Blue tack

Been wondering 'bout that meself lately. Even allowing for personal taste differences, some of the recently cherry picked work is not of the standard it was a few months ago - at least thats how it seems to me. I'd hate to think that that comment may discourage some, because all people who write do it because they love it, at the end of the day, and that's great. I remember when l joined the site, the cherried work was practically always stunning, and its often not nowadays.

Yep I go with that, things have changed. And if you do get a cherry you may get the 1 * treatment. from other readers.

I hear what you say and we will investigate this issue over the next few days. I'm not saying that the Editors have got things wrong - only that we will raise this again at our next regular meeting. I would be very grateful if you could let me know which stories/poems you feel (a) should be cherry picked and are not and (b) are cherry picked and shouldn't be. Don't worry, I won't remove any cherries! But if you would like to e-mail me in total confidence I'm on: tcook@abctales.com. The editors and I will have a chat about this early next week. I'm sorry it won't be earlier but I'm going on a few days much needed break. Many thaks for raising this issue but remember that all these things are subjective and often one man's meat is another woman's poison. All the best, Tony Cook, The Chief Exec.

The cherries equalling 1 * happens. Sad and pathetic, but true.

Thinks I am the case in point

Glad to see your post tony. This subject has been raised many times in the past only for ABC to fall back on the 'subjective' get out clause. This is all very well but as you can see from the above, some of the cherries and stories/poems of the day are truly dreadful no matter what kind of subjective spin you put on them. I wonder if it has ever put anybody off the site - both readers and writers (and publishers - there's a thought)- should they log in and see some dreadful pap featured as 'the best of writing on ABC'. I know there are many others out there ( both the cherried and the uncherried) who share this thought. Thanks for listening.

Dear Tony, If you put a link to my work under 'The Best Writing at ABCtales' then everyone will be happy. Justice must Prevail. Clifford Spab Poet Laureate

i think it’s a bit of a wimp out to say that the quality of a poem is entirely down to taste. of course there is bad poetry. I’ve written some, and elsewhere on these threads people have talked about posting stuff to the site that is crap [as opposed to critically acclaimed] i have no problem at all with people posting anything they want, whether it is good or bad. the best thing about the site is its accessability, and the way that it encourages people to write who otherwise wouldn’t bother. however bad a piece of writing is, i think it is churlish to give it 1 *; this only discourages writers who may possibly go on to write better stuff what IS wrong is when abc presents stuff that is poor as being some of the best. this has to be damaging, for the reasons mentioned by stormy. i can’t understand how this happens, and i know that there are much better writers than me who think the same way

It's a tricky one, this subject. Personally, I do not envy the editor's role, it's too close to that of a referee. Everyone curses you and thinks they can do better, or that your decision is wrong. It also begs the question, what makes good writing? Obviously there are those who have a tantalising grasp of language, others have a brilliant storytelling talent. Some marry the two and it's a happy and entertaining union. Others simply have a joy and enthusiastic quality to their work or a gift for comedy/atmosphere/irony. The way I view it is that ABC is a microcosm for publishing; good and 'lesser' writing is rewarded in equal measure. It reflects readers' tastes. There will always be a market for pulp fiction. There will be a smaller niche for heavier prose. I dislike the ideas of cliques as much as most fairminded people. I can't honestly say what the answer is but I think it is wonderful that people can speak their minds and be responded to intelligently, although no solution will please everyone. (Scratches head and goes of in search of navel).

The only way to ensure consistency is to have only one editor (not really practical) or to scrap ratings/cherries altogether. I think cherries should stay as they provide something of an incentive for amateur writers like meself. I really don't think there's a major problem with the current system. A few people may be put off if they see a crap story labelled as the best of ABCTales, but the site is clearly doing well. The number of stories posted seem to be growing fast (5000 up only the other day, now how many?). Where's the problem exactly?

can i be your friend sly bitch? and are you friends with ike and tina?

I am so glad someone has highlighted this problem. I was having a conversation with a fellow abctaler about this, this weekend. I have to say that I was rather bemused at my poetry being cherry picked as even I realise that it is not of the standard of other writers on this site. However, if this system is going to be kept in place then we all just need to realise that each editor has his/her opinion on what constitutes good writing. I think cherries are irrelevant as if you are happy with what you have written then that is all that really matters. Sarah.

