ways of organising the site.
Any ideas welcome.
I agree that 'blood & gore' is probably inevitable though, oddly, this doesn't seem to switch people off. Sad to say, most people seem to enjoy a bit of a ding-dong.
From the feedback we get, the main reason for people leaving the site is the increasing amounts of intimate conversations between two people, particularly in 'Comments'. People should remember that every comment they make may be read by tens, if not hundreds of readers who they do not know (i.e. it's not like chatting with friends on Facebook). Ask yourself the question, 'Would I be happy for this to appear in a newspaper?' because that is what you are effectively doing when you post anything on a site like this.
We are thinking of ways of accommodating this kind of intimate messaging without it hitting the public view.
As to the number of blogs. Admin has done an analysis of Blogs and determined who has posted what in both December and January. It is clear from this, that the vast majority of members are posting less than 5 blogs per month. Only 2/3 people are posting over 10 blogs. So restricting the number of blogs per person would not help that much.
We are thinking of different ways of organising Blogs - not limited to, but including, the split as Julian suggested (below).
Maybe this will develop into different ways of organising the site.
Any ideas welcome.
Mon, 1 Mar 2010 06:01 pm
Hi Paul - re the intimate conversations between two people thing. (I guess I've just written one.) The thing is, this is one way in which I get a feeling of belonging on the site, by talking to my friends on here. And if you join in, even if you are new, you can strike up a friendship with a like-minded person quite easily and that is lovely. I don't think it is exclusive. But you are bound to get certain people on here that you just take to. Kindred spirits. Chat is a facility that can be used in this way, but you need to be on the site at the same time, and it can be a bit annoying keeping up with the person you're chatting to.
Mon, 1 Mar 2010 06:20 pm
<Deleted User> (5593)
Hi Ann,
Yes we are aware that some people find this kind of interaction useful. And that's why, as I said below, we're thinking of something other than 'chat' to facilitate it but take it out of the public domain.
Yes we are aware that some people find this kind of interaction useful. And that's why, as I said below, we're thinking of something other than 'chat' to facilitate it but take it out of the public domain.
Mon, 1 Mar 2010 06:28 pm
I take your point about twitter Paul. Too much of it can be tedious, particularly if it isn't witty. It is a difficult line to draw though. When I first joined the site I found discussion a bit intimidating - it was so high brow. I remember the likes of Malpoet and Moxy thrashing it out - I wouldn't have dared to join in. I guess there has been some dumbing down in certain areas. That has a plus and a minus side. I do still see quite intellectual threads posted though - I guess we can all pick and choose what we want to contribute to. I think all projects that grow really big, eventually suffer a little from that rapid expansion. The intimacy that comes with a small site disappears and you feel threatened and a bit lost in the constant flux of people.
It will be interesting to see how you handle that. It's not an easy nut to crack.
It will be interesting to see how you handle that. It's not an easy nut to crack.
Mon, 1 Mar 2010 06:44 pm
<Deleted User> (5593)
Well Isobel,to use an old cliche, I think you've hit the nail right on the head. One of the key issues that we have been thinking hard about is exactly how to provide environments/tools to accommodate diverse groups of people and their requirements on a rapidly growing site.
As the site is currently constituted it would seem that over the last 4 years the core number of active users hasn't changed that much - though the people have.
Maybe there is a certain finite number of active users on such a site as ours with its existing functionality.
The challenge is then, perhaps, to change the site to allow more users to 'feel at home' and continue to be active but maybe in different ways.
I'm sure we haven't all the answers but we've got some ideas we're currently kicking around.
As the site is currently constituted it would seem that over the last 4 years the core number of active users hasn't changed that much - though the people have.
Maybe there is a certain finite number of active users on such a site as ours with its existing functionality.
The challenge is then, perhaps, to change the site to allow more users to 'feel at home' and continue to be active but maybe in different ways.
I'm sure we haven't all the answers but we've got some ideas we're currently kicking around.
Mon, 1 Mar 2010 07:12 pm
I think as the more in-joke/personal stuff is usually on the poet's own profile page it should not be a problem, putting new people off etc. They probably won't see it. But maybe avoid too much of that on the blogg comments.
Things must have changed so much since the early days. I looked back at the bloggs for the first year of WOL and they seemed to be all from one poet!! I know there's a lot of blogging now, but I would be against trying to ration us. If one particular poet keeps putting stuff on there (apart from me of course! ;-)) well, no one has to read it. Scroll on through to the next poem I guess.
I took (almost) a week off last week and even in that time it was odd for me to see new people on the site and the character of things seemed to change. But it's all good! xxxxx
Things must have changed so much since the early days. I looked back at the bloggs for the first year of WOL and they seemed to be all from one poet!! I know there's a lot of blogging now, but I would be against trying to ration us. If one particular poet keeps putting stuff on there (apart from me of course! ;-)) well, no one has to read it. Scroll on through to the next poem I guess.
I took (almost) a week off last week and even in that time it was odd for me to see new people on the site and the character of things seemed to change. But it's all good! xxxxx
Tue, 2 Mar 2010 06:50 am
Did it say somewhere that there was a place to put your poems when you wanted some crit/feedback cos they weren't working? If so, where is it? Please? Just for a dinosaur poem wot I just wrote that isn't doing what I wanted it to do? Thank you dears! xx
Tue, 9 Mar 2010 07:14 pm
<Deleted User> (5593)
Ann, send it to Dermot at dermot@writeoutloud.net
and tell him it's an entry for 'Write Club'
and tell him it's an entry for 'Write Club'
Tue, 9 Mar 2010 07:41 pm
Thanks for answering Paul. I found the info in Features but . . I quote "But wait... don't send a poem to that address. Read your poem. Read The Stolen Child by W.B. Yeats, read Because I Could Not Stop For Death by Emily Dickenson... read just about anything written before 1923 by T. S. Eliot. Read your poem again, and if it's nearly as good as those mentioned then send it."
Don't think I'll bother. If I could write anything that good, I wouldn't need this service. Honestly! ;-)
Don't think I'll bother. If I could write anything that good, I wouldn't need this service. Honestly! ;-)
Tue, 9 Mar 2010 08:05 pm
We intend that there will be a place to put poems in progress, Ann. We know there is a demand for that. The problem at the moment is that anyone can yomp all over your poem and make rude or destructive comments. so we want to create an area that will be for just that sort of function: sharing ideas to help each of us bring our poems on a bit.
We just have not got it yet, I am afraid. Not until we get our new server (that's a computer term and nowt to do with seeking out the waiter for another drink).
We just have not got it yet, I am afraid. Not until we get our new server (that's a computer term and nowt to do with seeking out the waiter for another drink).
Tue, 16 Mar 2010 06:51 pm