We have few rules in this group, and even fewer things for which we prescribe any code of behaviour. This is both a hallmark and a strength.

We are (largely) self-policing, and over time our collective inclinations have formed our procedures and approach to judging submissions and how we articulate that.

Mostly it works as intended. Mostly there is fair and equitable comment, with members giving about as much as they receive.

But whenever there is cause to reflect on how WEEKLY works, and on what its priorities are or should be, and on the balance of importance between voting and commenting, we tend to spend most of our time debating the criteria for keeping or rejecting a shot, and whether or not we are applying suitable rigour to the process.

I think we've recently covered that well, and have concluded that it will eventually be an application of personal standards, hopefully applied fairly.

The real topic we need to address, in my view as long-in-tooth member and as admin, is the nature, quality, equitability, constructiveness, thoughtfulness, and tenor of comments that we make on submissions.

My well-known bias is that this matters more than the consequent votes, and that the outcome of commenting (improved work by all) is more important than the pool we eventually amass.

I do not propose that we ever establish a regulated coda for commenting - no checklist to be followed or enforced. Nor would I ever attempt to remove important subjectivity from the process. We ain't about mathematics.

But I have for a while been concerned about a few specific issues on the commenting front that I would like to raise, together with some suggestions for addressing them.

They are (in no particular order):

1. A tendency to avoid commenting on images we instinctively don't like for reasons of stylistic/genre bias

2. A similar tendency to avoid images we believe to be awful but about which we are afraid to be seen as cruel

3. A tendency to 'pile on' keeper or free flight votes onto a shot where the view is unanimous (or nearly so) with an "Enough said" or "It's all been said" comment

4. Critical comments about an image that don't include any constructive advice, or tips for improvement, or references on different technique or better examples

5. A tendency to exchange comments and votes with a narrow cadre, rather than broadly across the membership (recognizing that this needs to be a two-way street)

6. A tendency to be influenced by another member's body of work when judging a given photo

The following is NOT a proposed set of procedures - it's not even meant to be guidelines (we are too adult to need that). It's just how I personally think these issues can be addressed, recognizing that not all of you will share my view that they are issues to begin with (discuss amongst yourselves).

First, I believe we should approach every assessment with the belief that the member who submitted the shot in question should end up feeling good that they did, based on the comments the shot receives. Keeper or free flight.

Second, I'd suggest we think in terms of fewer but more detailed and analytical comments from each of us rather than more numerous but less detailed ones (not wishing to add to the time burden of participating in WEEKLY).

Third, I'd love to see more specific suggestions, or tailored technical tips, or outside references, to add to the learning potential from our comments.

Fourth, I'd love it if we were more random, rather than targeted, in choosing the shots we comment on.

Lastly, I'd prefer if whinges, animosity, and inevitable personality issues were all kept 'offline' rather than posted in threads - and feel free to refer angst-making issues to me for Solomon-like judgments. Happy to help.

Here endeth the lesson...