[Maryann Corbett]

Originally Posted by Tim Love

All I know is that they say "[i]we need to have a public framework against which the judgements we make about which living writers we should devote most attention to can be justified.

I see that the site has an academic affiliation, and so I suspect that "we" is the community that teaches creative writing. That explains what I'd consider an overemphasis on a poet's academic role in this theoretical progression. What about Larkin, the librarian who didn't like to give readings? What about someone like Alison Brackenbury, who works in the family metal-finishing business? What about our local Welshwoman, Ann Drysdale?

I guess they couldn't get away with merely reading the poets' work.

A sad commentary. Perhaps they should title the document "How to know who's hot so you know whom to pay attention to and whom to ignore; never mind what you actually like."

I think docs like this can be useful to [budding] poets who don't know how the poetry biz works.

Emphasis on "budding," I think. Or perhaps we should substitute "student."

And for poets who want to be read there are reminders that there's more to it than writing poems.

That's true enough.

For UK/Welsh people it gives a list of mags worth submitting to.

Those who can afford it have used Duotrope to generate such a list. There are also running totals of Pushcart wins by magazine.

"... the explosion in the number of magazines, and the expanding number of little publishers, self-publishers, and e-pubs." - these aren't easy to assess though, partly because longevity is a factor in their significance. Some worthwhile e-pubs have already disappeared.

That's true too. But the number of small magazines means that a poet who's trying hard will probably skip right over this list's idea of level 1 and get acceptances at multiple magazines. Another matter this list ignores is the growing practice of making massively multiple submissions of any one poem (which I dislike, but I don't run the po world).