Suggestion

Yeah, sounds good. Even if standard cherrypicking remained, it would be good to have a "user's choice" or similar running parallel with it. Dare I suggest a facebook style 'like' function? Or is that dumbing down too much? We have ratings anyway, right? They're just switched off, IIRC. Oh, and while I'm on it, what about the booktribes-esque mirroring comments on stories to the 'discuss writing' forum?

It's a good idea. Would need a decent cash prize to generate entries beyond the usual suspects, though.

heh - 'liking' my own statuses still tickles me. David - my head knows your right, but my heart says that there must be something ABC can find as a prize that will make the whole venture profitable. That's why I thought guaranteed publication somewhere. This may well be a bit naive, but I always figured that it wouldn't be that hard to pick up a prize along those lines from a company in return for a ton of advertising. In any case, my instinct is that low entry fees and high participation would be preferable to the reverse. B

OK - David F and I are working on this now. It's very like an idea called BookSlam that we had worked up into a big deal last year until Oxfam pulled the plug at the very last minute. But this looks like fun and we'll get back to you on it.

Crossed posts with BBF - I think you're right, and I also think ABC isn't in a position to take a punt on guaranteed entrants. Recent comps seem to have had really variable entry rates. But the model you describe is the best I can think of to make profit on these things.

The power of the crowd is indeed strong: however, I'm not so sure that it rarely fails. I'm not convinced by the quality of all of the winners of Pop Idol/X-Factor and all the other cloned talent programs. Of course, a few people who have come second have done very well.

Are you absolutely convinced about crowd-sourcing though? I still have my reservations. If, and I mean if, the contributory numbers were sufficient, I'd be inclined to agree it could work for ABC. However, the active membership seems somewhat less numerous than in the early heady days, from what I can gather. It would be so easy to distort any results with the current (active) user base. You are right though, ABC needs money. It's interesting that Enzo seems to imply that a tenner is quite a stiff entry fee. Nevertheless, I'd be very interested to see if nominal fees would generate significantly more numerous entries to any competition.

Yes, I agree.

I imagine clever maths types have worked out formulas with this kind of thing. Variables include: - number of people who know about the competition - whether they're people who would want to enter this sort of competition in broad and general sense - level of entry fee - ease of entry process - desirability of the prize - perceived chance of winning the competition This competition costs £26 to enter and is quite successful: http://www.poetrybusiness.co.uk/index.php/enter-online

If interested in making money, and this is fully half baked, have a host editor select 1 poem/story out of the [n] last posted, then let readers make tiny wagers on which one it is. This could be an interesting literary game as the host editor answers critical questions and leaves behind clever and even misleading clues, and let the bets be movable over time (quite interesting). The longer the game goes on, the higher the lucre, which can be split out amongst the site/author/host editor/winning readers. The secret work is revealed in the magazine with full critical analysis. Not to turn the site into a casino, but handled the right way it could be educational, massive fun, and put focus squarely on the work. I bet a load of people would suddenly start reading poems and stories.

Tony - Want me to knock up a Facebook fan page for ABCtales?

Yes please - but I thought we had one already. I've just tried to find it without success - so please do - and I'll post the Twitter story of the day on there as well!

I'm not the most techie soul on here as you well know. I went to my Facebook page and couldn't find the 'groups I am a member of' bit - so couldn't find the group concerned. Ho Hum. Enzo is now sorting a new one out! I don't want to ignore you. I don't agree with your user led cherrying system - it will end up like authonomy where cliques control the situation. That's why their figures seem to be dropping like a stone (if you can believe the alexa/ compare stats which I'm not sure you can). Otherwise if you want to help then please do - I am very open to suggestions!

My mug box might get to empty! Buy a mug - go on, you know you want one. On a more serious note it is a wonderful plan. I will ask a few publishers what they think would do for a cash prize of ridiculous proportions. Presumably this is a short story prize?

Well, in The Poetry World: "National Poetry Competition Britain's top single poem competition since 1978, the National Poetry Competition is judged anonymously by a new set of judges each year. Top prize is £5000, second prize £1000, third prize £500 and 10 commendations of £50." This is The Poetry Society's major competition. People would be interested at £1000, though.

Greater interest in ABC will be a good thing, but an increase in membership, paid or otherwise to access the competitions etc could mean a flood of submissions. The current limit of three per day may need to be reconsidered. Perhaps a system similar to that successfully used at UKAuthors, with two distinct submission days with a maximum of two pieces at any one time? I find it hard to keep up with the traffic on this site as it stands and wondered if any one, besides the editors, read every piece that fetches up here?

