Workshopping and ABCtales

Think it depends what kind of feedback/critique suits you. If you need to be reassured that certain things work, while picking up the odd tip about what doesn't work, then ABC works fine. For some people, that's all they need to keep making progress. If you need an in-depth workshop, then maybe notso.

I agree wholeheartedly, that in-depth critique between writer and reviewer should be private. In the case of ABC's open forum, maybe, as on some other writing sites, a level of required critique could be selected by the writer prior to submitting a piece of work. As it stands at the moment, as has been illustrated by the on-going discussion on another forum, sometimes critique can be rather daunting for a newly-fledged writer - however 'helpful and constructive' that critique may appear on the surface to others.

I'm going to have to call you out on this one. In writing, the term 'wrokshopping' - whenever I've heard it used, at least - refers to the group working together to offer feedback and suggestions for improvement. The great thing about being able to see other people's comments online is it can spark ideas or help you articulate your own critique - thus helping other posters become better at giving feedback themselves. I've found it immensely helpful when one person's feedback has prompted another to say, 'I totally disagree, because x y z', or different posters have provided me with different alternatives. Abc already allows for private feedback via the email system. It's hardly rocket science.

And what you end up with then, is a museum of writing online, where everybody wanders around reading and thinking to themselves, that crap, or thats great. Thrilling. In other words, because some people are 'fearful' everyone should shut up?

ABC isn't the best place to receive critique on your writing or poetry...It's inefficient, and there are far better places to accomplish this. There is more to this place though, from a writing standpoint. The forums provide a feedback you won't get on typical internet forums, and it's a bit hidden in effect. A savvy user can take advantage of the effect of his/her writing on readers. I think of the forums as a virtual writers playground. God knows there is no shortage of feedback when somebody mispeels something in the forum, much less says something that doesn't conform to someone's standard. I'm sure someone will have a field day with this. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

Hey Radio, you misspelt... oh wait.

I agree with Tom that the email-feedback thing doesn't work very well, because you tend to either a) have to ask someone directly for it - and who can be bothered to do that with every piece? - or b) only expect to get it from people who know you well enough to comfortably criticise you, and who are therefore very likely to be people you could have emailed the stuff to in the first place, sans writing site. I think the ideal situation for the kind of Internet feedback Tom describes is probably the old 'comments at the bottom of the piece' scenario, as it invites a user to address a comment directly to the writer, without having to join in a discussion, if they are so inclined, but also allows readers to respond to each other. The grandstanding, old matey stuff is all true, of course, but I don't think that necessarily has to have an adverse effect on thorough critique - as long as we understand it's not about being *right*. Plus, people who feel confident in their opinions, or like to make them in a rib-nudging jocular fashion shouldn't really have to tiptoe around people who find them intimidating. I just think it's a feature of ABCTales' community, rather than its site structure, that people are more laid back about the workshopping aspect. I'm not sure there are many who are 'afraid' as much as there are those who don't really see it as an important aspect of taking part here.

Good fish Rok...good fish. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

I don't know if it's that people like arguing per se, just that there are some strong opinions. All it takes is one person to make a fairly spirited stand on something and yes, it creates some disquiet. I'm of the opinion that this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'd rather see passionate opinions on at least SOMETHING... of late, abc has wilted more than my dehydrated pot of basil. Two days ago, there were 17 people logged in at once, and bloody hurrah. It proves that at least there is some passion and interest left, because of late there hasn't been an ounce of wit on gen diss, even Tony appears to have given up the will to post, only popping on to make half hearted attempts to cajole people into buying mugs. I can't see the mnugs flying off the shelves, just as I can't really see anyone buying books by abc tales authors that are promoted on the forums, much as I am certain they are fab books. Most of the people reading the foums have never even heards of half the authors... we need, desperately, that force of community back. ABC never HAS been all about the forums, but my god those forums have been the lifeblood of the place, for whatever reason. As they spiralled into tedium, the events ran on a parallel... i believe the last one was attended by more staff than punters? And now, there are barely any staff left. Some days on abc nobody even bothers to post at all, which is unprecendented. The only movement on the site on a day is sometimes 32 poems from AnGelFluffBabY.. Obviously, mugs, events and a proportion of amazon clicks are never going to sustain abc. Abc really does need to start going in a proper direction. I dont think, for Tony especially, that this site is fine as it is. It drains him of money when it should make him money, or at least support itself. I feel aggreived that abc has just toddled along, sitting on the fence as to what it's point is. It may be fine (or not so fine depending on where you stand on the fence) from the writers point of view, but this isnt sustainable is it? It had such LIFE before... what on earth happened?

