a simple down to earth topic

[tectak]

i elect isn't that enough

come on people. just respond to the post for brownie points :J:

for a proper Pareto with this many options I need at least 20 data points, ideally more.

There are problems of definition, always, in rating any art form. Poetry is more susceptible to praise, faint or genuine, than say, painting or sculpture. This is simply because the connection between the poet and the poem is one of great personal variation...and more often than not it is the failure of the reader to lock on to the thinking of the poet that causes rancour.
To define the poet by the poem, or to ask a poet how he/she feels about his/her poetry is unrealistic because the relationship is a transitory and shifting state.
I have many times looked at the output of writers with a view to "rating" the effectiveness of their words--by that, of course, I am being judgemental-- in transmitting to me either of two things
1) The emotion of the poet.
2) The emotion which the POEM invokes/instills in me.

I came to the conclusion many years ago that it is quite pointless, and purposeless, judging poetry on anything other than these two facets of the poetic endeavour.
Now if I am asked, how do I decide who is the good poet/bad poet, I can answer truthfully, I don't; BUT I can tell you when I read (or write!) a good poem.
To criticise with reservations is a failure of nerve.Todd made a similar point on Sharon Olds' line breaks. Undeniably SOME poets produce MORE poetry which satisfies the 2-point test than others yet I cannot help but conclude (as I think milo intimated) that this is a quantum averaging of minutae...and erthona would criticise some poetry by every poet who ever lived. Good for him. I wish I had read that much.
For myself, I guess I fall somewhere between very good and fucking appalling. At least, that's what I strive for...somebody else may disagree
Best,
tectak