Ben, I think you've stumbled onto something good here, at least, I think it could be good. I like how it would take place over several weeks. Past competitions are basically over for the participants after the due date, with nothing left but to await the decision. This sounds like something that could keep interest over time. And whatever fee you guys come up with, keep in mind I'll be paying double...damn worthless $'s. Has the FB group been created yet? Gonna look for it now, but I guess I wont find Tim there, since he's sworn off FB til 2010.

The facebook fan page is in development. It's on there, but private at the moment until the content is sorted. Hopefully it'll be done over the course of next week. I'm sure Tony wouldn't mind me opening it up for additional input though - so anyone who is Facebook friends with me, feel free to drop me a line and I'll add you as an admin.

'New lamps for old! New lamps for old!'

"Is it a case of 'market share is everything', or some other mantra that serves as a substitute for thought?" Well, that's not necessarily a bad mantra. A large share of the market for selling groceries is a thing worth having. But in the case of ABCtales, we'd need to work which, if any, market we're competing in before worrying about how big a share we've got. Don't think a Facebook group will do any harm, though. If it did generate so much extra traffic that the site couldn't cope, the would suggest that there's lots of untapped demand for a creative writing website, which would be a good thing to know.

FTSE - I have sent you an email rather than go into it here. Suffice to say that I think we should try to keep positive. People are trying to throw around a few ideas, and that's a good thing. If they're unworkable, then so be it. Explain that and say why, and let's try to keep it constructive. Ben

Buk - You always get me curious, you always raise a lot of cut-straight-to-the-heart-questions, and I'm particularly interested in your 'what market, if any...' comment. I know the internet & comms is one of your 'things' - it's not mine. So when you say ABC should work out which market it's competing in (if any), what's the process for doing that? Where do you start? Is 'web-based writing community' a market in its own right? Or is ABC competing on a wider scale - with online communities generally? How would you go about answering those questions - or are there more pertinent questions that I'm missing to answer first?

Well, ABC would need to work what (if anything) it's selling, who it's selling these things to and who else is selling similar things to similar people (and for how much). And any other relevant factors in the market. So, for example, ABC could decide to sell a writing critiquing service - as has been suggested on here recently. Currently these service are mostly offered to people who are looking to take their writing up to publishable standard. Within that there's the general market (these providers are two examples of existing provision) - http://www.literaryconsultancy.co.uk/ - and more specific markets - http://www.poetryschool.com/?tutorials=1 If ABC is going to compete with existing providers for the same customers it would need to have a clear idea of the basis it would compete - price, quality of service etc. If ABC was going to provide the service to new customers, it would have to be clear about why these customers would want ABC's service when they don't want the existing ones that are on offer. A key complicated factor in this market is subsidy which both the providers I've linked to get a lot of. Obviously, while considering these issues, you also have to be considering how you're actually going to deliver the service and how much it will cost you to do so. "Is 'web-based writing community' a market in its own right?" It's a market in the sense that there are different web-based writing communities that people can choose between. But then, on that basic level, 'which pair of socks do I put on today' is also a market in that it's a choice. The question is whether online writing communities are likely to benefit financially from being chosen by users, any more than the socks benefit financially from being put on your feet. As a free community that doesn't sell services ABC doesn't benefit financially from increased use. 'Paid for web-based writing community' would be a market but I don't know whether it's a big enough market to be worth worrying about.

Suffice to say that I am following this discussion with great interest and taking it all in. There are two way of looking at this. If we had a community of 100,000 in which there were 20,000 active writers and the rest occasional respondents then we would have to split the site into a number of easily recognisable 'villages'. The obvious way to do this is by genre. This would make the site a valuable advertising tool and would attract attention from the larger social networking players. That may well not be possible as there may not be that many people willing to participate in such a way. On the other hand a community of 4-5,000 active members paying £10 per annum would allow one to provide a reasonable level of service and make the site attractive to some advertisers. These are the two essential routes to success and we are not close in either form, which, after 10 years, is worrying. My preferred route has always been the free one - I want to encourage creativity in as large a way as I possibly can - but maybe that is just a pipe dream. I would just like to clarify FTSE's assertion that the membership number on the front page is false. It isn't. That is the number of registered members we have. Some haven't been hard from for many a long year but they are still members and could, in theory, return. Over recent weeks I have had communication from around 30 old members who have returned to the fold - it does happen, but, admittedly, not enough. Of more interest to me is the phenomenon of the person who arrives, loads up material for a few days and then departs never to be seen again. I do find that a bit odd.

I suspect a lot of people find the site, post the masterpieces they have been lovingly nurturing for years, are disappointed not be immediately hailed a genius and lose interest. I know that's what happened to me (apart from the losing interest bit).