What on earth happened? Maybe everyone else did what they were threatening to do all the time and grew up. Would it help to give a quick run down of who has actually left, and what reasons they gave, if any? Even then, was it ever in a situation where it was making money? ABC always seems to have struggled to sustain itself - maybe it's just not something that can 'take off' without drastically rebranding itself as something more plebby. Maybe it needs a surfeit of 'snazzy features' rather than the basic functionality it currently has. Gaia Online's writers forum is full of rabbish, but lots of people use it - possibly something to do with the fact you can create your own manga-style avatar to 'say' all your subsequent posts, so threads look like the page of a fairly wordy and uneventful comic. Trouble is, I think any change that made it more popular with the general Internet community would make it less popular with current regulars.

I read the above with great interest and thank you all for your care and compassion for ABC. I appreciate that the forums sometimes get rough and that that puts people off but you know my views on that matter - we're all big people and we can live with it so long as it's not libellous, racist etc. There are a lot of new members - some good and some not so - and ABC still accepts the lot. Cherries are awarded for improvement not necessarily excellence - and that is a principle in which I firmly believe. I do miss some of those that have departed - but I think that most members get very involved for a couple of years, take a break and then come back in dribs and drabs. I suspect that that is normal behaviour. As for Tom's 'workshopping' opportunities, which started this thread. Here's an idea I've been playing with - people ask via email to me for a critique. I pick, at random, two or three a week - and then we go for them hammer and tongs. Not in a destructive way but really taking apart every word. It might be tough but it will be tough love. Anyone who doesn't want to participate can steer clear. Good idea? My own participation on the forums is, and always has been, patchy. I can't 'let my hair down' in the way that many of you do (not only for physical reasons!). I must stay aloof to a certain extent. But I am on here virtually every day (I miss the odd weekend as I have elderly parents to look after). I am also taking serious consultancy advice on ABC - the time for 'user generated content' is here and ABCtales is held up at techie conferences around the globe as one of the most successful long-term UGC sites. Now is the time to capitalise on that and it is in hand.

To me, the old ABC was stabilised by a bunch of people who got together and became friends in the real world. exactly... the events, as i said, stopped because there was no community left. They got brassed off with being told that they were'nt important and then patronised that they were. They werent idiots, of course they werent *important* in the grand scheme. They left, and no longer involved themselves in the events precisely because of this. I speak for me alone here, but I know I speak for many of the others. Take this as an example - eddie gibbons flew down at his own expense to appear at an event once (he was asked to, this wasnt him shouldering his way to the front). He didnt mind. Several others of us spent hundreds coming down south to events. Contrast this with Fish being asked to speak at a large launch in Edinburgh. Eddie asked Tony (twice) if abc would think about sponsoring a portion of the flight cost (very little really, but it wasn't really about the cost it was about supporting its writers. Tony (twice) didnt bother to reply. It's precisely this kind of dismissive attitude that just left people thinking that for all its posturing to the effect, abc actually *doesnt* care much about it's writers. Where did the secret agents go? What about a compilation? Nah. Thats why the community dissolved, it wasnt to do with anyone growing up. ABC does need to change and I dont think for a moment that its users would prefer it to remain at it is.

If cherries are going to be awarded they should go to the very best writing on the site. Writing of publishable quality. If the publishing industry ever wakes up to writing on the Net in this country, goodness knows what they'll think of some of the cherried work here. It'll confirm all their worst prejudices. I agree. Have always agreed. Others dont. Another example of how you cant please them all. If it says that it "represents the best" then thats what it should do.

'Take this as an example - eddie gibbons flew down at his own expense to appear at an event once (he was asked to, this wasnt him shouldering his way to the front). He didnt mind. Several others of us spent hundreds coming down south to events. Contrast this with Fish being asked to speak at a large launch in Edinburgh. Eddie asked Tony (twice) if abc would think about sponsoring a portion of the flight cost (very little really, but it wasn't really about the cost it was about supporting its writers. Tony (twice) didnt bother to reply. It's precisely this kind of dismissive attitude that just left people thinking that for all its posturing to the effect, abc actually *doesnt* care much about it's writers.' Gnnnnnnnnnnnh.... *head explodes* Of all the ungrateful... We are talking about the same Tony, aren't we? The one who for years has been regularly reaching into his own pocket to fund the site that we, the writers, use for free? Who was sponsoring Eddie Gibbons when he flew down? Anyone? So why did the website (which, let's face it, is a euphemism for Tony himself) owe Fish money to do the same? Why was she more deserving of dosh than anyone else on the site? If people truly stormed off because they didn't feel they were getting the recognition/financial recompense they deserved, then I can only conclude they had grotesquely inflated ideas of entitlement. All of the stuff you mention costs a great deal in money and time. The secret agents were offering their services for free, so abc wasn't in a position to strongarm them into providing critiques. As for a compilation, well, that costs money. Abctales has been a massive and constant support to my writing over the years. I'm sorry but it makes me angry when people bleat and whinge without acknowledging the huge, largely unrewarded effort that goes into maintaining the site. If Tony was reaping dosh off us hand over fist I could understand your attitude, but as it is I'm left a little bewildered and rather disappointed.

I dont bleat. Spare me. *edited post* Giving, and taking is a two way street. Tony doesnt do it for nothing. He has his reasons! I too gave much to this site in terms of time for years. I havent always been this angry about it.

I think my point, boils down to this - Does Tony just aim to be Lord Cook , Educator and Beneficiary of the Unfortunate and Poor, or does he want a sustainable, self supporting website that encourages ALL people. Because popping onto the forums to flog mugs once a month, isnt going to pay for it. Books pay for it, advertising pays for it, subscriptions pay for it. You cant have both. Thats all.

Sorry Tom, I was refering more to Pizza's comments than yours. I think your suggestions are constructive. (although I don't necessarily agree with them) I can think of lots of ways that the site could be changed to make it more useful for me personally, but it's not just for me. Like I've said on previous threads, I'm an old fashioned elitist, so I'd want to see a peer-controlled VIP lounge forum for the most accomplished writers to workshop one another's work, a facility for posting critiques and comments directly under work, a shift in focus towards the professional side of things - ie submissions drives, getting stuff up to scratch for agents, etc - and putting on quality, ticketed live events with only the best writer-performers, rather than offering them as a chance for all to participate. These changes would marginalise a large number of current members, and frankly, I'd probably get a lot more out of the site as a result. (yes, that does mean that I'm somewhat arrogantly assuming I'd be amongst the imagined 'elite', but meh) The biggest falloff in members happened around the time the site switched to a 'new and improved' format, and didn't work for ages. I'd also point out that the forums aren't quite so lively because now you have to be signed in, after years of people posting under oh-so-hilarious pseudonyms to conduct twatty online disputes.

