[R.A. Briggs]

Heh. Sorry, didn't mean to overdo it. For me:


(It is a tiny violin.)

[David Rosenthal]

I haven't been able to participate this time, but looking through the threads it is clear that Gail and Cathy had their hands full with entries, comments, and controversies -- an unprecedented volume of each. Nicely handled, I say. And congratulations to the accomplished finalists as well.

David R.

[Nigel Mace]

While I am sure that Cathy and Gail have not been reading names first and judging second, I would like to suggest that entries would be better judged blind as is, I believe - perhaps naively - the normal practice in poetry competitions. As is often apparent on this site, it is true that some 'signatures' may appear to be pretty well known and so not much may be concealed by a 'blind' process - but there is always the odd chance of surprise. After all even J K Rowling recently went undetected - sorry, pun unintended - in a novel.

[Gail White]

Anonymous judging would certainly be great if we could figure out how to do it. Last year I devised an elaborate system which involved help from Alex -- I sent the poems with authors' names to him, and removed the names from my own copies. So in the end I had to ask him who the authors of the finalists were. But this is a great deal to ask of Alex every year!
Anyone with good suggestions on this, do speak up.

[Brian Watson]

I think this has been one of the best bake-offs as far as the poems themselves are concerned. The best five entries are outstandingly good. I enjoyed the range of style and subjects among the selections, too. Great work, Cathy, Gail. Thanks.

The middlebrow debate over taxonomy has been abysmal.

[R.A. Briggs]

Gail, awesome to hear that you are interested in doing things anonymously (and that you have done it in past years)! I take your point about the logistical obstacles. The lowest-tech solution is the one you've got: have one person keep track of author names and contact info, a a different person do the judging. But I see that this is a lot of work for the person doing the administration.

Another option would be to design an online submission form, with one script to email poems to the judges, and a separate script to record and store author, title, and contact info for each of the poems. Setup would take some work, but then once you've got it, you can use it over and over again. Making such a thing might be a fun computer literacy project for me at some stage (though I am definitely not a professional).

[Brian Allgar]

Originally Posted by Rachael Briggs

Another option would be to design an online submission form, with one script to email poems to the judges, and a separate script to record and store author, title, and contact info for each of the poems. Setup would take some work, but then once you've got it, you can use it over and over again. Making such a thing might be a fun computer literacy project for me at some stage (though I am definitely not a professional).

This is indeed how a number of poetry competitions seem to operate, and I don't think that setting it up would be a major effort for a computer professional. (Actually, I am a computer professional, but in a completely different field, so I can't volunteer.)

[Maryann Corbett]

Originally Posted by Gail White

Anonymous judging would certainly be great if we could figure out how to do it. Last year I devised an elaborate system which involved help from Alex -- I sent the poems with authors' names to him, and removed the names from my own copies. So in the end I had to ask him who the authors of the finalists were. But this is a great deal to ask of Alex every year!
Anyone with good suggestions on this, do speak up.

Gail, there's no reason it has to be Alex every year. We've had blind judging before by the simple expedient of having somebody receive the entries, strip the names off, and compile them into a document that's passed on the to the judge(s) without identifying info. I've done it--though not for three hundred entries, I admit. Yes, it's work, but blind judging is a value that I believe people would work for. We just need a volunteer name-stripper/record-keeper.

Editing back to add that Rachael's suggestion, which I just saw, doesn't sound bad either and should be looked at seriously.

[Elise Hempel]

I agree with any attempts to make blind judging more "blind." I also wonder -- and I'm taking a risk here: Should Alex be posting comments on any of the finalist sonnets? It seems that he may have more than just a little influence.

[David Rosenthal]

Originally Posted by Elise Hempel

I agree with any attempts to make blind judging more "blind." I also wonder -- and I'm taking a risk here: Should Alex be posting comments on any of the finalist sonnets? It seems that he may have more than just a little influence.

Alex is well-regarded by most active members of the Sphere for many reasons, but his critical observations are not usually given any more or less weight than anyone else's. At least that has been the case up until now, as far as I have observed.

David R.