I think maybe people expect comments and when they don't receive them, disappear off to somewhere else. I still maintain that make or break is on user participation and a welcoming site. I suppose if you could build up a team of regular editors again, who had as part of their responsibilities a commitment to comment on anything they cherry pick, that might encourage others to follow suit. (they could also welcome new people to the site, etc etc). A toned down version of what Mark used to do so well. Some way of pointing users to 'recently commented on' would be great - a quick way to see where the buzz is. As a reader, I want to read the good stuff, and want to be able to get to it easily. As a member of the community, I want to be able to join in with lively discussion on what works and what doesn't in a piece. Currently, the latter isn't easy to find. As I've said, after this week I'm off work for quite a long time, and will gladly pick up a good chunk of the editing. But a team of half a dozen regular editors, regularly commenting, would be a good step forward I think. Perhaps a recruitment drive is called for? After all, ABC volunteers cost nothing - there aren't even overheads.

Yeah, kind of crossed posts with Dan, but that's my point too. And there's always the few who just want to see comments like: OMG!!1! LOVED IT ;) ENZO FTW!!1! GRATZ ON CHERRY w00T! and so on. And yes, this post *was* just a thinly veiled excuse for the internet speak. As you were.

In reply to FTSE's earlier ask on the value needed for a prize to really cause a stir - I think the answer is £10,000 for a short story. However this would need to be trebled in order to pay 'top' judges and market the prize effectively. Maybe we could live without the literary names on the judging panel but we would need people with real integrity behind them - and they would still need some funding as it's a lot of work. So, all in all, back of envelope stuff I would say about £25k would get you a good literary prize with a shedload of entries.

I think any volunteer editor would have to be a well respected contributor on the site. I would also prefer that they have some kind of portfolio of published peer-reviewed , selected work (that is they have appeared in selective anthologies or magazines or won competitions) Useful crit is indeed an art but if people fulfill those criteria, I am sure they can say i) What (if anything) was good about a piece ii) tactfully highlight any weakness and iii) make concrete suggestions for improvement One problem is that people invite crit and what they really mean is 'tell me how good I am', when such people seldom are. jude

"One problem is that people invite crit and what they really mean is 'tell me how good I am', when such people seldom are." Yes, yes, yes. I would go further. To paraphrase another member of the site, 90% is dross. Is that too harsh? Maybe, but in my experience, if you find 1 piece in 10 is a thoroughly good read, you're doing okay. That isn't to say that there's a load of stuff that could be made into a good read - and it's the editors job to tease the goodness out. However, I don't entirely agree that editors should be required to be good writers themselves. I think if people can offer good crit, that stands as a skill on its own - I'd happily take criticism from someone who is an awful writer, but is good at the three criteria you idenify.

I think Enzo is right, you don't necessarily have to be a terrific writer to be a reasonably effective critic. I suggest Jude is practising contra-airflow micturation if she thinks there is a horde of writers on here with the kind of portfolio she proposes. There are some, but they aren't necessarily likely - or obliged - to provide this service for nothing.

Lots of the regular folk on here, myself included have had bits and pieces published or had some recognition in competitions (vanity and self publishing excluded). It isn't difficult if you have a reasonable level of requisite talent and are prepared to work on your writing, revise and accept criticism. It is true that you don't need to write to give good critique, but there it seems easier to get potential editors to demonstrate their writing rather than thinking of ways they can demonstrate their critiquing skills. jude

Perhaps. I won't bother offering my services then.

I did say "I would also prefer ..." rather than "I would absolutely insist" jude

Yes, I understand where you're coming from, it is an easy way of judging suitablility, but I'm still not convinced it's the right measure. You'd be better off doing some kind of up front assessment - send a couple of pieces to a prospective editor, get them to comment and see what the quality is like. But anyway, the important point for me is that as a minumum all cherried peices should get crit, even if it's just a paragraph. Really, I think anything that's decent or has promise should get some kind of contructive comment from the editors. But that's quite an ask if only one or two are editing. Interested to hear Tony's views, too.

Yep, an up-front assesment might be better. The crit has to be good otherwise it is *almost* worthless. A lot of the comments I get on my work here are very nice and very encouraging but they do not help me grow and improve my writing. Sometimes I get a contructive comment and this is helpful to some extent but having paid to do a city lit poetry course with John Stammers (and it was very good) I realise you get what you pay for. A lot of the people who can give strong editorial feedback can't afford to do so for nothing. Is "very nice and very encouraging and sometimes helpful" going to be enough? jude

I don't agree. On this site it isn't forced like medicine, it's a core service: "...The site where you can explore and develop your creative writing skills, get support from our editors, publish your short stories and poems online, get feedback and writing tips and meet fellow writers, all for free." Other than "publish..online", every line in that statement requires some form of crit. Surely if you read that but didn't want crit, you'd go elsewhere?

