Q1:	When I click on "Critique this Poem" I see that the poem is already there. Assuming that I'm not going to use this text for a line-by-line critique, should I delete it before posting my critique?
Answer:	Not necessarily. Since the poet can make changes to accomodate critics after you, it might help to leave the poem there--preferably shunting it to the bottom of your critique--as a reference to the readers so that they know what the poem looked like when you critiqued it.
Q2:	Should I evaluate every critique that I read? Even if I didn't write the poem? Of what value is this?
Answer:	You should take the time to render a numeric evaluation of every critique that you have given serious consideration, yes. As the author, your opinion would be the best first hand measure of the critique's helpfulness. If you are not the author of the underlying poem your opinion is the best objective view of the critique's value. Both are essential feedback to the critic. And we do want to keep the critics happy, right?
Q3:	Having critiqued a poem, can I add comments later?
Answer:	Certainly. Just hit "Add Comments" and enter your remarks. The software will take care of the rest.
Q4:	What is a "me-too" or "chime" counter?
Answer:	If you see a critique that seems "spot on"--exactly what you would have said--you can hit the box in the Chimes Counter bar. You must enter a numeric evaluation of the critique for this to be counted. In this way the rest of us see not only the opinion but a quick poll of those who agree with it. Of course, if you disagree with the opinion expressed post your own critique and see how many people "chime in" with you.
Q5:	I haven't seen these "chime" counters elsewhere. Are they new?
Answer:	As far as we know, yes, these "Nixon Chimes" (i.e. "Nichts & Chimes") buttons were unique to Egoless but other discussion and blog software have caught on. We expect them to be incorporated on all serious discussion/critique sites eventually. The chimes buttons save a lot of time-wasting "me too" posting just as assigning a low score avoids confrontations.
Q6:	I know that I can see my stats when I log in, but can I see them again after I log in?
Answer:	Certainly. Just hit "My Stats?" on the main Egoless page.
Q7:	When or how often are my stats calculated?
Answer:	Your stats are recalculated whenever you log in or hit the "My Stats?" button. Of course, your poems or critiques have to have received at least three evaluations for there to be anything to recalculate. Until then your initial "provisional rating" will remain unchanged.
Q8:	Other critical web sites have a minimum number of critiques (typically, 2 or 6) that one is expected to write for every poem posted. Does Egoless have such a minimum ratio in place?
Answer:	Not yet. We encourage critics--indeed, they are what makes any critical forum work--but we do not insist that those who are uncomfortable with critiquing engage in it. In our experience such reluctant efforts are rarely of much use to the poet and merely serve to lower the calibre of critique in general. That said, writing thoughtful critiques may be the very best way for you to develop your poetics. Again, we encourage you to critique. We just don't demand it. Yet.
Q9a:	What if I see a poem that is "perfect"? That is, what if I don't think the poem can be improved? I don't want to write a "fluff" critique (e.g. "Great stuff!") so should I say nothing at all?
Answer:	No need to be silent. If you feel that the writing--not the sentiment expressed but the writing and storytelling technique--is exemplary post a detailed "appreciation" rather than a critique. Start by asserting that you think the work is perfect as is (thus defining your post as an appreciation rather than a constructive critique). Point out what you liked and, most importantly (since this is what distinguishes "fluff" from "appreciations"), why you liked it. Again and for emphasis: do this in detail. If it helps, pretend that you are teaching a course on creative writing and using this poem as an example of brilliant technique. Don't be concerned if your remarks seem directed more toward other readers than the writer; such is the nature of many appreciations. It is unlikely that the author will mind.
Q9b:	What if I am too lazy to write an "appreciation" of a perfect poem?
Answer:	Not a problem. Just give the poem a "Gold Star".
Q9c:	What if I think the poem isn't quite perfect?
Answer:	Then write a very short critique (and give the poem a high evaluation). Good critiques don't have to be long. Indeed, many of the best ones simply say: "Excellent work! The only thing you might consider changing is...etc."
Q10:	I've waited patiently, but my poem is not getting many reviews? Why not?
Answer:	This is a toughie, with no definitive answer. Long poems tend to scare off critics (too much work!), as do short ones (not enough to comment on). Metrical verse is more difficult to assess due to the somewhat greater tolerance for abstraction, archaicism, inversion and unusual syntax. Very good poems leave little to criticize; on other sites you would be left to wonder but on Egoless a high number of Gold Stars would indicate that this is the case. Normally, terrible poems will attract fewer critics (why bother with a hopeless cause?) but this may be less true on Egoless, where the canned remarks and recommendations make such critiquing so much easier. Writer-centered poems and those on very common themes are unlikely to generate reader or critical interest. If your poem has received one critique but seems to have trouble attracting subsequent ones the answer might be that the first critic "nailed it"; high critique assessment marks and a high Chime Count can suggest that this is the case. All of that said, the best thing to do to improve your chances of receiving critique is to "pay it forward" by commenting on the works of others. Developing a high Critic Rating helps, too. Many members will tend not to read, let alone comment on, works by those whose critique stats show that they don't contribute in kind.
