[Roger Slater]

I suppose it's fairly common, Ed, though I would think that it's more common for people to arrive here based on a recommendation. I know that I have often told people to check out Eratosphere, and there are a few members here who originally heard about it from me. It's been a while but I believe I heard about Eratosphere from Carol Taylor back when I used to post at Gazebo.

The serendipitous stumbling upon a poem by Rick Mullin approach no doubt accounts for some members as well, but the idea I've floated isn't to place the entire site under the cone of silence, but only one or more workshop forums within it. There would still be lots of stuff left for stumbling upon. And some of those who stumble upon the site might be more inclined to join and become active members if they then learned there is a workshop alternative that takes place below the radar.

[Ed Shacklee]

Well, from where I sit, Roger, that makes a lot of sense, assuming it's not too much work for Alex.

Best,

Ed

[Matt Q]

Ed, Roger,

I also found out about the Sphere through a recommendation on another forum.

Since all the workshopping fora are now essentially hidden from Google I don't think anyone will be stumbling across posted poems whilst googling these days, so password protection wouldn't affect new members finding the site in that respect.

Michael,

Originally Posted by Michael Juster

I believe that critique is far more important to poets than just tweaking meter. Many times we get too close to our original vision & can't see that the poem on the page is different than the poem in our head. Also, we have many psychological defenses that push us toward the easy poem rather than the poem that is honest but hurts to write.

I am in complete agreement. These are the reasons I find peer critique so valuable.

-Matt

[Julie Steiner]

I was just about to repost that bit of Michael Juster's post, too. Amen, amen, alleluia. Although I would have included this bit:

Sometimes I start with an interesting premise but take it somewhere dull with great conviction. When Eratosphere was working well, we would have those types of discussions in a professional way.

It's the professionalism I miss. A certain level of rough-and-tumble is appropriate, and I admit I'm glad to see the hypersensitive huff off in a snit. However, I do mind when just basically decent people decide, "You know, the poetry side of things really isn't worth the ugliness anymore. I don't want to hang out at Eratosphere anymore." When those poets' critiques and personalities leave the mix, the community is the worse for it.

But that's a side issue.

[Matt Q]

For what it's worth: I'm a member of another poetry forum where they have two fora/boards which are simply invisible to non-members (unlike, say, Deep Drills here). They don't even show up on the main homepage menu unless you log in to the site. That means that even the titles of the poems posted on the hidden fora are hidden from Google, and so there's no need to use false titles. Once you've logged into the main site, the hidden fora are as visible as everything else, and you don't need another password to get in. This other site runs on the same software that this does site does, albeit a slightly more recent version, so presumably that might be an option.

Julie, I didn't add the end bit of the quote because I'm too new here to know anything about that.

[Matt Q]

Interesting post from Timothy Green, Rattle Editor, on their Facebook page.

He sets out Rattle's line on what being published online means and discusses the pros and cons that approach and why he's adopted what he claims to be the "industry standard", which seems to be that anything that is publicly viewable on the web and can be found by a search engine is considered public.

He also says that, "anyone who is serious about publishing their writing ... and is already careful about keeping their poems away from search-bots".

[W.F. Lantry]

Is it ethical to cut and paste Tim's facebook post here? Was permission sought, and given? At least on facebook, he still "owns his own words," he can edit or delete them as he sees fit. But if he has neither the knowledge nor the ability to do the same here, is it cricket to reproduce his text in its entirety?

Thanks,

Bill

[Michael Cantor]

I agree with Bill. Let it go, Matt.

[Norman Ball]

The real tragedy is that in a world where knitting is more popular than poetry, the latter still cannot resist policing its presence into ever smaller circles. I bet there isn't a school of knitters making the case for one needle.

Outmaneuvered by a bunch of woolen socks. How darned sad.

[Matt Q]

Bill,

I have to say that my ethical antennae didn't tingle, otherwise I wouldn't have posted it. After all, it's intended as a public announcement, it's made in a public place and I've linked to the source. It seems to me that producing the text in it's entirety is more cricket than selectively quoting from it, but quite possibly you are right to be concerned. I don't have strong feelings about it, and I've cut it from my post above and left the link and short summary.

All,

In reply to one of the comments on the Rattle Facebook post I've linked to (Dave Bonta's comment) people are posting the names of journals that take previously published poems, if that's of interest, you have to scroll down a fair bit. Maybe, when people are done adding to it, I'll make a list (it spans a number of different replies) and post it somewhere on the Sphere. I'll probably do so for my own reference anyway.

-Matt