"There's the idea that the way to get published is to do your homework, polish your piece to a certain academic level, and as soon as you have reached the requisite standard and passed your exams, agents will beat a path to your door." Well, there's published and published. I mainly write poetry and you could count on the fingers of one hand the living poets in this country who could make a living from it. Most of us are content with the odd piece here and there in one of the more widely acclaimed magazines. Over the past 3 years, I have made the grant total of £770 from writing - a £500 first prize, a £100 runner up prize, £100 from an American magazine and 2 x £10 payments from uk magazines and I consider that a success. I achieved that by doing exactly those things you mention. If people think they're going to land some kind of big deal, they misunderstand the market. I can't speak for writers of fiction/ novels as it isn't something I do but I would expect elevating writing to a certain standard, though guaranteeing nothing in terms of commercial success, is a good goal to have. I agree with Enzo about critique. As Liana once said, if you don't want crit and just want people to say how lovely your stuff is, then keep it in a notebook to show friends and family. We have discussed the possibility of having options for 'no crit', 'basic comments' and 'advanced crit' which I think UKA has. But I believe anything less than robust critique is a waste of time, so there should be just 'no crit' and '(advanced) critique' options only.

It isn't all in the 'can' at all. That makes no sense.

"But I believe anything less than robust critique is a waste of time, so there should be just 'no crit' and '(advanced) critique' options only" Agree completely.

Send for NWB, I think you'll find his critical faculties robust enough. He is rarely wrong, but even among those with the advanced critique option selected he would be unlikely to promote a rapid upsurge in membership.

In rare moments of niceness, I have given crit to a few Erics on this site, when they have requested it or bemoaned the lack of forthcoming comments. I always say it has potential (everything does) but does not appeal to me and to improve it he needs to do x, y and z. They have always thanked me and never walked off in a huff. Unlike here! http://www.abctales.com/forum/2006/05/31/refuge---unfinished-by-maisie jude

"Don't try to convince me, please tell me what you'll say to Eric." Hi Eric. If you don't wish to recieve criticism of your work, please tick the appropriate box when you submit the piece. People will still be able to make comments, but will be aware that you are not interested in receiving a formal critique. Cheers, Ben.

Wow - I forgot all about that, Jude. Cor blimey I wish Liana, Fergal, Rokkit and Spack (among others) were still posting regularly. And Andrew Pack, who once wrote a crit longer than the piece I submitted. Amazing. Well, water under the bridge. There are still people like that here, and many more out *there*, in the big scary world. This still is a great forum for discussing writing.

I enjoyed that thread from the past! The poem was terrible, or at least not worth a cherry to me. Maybe an editor thought it showed improvement over other efforts? Hmm... maybe it might work as Enzo says, until the next time.

A bit naughty admitting to that! I rarely recognise what (if anything) of mine is that elusive thing 'good'. I do know that it's more likely to be better using the 'spew' method above. Occasionally, something I go back to again and again will improve, but mostly it's just polishing turds. If I do offer some criticism, I am often polite and perhaps a little too indirect for some. The fact is I don't really know anyone on here well enough to be brutally honest, so I'm not. That said, if I do attempt something more than a proof-read, I do try to help, but who am I to assume I have the right to do so?

It is water under the bridge and as I have said elsewhere, people move on with their lives and I think forums are now a mature product having past the meridian. There are, as you say, still people like Liana, Fergal, Rokkit , Spack, Andrew Pack (and I would add Fish and Neil the Auditor), on the site and I am grateful for the work FTSE and Wilky have put in recently, but I fear we no longer have a critical mass. Maudlin nostalgia, I know, but I would also really enjoy a knees up in London Town. A night at Extra Time with good readers, loads of booze, just like this - http://www.abctales.com/node/141637 j

Heh - before my time, but many names I haven't heard in a long while. Lovely. And yes, I shouldn't have fotgotten Neil and Fish. Drew too, now I think of it. Do you really not think it's possible to bring in a new crop? Or motivate the current lot (including some of us on this thread) to get more invovled? I still feel like there's room for optimism on this site... is that naive?

I am not faulting the quality of current members, it is a quantitative problem. I would guess there used to be a core of 20 - 30 regular forum posters (that is people who contributed to several threads every week) with many more on the periphery. The question you rightly ask is whether we can bring in a new crop of regulars. I think we need to find out why the old regulars moved on as that may hold some answers. Optimism, yes but tempered with realism! jude

'passed the meridian' I didn't know (I have a problem with past and passed) so I asked the person who sits behind me and has a degree in English. I blame her entirely and will let her know she's doomed to fail. jude