Q11:	What is the "Barnacles Test"?
Answer:	In an effort to sound "poetic" newer poets will often insert a word which, from all appearance, might have been chosen at random. To test for this we substitute some variation on the word "barnacles". If the line still makes as much (or as little) sense as it did before the substitution the word has failed the "Barnacles Test".
Q12:	In responses to critiques is explaining the poem's intent frowned upon?
Answer:	It certainly is. The poem either speaks for itself or fails. A preamble is not the place for such explications either. Explanation of terms or references? Yes. Explanation of intent? No. Poets are lucky if they get one chance to capture the attention of an audience. Expecting two such opportunities is unrealistic.
Q13:	What do I do if have revised my poem considerably and want people to take a second look at it? Yes, I know it may be selfish, asking for a second look while others may be waiting for their first. I don't want to grandstand or jostle for position in the listing order, either. So what can I do?
Answer:	First and foremost: beware the hasty revision! Be patient with your work. Wait a few days. Mull over these changes. Secondly, note that the "What's new?" feature will list such revisions. Thirdly, once you have a rewrite that you are happy with, consider taking it to other web sites for a fresh perspective. And, finally, be patient with your critics. Even if the existing ones don't have time to revisit your work perhaps a new member--we get them every day!--will come along and comment on it.
Q14a:	Is it appropriate to explicitly disagree with points made by a previous critter when critiquing a poem?
Answer:	Disagree, yes, but there is no need to point out the fact that you are disagreeing. Better to simply state your own case.
Q14b:	Is it appropriate to explicitly agree with points made by a previous critter when critiquing a poem?
Answer:	Yes.
Q14c:	Is it appropriate to ask a critter to clarify a point made in a critique of your own poem?
Answer:	This is entirely appropriate as long as the purpose is not to confront or challenge the critic to "put up or shut up".
Q14d:	Is it appropriate to enter into a discussion with a critter over some point they make about poetry in general?
Answer:	Certainly, as long as you are asking for a clarification and not confronting the critic. Indeed, we encourage such theoretical discussions as long as the poet doesn't object that the thread is being "hijacked". If you feel that the subject may be of interest to the general membership, though, post your question and/or comments to our Theory Forum.
Q14e:	Is it appropriate to ask to see one of my critic's poems?
Answer:	No. This is always regarded as confrontational. Reading examples of good poetry is a fine idea on its own merit but why wouldn't any well crafted poem serve as well as one of your critic's?
Q15a:	What if a poem is part of a series, such that a reader/critic will need to regard the poem in the context of other poems?
Answer:	If the rest of the poems in the series are posted here simply refer to their titles in your preamble. Otherwise, include the other relevant poems after the text of the one that you are posting.
Q15b:	What if a reader/critic needs to know my style in order to properly appreciate a poem that I am posting?
Answer:	Then you have a Catch-22. If someone has to be familiar with your style before being able to appreciate your writing how can you hope to attract new readers?
Q16a:	Is it okay to post early drafts here with the idea of "testing the waters" to see if they are worth posting to other critical forums, abandoning them if they are not?
Answer:	For Egoless posters this may be an ideal use of the environment. If posting on the Egolite side you are probably best advised to "bring your best game", working on early drafts elsewhere (i.e. Zoetrope may be perfect for this purpose) first.
Q16b:	But doesn't this practice mean that poetry on the Egoless site will be inferior to that on other critical sites?
Answer:	Only temporarily, assuming the poet posts revisions here (something we encourage). If they do, the final drafts presented here will be at least equal in quality to those on other serious critical sites and Egoless members can play a more active, longer term role in the poem's development.
Q17a:	I notice there are input boxes for reference, picture, sound and video URLs. What are these about?
Answer:	The "Reference URL" box allows you to input a link to a site relevant to your poem. The "Image URL" box is for links to an image; this is ideal for ekphrasic poems. To direct attention to the photo use the graphic's URL (which can often be discerned by right-clicking on the picture itself). The "Background Music URL" is best for midi and mp3 files. This can be the music for a song lyric or just mood music. "Video URL" is for movies, typically a YouTube, a webcam of you reciting your poem or a slide show with the words rendered by voice and/or onscreen text.
Q17b:	Can a person post two or three pictures?
Answer:	Yes. Just use one of the other available boxes for your extra image links.
Q17c:	What if the picture, sound or video file hasn't been posted anywhere and I don't have any webspace for it?
Answer:	It's not a perfect--and certainly not a fast--solution but you can email us the file and we'll upload it for you. Your URL will be "http://www.firesides.ca/" plus your filename.
Q18:	Some publishers won't consider poems that appear online, including in workshops like this one. Are our posts to Egoless searchable?
Answer:	No. Only the Egoless.htm main screen will be archived by search engines like Google. Your posts--poems, critiques, articles or discussion posts--will not be included in such archives.

Got a question?

Your Email Address: