[Max Goodman]

What's the protocol now for sharing information about publications members might be considering submitting to? Eratosphericals seems unused. (I, for one, would almost certainly miss anything posted there.)

Something helpful about a publication that was mentioned recently in Accomplished Members was just posted on page 10 of a thread on a different topic. Is there a better way to bring such information to each other's attention? Is it poor form to start a General Talk thread with the publication's name in the title?

(This is less about that particular post, which shares information that is in the journal's submission guidelines and therefore is unlikely to be missed by someone considering submitting there, than it is about sharing less obvious things.)

[Maryann Corbett]

Since I'm not a moderator, I can't say what would pass muster these days. And as we are being allowed to condemn a specific journal nearby on this very board, maybe everything is now allowed.

But this is the history I remember. (YMMV, which means Your Memories May Vary.) Eratosphericals began when several of us told of our bad experiences with a particular poetry book publisher. This was deemed unacceptable by the administration here. Then it was decided that badmouthing presses wasn't acceptable on Eratosphericals, either, so that board became useless, especially since you need to know a password to get in.

If I wanted to say something good about a particular journal--that its editors were fast and friendly, perhaps--I can't imagine that such statements would get me in trouble. And I did complain (last year?) about a laughably bad experience with PN Review (though it had a happy ending), and nobody said boo.

Max, what sort of information sharing did you have in mind? Maybe the current moderators can respond by telling us what we can and can't say.

[Max Goodman]

Originally Posted by Maryann Corbett

Max, what sort of information sharing did you have in mind?

Good experiences with editors. Bad experiences with editors. Political slants that journals don't openly advertise. Anything a member might want to know when considering submitting to a journal.

[Maryann Corbett]

Okay, then I'll start and we'll see what happens.

Smartish Pace, though I often enjoy what they publish, can be maddening to submit to. When they were looking for reviews of Austin Allen's book, I sent them one and never heard anything back. I only found out that they had published it when someone else told me, many months later.

They haven't responded to queries about poem subs, and they changed submissions systems in midstream so that one doesn't know where one stands. And they keep poems so long that if one makes simultaneous submissions (I do), one may end up having to withdraw everything in the batch.

I'm sure they don't like that, and that means they'll be happier if I give up on them.

An added thought: The old poetry board The Gazebo had a section entitled, I think, "Pats and Pans" where people could post submission experiences good and bad.

[Max Goodman]

Thanks for sharing that, Maryann.

I feel that I ought to contribute, too, so I'll give a shout out to Jerome who responds to Lighten Up Online submissions very quickly.

(My negative submission experiences are pretty far in the past, and were shared here when they were current.)

Originally Posted by Maryann Corbett

An added thought: The old poetry board The Gazebo had a section entitled, I think, "Pats and Pans" where people could post submission experiences good and bad.

That would be really helpful. Whether or not we have a separate forum for that, I think separate threads on each journal would be a lot more helpful than a single thread for all pats and pans.

[James Brancheau]

I think a separate forum for that would be a good idea, Max. I seem to remember that on alsop, Maryann. I don't remember that it was called that, but that was back before I was even submitting, so probably you're right. (In fact, it was the first thing I thought of when I read the original post.) However it might happen, it's a good idea, Max.

[Maryann Corbett]

Putting on my "fair and balanced" hat: If we do create some way to post info about journals, we want to be careful not to encourage whining and insult. I've seen enough of this elsewhere to want to warn against it.

Everybody has had a bad experience somewhere. Editors are human; they have to deal with illnesses, deaths, new babies, heaven knows what. They may be putting their own money into keeping a journal alive.

It's very nearly a rule that responses take longer than advertised. Duotrope, which aggregates people's response times, may well be a better indicator of the spread. I consider it worth the money. If you don't submit very often, you might subscribe to Duotrope for just a month and explore it.

Journals that charge for the use of submission managers like Submittable are sometimes ripped up one side and down the other. People also complain that their submissions don't progress from "received" to "in progress," which is true but in my experience isn't meaningful. Most complaints about sub managers aren't worth making; the ones that are concern the rare times when one doesn't receive a reply of any kind. Again, I think the usual reliability of sub managers is worth the money.

I may be rambling here, so I'll stop.

[James Brancheau]

True. I wasn't taking into account the obvious dangers of abuse. I think aside from the venting and score-settling, it might be a useful, interesting forum.

[Maryann Corbett]

It could be managed without creating an additional forum. An ongoing thread like the one entitled "Post your GOOD news" could serve the purpose.

[Roger Slater]

As far as "received" versus "in progress" in Submittable, it is indeed a meaningless category. The terms that Submittable uses are deceptive, since a poem that is marked as "received" may well be under active and careful consideration, and a poem that is marked "in progress" may not have been read by anyone. It's a technical issue that has to do with the way the editors who use Submittable choose to process and distribute the submission among themselves. It has nothing to do with the actual progress of your poem's consideration. Submittable really ought to eliminate that column entirely.