I've expressed some very negative views about this site in the past, but this has always been to do with personal arguments I end up in, and the fact that I sometimes feel the community here doesn't suit me personally - that my aims in writing are not really something anyone here is interested in. But I can't possibly lambast Tony, or anyone else involved in its running, for not putting enough effort in. It's an awful shame that most solutions to common problems are a long time coming, and that there isn't much in the way of community activities, big events, sponsorships, money being thrown about etc. but this is all to do with lack of funds. It's easy to win people over and make them feel rewarded once you've got lots of money - very hard to do so when your budget is limited. The secret agents were shit. You can dismiss my opinion on the basis that one of them was negative about my work and I'm all so bitter and that, but find the threads and look at their comments again. They very rarely had anything insightful to say - just a quick evaluation that usually went along the lines of, "This was good but you need more something-or-other." I got the impression they expected us to find their comments useful purely on the basis of their authority and position. Again, it's a case of top marks to ABCTales for organising it - shame it went pear-shaped. "If cherries are going to be awarded they should go to the very best writing on the site. Writing of publishable quality." I don't agree with this approach, firstly because 'publishable quality' is either an extremely contentious 'superior level' or, in a strictly literal sense, anything vaguely readable, and secondly because there are some writers here who are, I believe, capable of writing to whatever standard you set with near total consistency, and would inevitably draw accusations of favouritism. New site users *will* leave if they feel they're being ignored while everyone's pampering a few golden boys and girls. Added to that, I don't think publishers will ever *wake up* to writing on the net, for the simple reason that they don't need to. There's no shortage of new writers banging on their front doors, certainly no shortage of those they're happy to spend squillions promoting - why go hunting? "I think it's dignifying the arguments here to say they're about opinions. Creative slagging off would be nearer the truth." What threads have you been reading? I find that people come down like a tonne of bricks on anyone who is negative in the Discuss Writing forum. Even if I mention something negative in the context of an overall positive review, (say, "I did think the flaming squirrel was unnecessary and oblique",) I often find this simply provokes people to outrightly contradict me ("I really liked the flaming squirrel bit.") Hm. If we take the UEA writing 'community' as an example - or perhaps, as a microcosm, Rokkitnite's approach to forging alliances - then the strongest communities are going to be built out of writers who like each other's writing. Makes sense - if you think someone's already pretty good, there's supposedly less critiquing to do, you're happy to read their work (because you'll enjoy it,) and you don't have to be delicate when feeding back. The drawback of this, of course, is that you look like a bunch of delusional luvvies to outsiders. It also means that on a site where everyone from beginner level to whatever is welcome, there's never going to be an overall steadfast community, because some people will always be seen as naff. On a bigger scale, surely there's an implicit problem with the whole idea of a community here? By definition, a community has to exclude people. So how do you make the site simultaneously open to new writers while strengthening the feeling of community among the insiders? There's yer box puzzle.

I agree with everything you say Jon. Except for the flaming squirrel. William Golding uses the flaming squirrel metaphor to great effect in Lord of the Flies. So you are wrong.

Maybe we should form teams? Remember school sports days? A guy in Glamis was your mate but you still knocked his teeth in cos you were in Cortachy. Teams would be AWESOME. I don't feel validated in anything unless I can beat someone down and then gloat over whatever the particular thing is. Apart from grammar.

All I'm saying is it's damned difficult to fix whatever needs fixing. Trouble is, Tom, you can't easily marry your 'blessed are the meek' angle with 'goodness knows what they'll think of some of the cherried work here'. Most people see the need to be sensitive towards beginners at the same time as being ruthless about separating wheat from chaff in writing, but it's fundamentally awkward to do both at the same time. That topic you attacked me for a while back, regarding the poetry I was reviewing - I was being, I think, very honest about how I felt about the work on here, while at the same time looking to keep my more public comments about his work both unpatronising and tactful. This is very hard to do if you think something is beginner level, and that's the problem when a writing community is part-public. What you seem to be suggesting is a community where all opinions on the writing are kept private in order to protect the feelings of those less confident and who may be subject to public criticism. But within such a site, how could there ever be a sense of public achievement? And how much would we miss discussing a piece of writing with other readers, if all interaction is between writer and reader? Moreover, how is the sensitive writer protected from negative opinions? They would simply be unknown to the rest of the community - a writer could be attacked to the point where they left the site, and no one would step in to defend them, because no one can *see* the comments. Even if the sensitive writer is always protected from negative opinions, how is that any kind of preparation towards a professional career? Writers have to learn to deal with the fact that no matter how much work they put in, some people will always think they're crap. They have to accept that popularity and self-security are not realistic aims when submitting writing to a site. What do you think of the idea of comments at the bottom of the piece? I think that would allow comments to be addressed to the writer, rather than the community, while allowing discussion as well. Is that no good?

