Sturgeon's Law

I noticed in my contributor copies of Verse (very good, by the way, and heavy as an issue of Gulf Coast) that they didn't include contributor notes. While I'm fine with that editorial choice, and while contributor notes are sometimes maligned as pure ego exercises, I actually like contributor notes provided they're done with a little common sense.

Things I like in contributor notes:

• Recent publications, both books and journals. It's helpful for me when I discover a new poet (or for that matter see new work by a poet I already knew). It helps me go find more work by the poet and also helps me look for places that may publish similar work, which is good both for my reading and my own publishing. I've discovered a lot of fun places (H_NGM_N and Forklift, Ohio come to mind, though I'm not positive on the second one) through contributor notes.
• Current editor positions. Same reason as above.
  
• Websites. Another good way to get more information. I also don't see these in notes very often (nor is mine typically in my notes).
• Where you live. Dunno why, it's just interesting to get demographics and geographics. Probably because I'm a stat/trivia nerd.
• Brevity. Oh yes: choose your words at least half as carefully in your note as you do in your poems.
  

Things I'm either indifferent toward or can go plus/minus on:

• Your job. This one actually is in my standard note. I just think it should be interesting and brief.
• Non-writing biographical details. Pretty much the same stance as the job.
  
• Quirky notes that don't follow the just-the-facts approach. Sometimes they're amusing and personal, sometimes they're cutesy and desperate. Bob Hicok does a lot of these, some of which I like, some not.
• "and elsewhere," "among others," and similar phrases. Look, I think we realize that the typical note doesn't include all of the journals where you've been published. I expunged this phrase from my note entirely in the past year or so for that reason. Of course, it's still just two words, so no big deal.

Things I don't like in contributor notes:

• Grants and fellowships you've won. No offense intended to any of my readers who have earned them--it's just one of those things that's more fun to receive than to tell about.
  
• What conferences you've been to. Soooo don't care. Conferences are often fun, but they add no value to a short bio.
  
• Where you went to school. As on resumes, the school doesn't matter that much when you have good experience. If you're currently in school or a recent graduate, I'd put this more in the "indifferent" category. Even worse is naming a poet who taught you.
• Pushcart Prize nominations, unless they're from a journal of major prominence.
  
• Verbosity. This is the only area where my journal actually regulates. I think 50 words, give or take a few, ought to do it, but I've seen contributor notes taking up entire pages of journals. Trust me, I won't be reading a note that long or allowing one in a journal I edit.

Of course, all that is just one person, so if you like what I dislike in contributor notes, or your own typical note is much different, more power to you. Hell, plenty of the Eleventh Muse notes ignore what I like, and I don't particularly chafe at it.