Can I also just add in reference to oranj's comment that I don't hide under pseudonyms!!

My near-namesake has opened up a right can of cherries, after several preliminary prisings of the lid. The theme is probably one of the most important yet raised in the forums. It concerns all contributors as well as all the staff at ABC, and is the central theme of 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance': quality. On a platform such as this, open as it is to all aspects of writing and to most levels of accomplishment, (I say 'most' since we have not to my knowledge yet heard from Mr. Heaney), there is bound to be a wide range of work of varying quality. This is as it should be. This is the strength of the site. The problem occurs when truly poor work is lauded by the editors. This not only gives a bad impression to new readers, it discourages the other contributors and devalues the really good work which has previously been chosen. I know of several people who are considering removing their work from the site because they don't want to be associated with the 'dross of the day'. It is a great disappointment after having told one's friends and colleagues what a great site ABC tales is, only for them to find sub-primary school pieces chosen to represent the site. I am not being over-dramatic when I say the future of ABC Tales hangs by this thread. (OK, I am being-over dramatic, but that's my job).

have to say i have been put off posting lately ... will send mail to tony ...

Hate to seem ignorant but what's a 1 *; ?

a one star

I can't believe these conversations! As long as there are no clear criteria for what is defined as good, then the giving of cherries remains entirely subjective. I think there is some REAL CRAP on this site, but whose to say it's not mine? And of the items I've posted why do 3 deserve cherries and 3 don't when I believe they are much of a muchness (except for two of them - one cherried, one not, which I think were lovely) See ...subjectivity again. I shan't e mail Tony with my idea of what is crap/not crap - but it would perhaps be a good idea to have some criteria -althoiugh god knows where you'd start and then it would be gate keeping wouldn't it? And this is an access for everyone site? Ore are we going to get inclusive - and have stuff turned away because its not up to scratch? So -no cherries but you post something and it doesn't get chosen at all - because the editors gate keep and keep out the crap? Oh No! Subectivity again.....@!#$ I knew I shouldn't have dropped all that acid in my youth - its doen my brain in, Brian.

Is getting strained. A writer's best friend is a hard-nosed editor, who will tell you when you're writing crap. Praise for rubbish demeans us all. A good editor is an objective editor. 'Subjectivity' is a cop-out for a crap editor.

As one of the crap editors who say choosing stuff is somewhat subjective I will answer all you pseudonyms. I probably shouldn't as a) it's not professional and b) I'll probably get stick from the office, but as you seem to be so het up about it I'll be honest with you. I read a lot of stuff and I try to pick the best. Sometimes I see that an individual writer has improved , there is no other grading system so if I think they deserve it I cherry them. I believe all the `best writers on the site who uncannily enough seem to be some of the most vociferous on the discussion site, get cherried and acknowledged. How about a bit of self-reflection behind those bruised egos, having to share your cherries with lesser mortals. If I've offended anyone with my selections I apologise, I try my best, but we can all make mistakes. I suppose mine are more public.. I am the editor who cherries the most therefore this is my territory, that is this `discussion`. I think `koala Mersey` is frankly talking out of his plimsolls, of course it's subjective in the end, where's the flipping plumbline, I thought you lot were all post-modern, am I not the only Liberal Humanist? Finally I defy anyone to do this job and not get stick, we writers and I write on the site, obviously do not cherry my own stuff and felt more of it should have been cherried, are incredibly vulnerable, egotistical and very opinionated. When reading so much varied stuff you try to be `more` objective`. You people have the luxury of imagining that you'd be so good that people would love your choices, I thought that at the beginning, being an arrogant so and so, reality soon broke in when the discussion room got going. I have to expect criticism, but I will listen and will be vigilant. You guys, shucks you make me bleed yer know!

Reading over my last thread I didn't acknowledge those who were more affirming, smells of crass defensiveness on my part, sorry,

aiming

Not all those that are vociferous on the boards believe themselves to be the best writers, nor have huge ego's Mark - thats a bit unfair. And I also dont hide behind pseudonyms.