Comments at the bottom of the piece? That's a damned fine idea Jack, but only because I'd thought of that some time ago, but never got around to suggesting it. I think this site generally works very well as does the cherrypicking system. I've just stumbled across a site (join-straightopen@jokeaday.com) that after 5 years of being a free site is now going to have to charge the exorbitant sum of about £8 a year subscription fee. Even I on my limited income could shoulder that sort of sum. Rather that than see abctales go under. I think Tony does a damned fine job.

I tend not to post in discussions like this, because I'm not the greatest at debating or arguing, but this is a discussion that upon reading it, I really wanted to contribute to. I have been an ABCuser for just over five years (previously under the username Beef), and sure, over the years, the site has run in fits and starts, had its highs and lows, that's only to be expected I think. There've been times when, like many other users, I've drifted away from the site for both short and longer periods of time. But I *have* always come back. At first, ABC for me was the place where my eyes were opened to the joys and the world of writing, I'd never realised the sheer scope and variety of/in the writing community. Although, of course, I'm now a wise old sage to this aspect of writing, to me this is still one of ABC's main strengths - the sheer diversity of its users. The community thing - I think it's changed so much mostly because the site has got so much bigger with so many more users, again, only to be expected and on the whole, I feel, a good rather than a bad thing. As someone pointed out (Tom?), the UEAers (of which I am one) still retain this community feeling because we're all in the same city pretty much, or at least able to meet up quite regularly. As the site is so much bigger now, why not encourage smaller, regional communities to spring up, by having regional meetings or events? I'm aware that this could maybe turn the site into a big cliquey shebang, but if it was supplemented with regular big nights still in London, all the regional groups would get a chance to intermingle, share what they;d been up to. I think smaller groups would then enable the kind of workshopping critiquing (as defined by Rokkit) that many members seem to want. Yes, the forums are a bit dead recently, the site seems a little lifeless in a way it hasn't for a long time. But fuck it, lets not complain, lets do something to rejuvenate it! A user survey perhaps, to find out what people really love/dislike about the site, and changes they'd like to see implemented. Re the great cherry debate of ancient times, isn't there some way around it? The introduction of another fruit, to differentiate between work that the editors feel shows excellence and work that shows improvement? I'm just throwing ideas around here off the top of my head, but if people want this site to change, we have to do something about it. The blame can't, and shouldn't be laid entirely on TC's shoulders. I fully agree with all the people who've posted on this thread in support of Tony, and all the time, money, love and enthusiasm he's put into the site over the years. Hope some of that made sense. Now I shall retire to the little cave from whence I crawled. Beth

Mm. Much to chew upon. First though a serious correction. Eddie Gibbons was invited to come to London to read his work at the Bloomsbury theatre - and he was offered his airfare. Eddie, very graciously, declined to accept it when it was offered a few weeks later. The story from Liana above is complete and utter rubbish. I have been cogitating cherries for a while. They are rewarded for improvement, not excellence and always have been. They have to doube up for excellence too - and there's the problem, I suspect. How about if we promote another award for excellence - a gold star perhaps - and then the stupid bleating about quality might stop. ABC is open to all and all are welcome - that is its strongest point. That means that we like lots of different styles of writing - not necessarily the latest, cutting edge work (although we like that too) - but whatever an individual cares to contribute. There is much I could go on about but I must admit that I fear that it will just probably be misconstrued and twisted so I probably won't. I shall just remain Lord Cook of the misbegotten or whatever the harpie cares to call me. Some things hurt you know.

careful there tony... that wasnt the 'story' i was talking about. You didnt ignore him twice just recently then? Bloomsbury is NOT what I was talking about. You dont like it when someone says something to hurt you? Well, funnily enough, neither do I, remember?

Is it just that I'm getting too much sun - or are the threads getting more and more surreal?

"The introduction of another fruit, to differentiate between work that the editors feel shows excellence and work that shows improvement?" Double the confusion! I don't think the cherry system is particularly great, but I can't think of an editors' award system that would be any real improvement. Any system that marks some work out as more worthy of attention than others is going to lead to disagreement and disgruntlement among a writing community that's supposed to be open to everyone. "ABC is open to all and all are welcome - that is its strongest point. That means that we like lots of different styles of writing - not necessarily the latest, cutting edge work (although we like that too) - but whatever an individual cares to contribute." Nevertheless, I agree with Tom that it'd be better if contributing meant more than simply adding to the number of pieces on the site. At the moment, after a brief period when you might get a couple of reads and a comment in Discuss Writing, the only reason to have work up here is for archival purposes. Personally, I'm OK for feedback - I have plenty of contacts here and elsewhere I can approach when I want help with a piece - but for the beginners/toe-dippers to whom the site is also open and Tom wants us to show more compassion and sensitivity, some way of creating a more private, workshopping atmosphere would be a good idea. "First though a serious correction. Eddie Gibbons was invited to come to London to read his work at the Bloomsbury theatre - and he was offered his airfare. Eddie, very graciously, declined to accept it when it was offered a few weeks later." But that doesn't contradict what Liana said. As far as I understand it (and I know nothing about this outside of this thread,) Eddie chose to pay for his own airfare on this occasion, but on another occasion, when he asked you to sponsor Fish to fly to a non-ABC event, you didn't reply. Liana's point is that ABC's members are prepared to support ABC at their own expense, but that ABC isn't prepared to support its members if the event in question isn't mutually beneficial. I'd need to know more about the issue in question, but it sounds to me like there might be a decent enough reason for not sponsoring Fish (in Eddie's case, you asked him to come down - it was a matter of courtesy to offer to pay his travel expenses,) and that what's annoyed Liana is that she wasn't given that reason.

Pizza /Liana Didn't you know? I thought everyone had figured out my other persona... *storms from forum in teary huff, heart lanced by the cruel criticisms* Poetjude/ AnGelFluffBabY "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

So that's why I couldn't find your work j... I thought you had said you were AnGelFluffMaybe. Email me a link please :O)

Tom - I wasn't replying to you and I don't feel that you've been at all negative. I accept a lot of what you say and it's set me serioulsy thinking. Liana - I never received an email from Eddie about sponsoring Fish. If I had I would most definitely have replied.

I'm going to contradict myself now and say this: I think that the 'most improved' cherries are a good thing. It must be fairly unique to this site, I don't imagine UKA or others do it. I think it provides encouragement to people, so long as they (we) realise that it must be taken in context. Instead of a two-tier fruit system, what if each month there was a collection of say, 10 or 15 pieces which were voted (or decided by eds) to be 'ABCtales' most publishable'. Like a showcase. I appreciate it may need a little work in terms of minor redesigns on the site, but perhaps it could make use of the almost unused 'magazine' link. And, in actuality, it would *be* a magazine of sorts: the ABCtales Monthly Showcase. It would mean that you'd get a cherry on the same basis as you'd get one now, but you get into the mag section on the basis of attaining a high standard of quality. All that would have to happen each month would be an opening blurb to each piece (like on SoW / PoW), and the link to where it is on ABCtales. And because it gets there as a result of a selection process, people could also claim to have been 'published' here, too (but still retain the right to take it down, of course). Everyone's a winner, no? What do you reckon?