Proud, also, to be a liberal humanist, here. Having been on all sides of the fences, from editor, to columnist, to author, to competition judge, to competitions' winner (and loser)... The reality is that writing and 'critiquing' always has been and always will be subjective. (I have a posted 'article' to that effect on this site titled "Poetic opinions"). Whatever criteria are decided upon to deem 'good or bad', at the end of the day they are subjective, based on those drawing up the criteria. There is no 'collective universal truth' - Hell, there is not even a 'universal consensus' in the academic world if anyone wants to start flaunting BAs, MAs, etc. The same is true amongst the world of journalists and published authors, which I move in. Tony Cook hit the nail on the head when he said "one man's meat is another man's poison." As for 'rating systems' (be it by the readers or editors) there is no such thing as a flawless system. Whatever Tony Cook and his staff decide, they will never achieve a 'system' which will meet with everyone's approval. They have both my sympathy and admiration. As for those who want to rate any of my postings 1*'s simply out of churlishness, well that's fine by me. Not only will I not lose any sleep over it, I shall continue supporting ABC and spreading the word via my website and email lists. For all those hurling bricks, my question would be "And what are you doing to try and give 'aspiring writers' some exposure and maybe a lucky break?"

Aspiring writers, yes. Crap, no. Perhaps it would make things easier if there were no 'cherries', the only criterion being a blurb similar to that on a dust jacket: Excellent read! Mark Yelland Brown, Absolute tosh! Disgusted in Dorking, Deep and sensitive - Emily Dubberley, Too much waffle - Mandylifeboats, etc. etc.

This is a tough one. We have had so many bitter rows about cherries and stars that it is tempting to just say sod it and let the readers choose for themselves. There are two issues here which need to be separately considered. The first is the 'oh, my piece didn't get cherried and its better than one that did' to which the answer is, well if it genuinely is, then what real difference does it make. The second, is a more valid point - does it put people off when they read a cherried or story of the day that is not really of very good quality ? For myself, it no more puts me off than stopping buying from Ottakars if I buy a bad novel. What it may well do is mean that I don't read another story by Alfred J Patchy if I read one that sucked. There are objective standards, such as phrases that run well, images that are evocative, characters that ring true and are interesting and dialogue that one could actually read aloud. However, there has to be a level of subjectivity - I've read Sci-fi stories on the site and hated them, but then, I hate Sci-Fi. On the whole, I think I've read more bad poetry than bad prose, but then, I'm no poet, so I'm not in the best place to judge. Maybe we should get it clearer in our own heads what the cherry actually means. It doesn't mean that abc are paying the author money, or that they are saying it ought to be published, or that it might be published. What the cherry says is here is a piece of writing that the editor thought was worthwhile. And for my money, I agree with Mark. If someone does a piece of work that is leaps and bounds ahead of their previous work, why shouldn't it be cherried ? If it bothers anyone that much, just ignore them. Editors aren't in the position of being able to give in-depth analysis, due to the sheer volume. A cherry is just a way of an editor being able to indicate that yes, out of the 200 stories they read that week, they really liked eight or nine. Go and read reviews of anything, and you'll find wildly varying opinions. Reviews and criticism can only give you a hint, it is no substitute for your own opinion.

Hey wolfgirl!forget the writing stick with prolonged sex,there could be a future innit for you.

if it's subjective, then instead of calling it Poem of the Day [which suggests that there has been an objective and expert assessment of quality], call it Poem That Mark Likes.

sorry, mark. what i mean i this: there is a degree of subjectivity in identifying good writing. but on a site like this, where anyone can post anything, there is inevitably writing that is undeniably bad. my objection is when the latter gets put on the front page, and undermines the site. none of this has anything at all to do with how i feel about my own work, and i expect that that goes for the other people who have raised concerns too.

I must quickly add that I am not the only sub-editor, but I cherry the most . Also my stated position is only `my` opinion and is not the official ABCtales opinion, that is coming soon,

Having read some of the posts it seems that the argument is not being fully understood. The 'subjective' issue is about whether one likes a piece or not. There is plenty on ABC that I dislike but would never criticise because, despite my subjective feelings, it is well written and possibly deserves to be on the front page and cherried. Robert's post above is what we should be discussing. Why, on a writing site, does a piece that is very badly written get praise. You cannot argue that poor spelling, bad grammar, stories with no endings, I could go on ad infinitum, are matters of subjectivity. Equally, although some seem to be saying that ' my piece was better than that one yet it wasn't cherried' my argument is not coming from there. That is entirely subjective and is not worth pursuing. If anyone still wants to try and convince me that poor writing is subjective then I would say, in that case, that literacy teachers are an unnecessary expense and next time my son's essay gets 2/10 I'll refer them here.