I think the showcase thing sounds very interesting. If the cherries are going to be for improvement, I think they’ve got to be solely for that. When they could stand for either improvement or excellence, I believe both recipients and readers tend to assume they’re for excellence. This is what causes the confusion. In a way – although I could be getting way too anal here – the emblem of a ‘cherry’ for ‘improvement’ is problematic in itself because ‘cherry-picking’ to me implies – picking the best. I reckon a two fruit system, although fixing the problem to some extent, would lead to an A+ versus B- perception, which would still miss the point. A showcase, on the other hand, would be sufficiently separate to avoid confusion. For many reasons, I think it’s very important to have some way to pick out and show the very best from this site.

I've just re-read the last few posts - Sorry, Tim, I can't resist a bit of plagiarism it appears.

Been thinking about this. I often think the site doesn't have the same community feel it used to but I wonder if that is more about me changing rather than the site. Many of us have really grown as writers over the past five years and perhaps our needs are now different (not better - just different). There seems to be a general agreement here that somehow acknowledging improvement is a good thing but at the same time we need to highlight the very best work of publishable quality if we are to be taken seriously as a site. I think there are two ways of doing this. Keeping the cherry system as it is and showcasing the 'cream' in another way. If you were to go down this route, I'd suggest using the ABC online magazine which languishes at present as a collection of pages and threads under the name 'magazine'. It isn't a magazine but could be. Why not create a magazine, monthly or bi-monthly, full of editors choice work - people could submit articles and letters as well - make it a real magazine and bundle it up as a downloadable pdf with a real magazine look and feel. OR for abc management to give editors guidelines that only outstanding work is cherried (Fergal says she's given 25 ish cherries in her time here - that averages just over 1 per week which seems sensible). You can acknowledge improvement by flagging or emailing the author. This has the advantage that as pizza points out, nobody will visit the site, read cherried work and assume it is the very best quality we have which the name 'cherrypicked' does imply and walk away disgusted when they find it is less than up to scratch. We also need to consider that for this to work we need editors who know what is publishable quality. We need to consider what action benefits the community here as a whole. Cherry-ing an improved but long-way-to-go writer benefits that writer as an individual rather than the community as a whole. Perhaps therefore a flag or emailed editorial comment is more appropriate. I know many poetry mags, despite the vast quantities of work received, return poems with comments on them. Cherry-ing the very best is helpful to the community as a whole and the visitor. This needs input from the management. We as users also have a responsibility to the site. I've made many friends via the site and meet up with those London based from time to time. However many of these relationships have been built over the net and whilst I agree with Byrne that local groups are an excellent idea, one of the advantages of the net is that we can build relationships remotely. I think responsible flagging is important. As well as the discussion on the other forum about making useful crit/comments. I think we need to ask whether our flag is really 'putting into' the site. There are several people who email me with comments/ crit about my work on a regular basis. One person really likes my work and emails me about many of my poems. If he flagged this on the public forum how would this contribute to the site other than to let everyone else know all the time how much he likes my work. Byrne I completely get your point about groups who offer, support, comment etc because they really like each others work but letting the rest of the world know it every time they submit, is it really contributing to the site? Or is it just using the site as a piece of technology to sustain a homework club? I'm not saying people shouldn't flag their colleagues work. I'm saying before you do ask yourself, 'am I saying something about this person's work that hasn't been said before? Is this piece really unusual or outstanding or a new angle for them? Does this piece need comments or crit, more than I can give by email and I can start a thread to invite such crit?' If not, don't flag it - send them an appreciative email or tell them in person! Most of us read 'recently added - we don't need telling about a piece's existence. I have been guilty of this and will in future be a bit more thoughtful about my flags! jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

"I think there are two ways of doing this. Keeping the cherry system as it is and showcasing the 'cream' in another way. If you were to go down this route, I'd suggest using the ABC online magazine which languishes at present as a collection of pages and threads under the name 'magazine'. It isn't a magazine but could be. Why not create a magazine, monthly or bi-monthly, full of editors choice work - people could submit articles and letters as well - make it a real magazine and bundle it up as a downloadable pdf with a real magazine look and feel." Yes, this is exactly what I was thinking, but with the addition of articles / letters (good idea). I have the technology to pdf things, if that's of use. I think monthly would be good. If the eds say what they want I'm sure they have the (free) rersource here among the users to help put it together. I know I'd be willing to help and I'm sure others would too - so there would be no cost, but a whole load of interest.

That's outstanding - after five plus years of discussion we have a new idea - and I'm not being ironic. I like the thought of an 'outstanding' monthly collection of stories and poems - and a distinction between them and cherries - and I like the idea of expanding the magazine into those plus letters and articles. I'll knock it around for a bit and come up with a proposal on how it might work in practice. Thankyou.

Since this thread is about workshopping it is mainly getting posts from those who take writing a lot more seriously than most - but they should bear in mind that although the vast majority of users do not post to the forums many do read them. If you make the criterion for flagging pieces too high then it will become an elitist forum intead of an 'I enjoyed this' forum and will have limited appeal. While I'm sure that Tony and the other ABC staff welcome suggestions I think it's worth saying that ABC is not a club where the 'commitee' vote to decide how the place will be run. It is obvious that time and money are paramount considerations for ABC so I think any suggested changes should be realistic. It strikes me that Enzo's ideas are fine but they don't really need ABC - those interested could form a group and do it themselves. I can't see a great need to fundamentally reform ABC as change usually brings as many curses as it does blessings. For those who want more from ABC - I'm sure it would help for you to post to say how much more you are willing to put in. Most importantly - let's not throw out the baby with the bath water! It seems that Tony has posted while I was writing this and change is on its way. Let's hope it helps unite the site!

Mykle, I've just explained that the idea does not require additional (financial) resource if some of us (the community) are willing to give a little time for nothing. I also said, I was willing to do so. What I suggested wasn't reform, it was a bolt-on. The core site would remain unchanged, with the *addition* of a monthly mag-showcase-jobbie. "I think it's work saying that ABC is not a club where the 'commitee' vote to decide how the place will be run" No, of course not. But niether is it a place where suggestions aren't welcome, from what I know of it.

"It strikes me that Enzo's ideas are fine but they don't really need ABC - those interested could form a group and do it themselves." This site brought together these people in the first place. Having abc as the foundation for a quality online magazine will always attract new talent. Secondly, the site is close to my heart. I see helping take it forward is a way of saying thanks for what the site has done for me over the years. "the vast majority of users do not post to the forums many do read them. If you make the criterion for flagging pieces too high then it will become an elitist forum intead of an 'I enjoyed this' forum and will have limited appeal. " As has been thrashed out in the other forum, highlighting quality does not make for elitism it gives the site credibility. There is also a place for saying 'I enjoyed this' as myself and Camus suggested by having a crit/ serious forum and a lighter/quick flag forum seperate.

... posted that before Enzo and he's spot on. We are not a self-elected commitee. We are users who care about the site and who are generous enough to offer suggestions and practical help. Every user is entitled to contribute to the discussion.

The ‘organic’ (oooh hark at her) way these ideas are beginning to take shape, with everybody having the opportunity to chip in, seems like the antithesis of a committee discussion to me. For the members who enjoy reading the forums but don't post - the only way is up really, isn't it. It's not going to change the site if they *still* don't post. I'm sure that makes sense somewhere...

Sounds good to me - Enzo, Jude and Lou produce the magazine in consultation with ABC which posts the result. Might need a new "Vote for magazine content" forum - or something - but now we have the volunteers... I'm really looking forward to the first edition - please make it a weekly!