Hello ABCtalers, Thanks for all your comments and thoughts. I would like to talk a bit about why we set up ABCtales and how we are doing. This will hopefully explain the issues that have arisen. ABCtales was set up by John Bird, the co-founder of The Big Issue. He wanted to provide a place where everyone could be creative. So we attract writers but we also encourage people who have perhaps not written since school or who are just looking for a creative release. We want to reach across the community into prisons, hospitals, homeless groups, schools, businesses etc. and bring peoples writing and voices together. Much of what we feel ABCtales can offer is a place where people can share experiences. This adds to the vast pot of work and makes it a great mix of work from a vast mix of people. We are platform for new writers but also to giving people the opportunity to have a creative voice that can be shared without inhibition. In terms of literary standards we have several. One of the unique things about ABCtales is that we can showcase people’s work in a variety of forms. Our in-house literary agent will take on the best work to show publishers, our magazine publishes a small proportion of the good work. On the site we have our daily picks, which are selected from a database of 5,000, but we can only use those that are PG or U rated so everyone can read them. This does limit the work we can select and we obviously want to give the public a wide indication of work that people have contributed. We pick our writer of the week from recommendations from the users and editors. Picking cherries is a precarious business. We have two part-time editors whose opinions are subjective. In publishing, companies tend to go with what sells the most (or what is likely to). We are not under that pressure so we can go for a lot of unconventional things, pieces that may not fit a traditional ‘literary standard’ but that has something special, an idea or experience that we thought was good. We are lucky that we can also take advice from our readers and give that work exposure too. Yet even in the publishing world you can find enormous amounts of work that is very certainly a small groups taste. I receive hundreds of books from publishers and am quite aware of the subjectivity that exists; I can honestly say I am very surprised at the quality of writing that often gets published by them. ABCtales is a work in progress. It’s the first website to actively encourage writers and ‘non-writers’ to share in the storytelling and writing process. It’s the first to say that everyone has a story. It’s the first to prove its commitment to writing by publishing a free magazine that everyone can enjoy. We wanted to bring democratic freedom into the writing world and this is just the beginning. Thanks for your thoughts, continue to let me know what you think by posting here or emailing me directly. I am more than happy to set up a page of reader recommendations as I have mentioned before if anyone wants to send me stuff for it. Thanks also for your support, Diana dbird@abctales.com

Am I the only person to get particularly irritated by people posting snide comments but not having the courage to use their real names? I have used aliases but only to participate in some of the more surreal, witty and really enjoyably silly threads. I would never post something critical/nasty without revealing my identity. I have too much respect for the writers on this site. Unfortunately, like Ivory, I am now being put off from posting. It would be a great tragedy if such warm and witty people like Ivory were driven away from the forums and it would be a greater loss if other writers left ABC because of a few spiteful comments. Are cherries and stories/poems of the day such coveted things that we are losing our sense of perspective? I thought that this was a community and generally I've been impressed by the warmth and talent here. I've unburdened myself now. Sorry guys but all this is a little rich for my blood; I'm easygoing and generous but I may well not post again.

I think a lot of fuss is being made about something quite minor. Cherries are a nice way of boosting the confidence of writers, and Mark's approach of giving them to someone who shows development and improvement in their writing is an excellent idea. In reality, though, my opinions of pieces and writers has nothing to do with the amount of cherries they have- I have told my favourite writers on the site personally that I enjoy their work, which I hope will be worth more than a cherry. As regards Robert's point, however- there have been some strange choices for cake of the day lately- and I happen to know that 'Monkey' was a deliberate attempt to write a sh*t poem. Seeing it on the front page was quite surreal...

Wolfgirl, that would be a shame, you are one of the few people who make it fun to read the discussion forums. I would not have started writing again had it not been for ABC. I have been given kind encouragement from the people who work here, which has made a huge difference to me. I like it that ABC is so inclusive of different styles. Had I felt it was only for proper writers I would not have tried to put stuff here. I remember how thrilled I was getting my first cherry after lots of dismal attempts. Maybe there should be a special category for the writers like Ivoryfishbone and Eddie Gibbons, who are reccomended over and over again by other writers? It is beginning to seem like a wonderful revolution which is turning sour, and it mustn't. ABC is a BRILLIANT site, it is the best thing in my life (ok am sad git) but please don't knock ABC's sytem of judgements just because it cannot be perfect

although i do not agree with mark's method ... and think that perhaps if i felt i had been cherried for improvement i would feel patronised ... i think that if this is the editorial policy of the site then so be it ... there is a point at which those at HQ have to say that is how it is and tough ... i would be happier with an editorial policy where each piece of work was judged on its own merit ... which would mean the editors reading the work anonymously ... but on a site like this that can't happen ... and fair enough ... i think diana has been clear about the aims of the site ... i am not overly bothered by the great cherry debate ... good work speaks for itself as has been stated ... cherried or not ... what does concern me is the work that appears on the front page ... this is the gateway to the site and many people's first impression will rest on what they see as "the best writing on ABC" promoted there ... this reflects not only on the site but on all the writers on it ... but i am glad to see that the editors are taking the issues raised by the users seriously ...

Hi all, I have read the above threads and one adage springs to mind: "You can't please all of the people................." AJ :>)

I can only echo what Liana, Stormy, Robert and Ivory have said, especially regarding the work that appears on the front page. I don't think there should be a separate site for anybody. I have stated before that I believe in the democracy of writing, though I will add that this democracy extends to challenging aspects of the site that appear to let the rest down. I am glad that the editors have joined the debate. This is a healthy sign and it bodes well for the future. I was lucky enough to receive my share of cherries in the early days of ABC Tales, so that is not an issue with me. I too have had many pieces of work receive low star ratings but I just ignore them. If this is happening to other people who feel aggrieved by it, I suggest you amend your 'my details' form and answer 'no' to the prompt 'do you want your stories to be rated?' My parting comment to the editors is: don't be fooled by somebody's 'site presence' in the threads, and don't mistake the writer for the writing.

Well said, Eric! I, too, take no notice of cherries and ratings. Postings on the forums seem to be rapidly disintegrating, which is a dreaful shame as the input from people such as the Fish, Andrew, Stormy et al was such an invaluable contribution to the site. How about overcoming the vagaries and pettiness of 'human nature' here and getting back to something akin to 'normality?

Eric? I am far too young and good looking to be mistaken for Eric.

ok diana. i've emailed tony saying, among other things, how much i appreciate the site. as has become clear, the only issue worth arguing about is the front page, and the impression it gives. when you talk about "the daily picks giving the public a wide indication of work that people have contributed", could this not be done by moving the random story feature to the front page? i would think that somebody visiting the site and clicking the story or poem of the day, would be expecting to see something that represents the best of the site, not something that represents the site as a whole. i hope that this is constructive.

I have been reading this thread for a couple of days now, it seems to be an issue that a lot of people are passionate about and I can understand why. Writing, for me anyway, is a highly personal thing, a window to my soul and a kind of release. Posting on this site or anywhere else never fails to leave me feeling exposed and the cherries and yes even the ratings help to eleviate that..(or help me deal with critisism) I'm not a trained writer, have hardly been published and frankly don't have the time to devote to it. ABCTales is a way of answering the need I have to try to show people what it's like inside my head, and for that alone I love it.

Nice to see that we are all now discussing the more relevant issue, which is, does the Story and Poem of the Day reflect on the site as a whole ? If you were a new reader, they might well be a good place to start, and I can see that they could easily put you off if they were particularly badly written. Maybe I'm not reading them enough, I haven't seen any particularly awful ones. (But then, I never read Poem of the Day, to be fair. ) But I might read Stormy's, because his prose is so good. Cherries have to be dished out somehow, and I've got nothing better to suggest (save, like Robert, I think the heading should say 'Stories that caught our editors eye' rather than the very best of abc) - but if there is quality control anywhere on the site, it really ought to be on Story and Poem of the Day, or they aren't really worth having. And again, shouldn't it be 'Mark's Story of the Day' or 'Other Editor's Poem of the Day' - would that take some of the sting out of it ?

Ooops, sorry Eddie, must've been late. Well that's one of my excuses, anyway. Not sure if you want to hear any of the others... Well said anyway (as I said).