I'm sure my post is going to rock some boats, but since we're being tossed out anyway...

I'm NOT saying that Alan & I are doing a good job or a bad job, but it seems odd for a company to fire the people who *are* doing a good job just to let others have their positions. Wouldn't it be better to fire the ones who *weren't* doing a good or who went for long periods of time without doing their job at all? There are some editors who have posted here before me that have consistently done awesome work, and it seems a shame to lose them in favor of somebody who might not do as well.

And I too am a little concerned over how the choosing of the "next round" of editors will be kept fair? If they're selected by current editors, then people will pick others from their own circles and we'll still wind up with the same editors over and over again. Even choosing them based on test scores might get sticky, because what if there are 20 openings and 100 people pass? less

You didn't rock my boat.

I understand what you mean and why you feel that way. But if no one steps down, how will those who are qualified ever be given the chance?

I think this works to make it open to all who have the skills to edit and give them the opportunity. I guess since I may (or may not?) come into it with all these changes in place, I don't have any qualms about it. I see it, already, as a temporary thing. "Serve my term," if you will, and then get re-elected later on, while giving others a chance to serve their terms as well.

I also wouldn't look at it as being fired because it's not like you won't have the opportunity to come back and edit again. less

I don't mean to sound bitchy, but there are some contributors who have applied several times over six month period only to be told "no, there are too many editors." Personally, I've applied twice. I like this idea because it gives others a chance to step up.

As much as I've seen complaints about how much work goes into editing and the quality of some of the reviews, I would think you would be more than happy to take a step back for a while and give some of us a taste of what it's really like from your end!

If you really enjoy editing, reapply. I don't see what the harm is in reapplying. I've done it! less

But the way it feels from the outside is:

There are those of us who are qualified to edit reviews. We simply cannot get into the program because there is no room because no one is stepping down as an editor. And why would anyone step down?

I understand what you're saying about the need to reapply, but overall, I don't see what the harm is in reapplying.

I think a rotation like this is very appealing because it gives everyone (who is qualified) a chance to participate, get a feel for it, see if they enjoy it, etc. The program was implemented about 8 months ago. This makes it equal and fair to all who are qualified to edit. less

I'm sure my post is going to rock some boats, but since we're being tossed out anyway...

I'm NOT saying that Alan & I are doing a good job or a bad job, but it seems odd for a company to fire the people who *are* doing a good job just to let others have their positions. Wouldn't it be better to fire the ones who *weren't* doing a good or who went for long periods of time without doing their job at all? There are some editors who have posted here before me that have consistently done awesome work, and it seems a shame to lose them in favor of somebody who might not do as well.

And I too am a little concerned over how the choosing of the "next round" of editors will be kept fair? If they're selected by current editors, then people will pick others from their own circles and we'll still wind up with the same editors over and over again. Even choosing them based on test scores might get sticky, because what if there are 20 openings and 100 people pass? less

I'm sure my post is going to rock some boats, but since we're being tossed out anyway...

I'm NOT saying that Alan & I are doing a good job or a bad job, but it seems odd for a company to fire the people who *are* doing a good job just to let others have their positions. Wouldn't it be better to fire the ones who *weren't* doing a good or who went for long periods of time without doing their job at all? There are some editors who have posted here before me that have consistently done awesome work, and it seems a shame to lose them in favor of somebody who might not do as well.

And I too am a little concerned over how the choosing of the "next round" of editors will be kept fair? If they're selected by current editors, then people will pick others from their own circles and we'll still wind up with the same editors over and over again. Even choosing them based on test scores might get sticky, because what if there are 20 openings and 100 people pass? less

Mrs. Lust and I have a somewhat different viewpoint that we would like to share. At the outset, for clarity let it be known that we have applied to be editors months ago, and are still waiting anxiously to be accepted. We suggest that EF do something different than rotations for all the reasons others have described above.

Why not implement the same system that already exists for various other activities--only permit editors to have a certain number of reviews to edit each week or month? (similar to the limit on receiving one item for review each month, or the limit on getting points on certain activities daily). We do not know what that number should be, but feel certain that EF could do a calculation that provide that information.

In our viewpoint, this would permit many new folks to become editors, permit already established editors to continue their excellent work, and continue to allow editors who are not particularly good to be weeded out. Finally, if each person could only edit a certain number of reviews a month, we think that perhaps the quality would go up on both the reviews and the editing. We have noted over the past several months several times when an editor approved and published more than one review in a single day.

This is simply a suggestion that seems fairer to both the already established editors and those of us who are waiting to become editors.

Alternatively, perhaps a combination of an automatic rotation and a daily/weekly/monthly limit on reviews could be a solution. less

Editors are currently limited to 3 full reviews and 3 follow up reviews a day.

I would have to say that I would be opposed to any test requirement as proof of ability. First, it will potentially add to the EF staff workload, which the editor program was designed to reduce. Who is going to design and grade them? Plus, you would need a new test each new rotation. Lastly, who its to say that a contributor doesn't get help taking the test? It just doesn't seem like a reliable out efficient way to evaluate an editors abilities.

I'm fine with sharing the wealth. I really enjoy editing and am happy to share the experience with others. At this point, I do have some concerns with the potential"reappli catio n" process, but hopefully that will become clearer as details are released. I do like the idea of overlapping groups of editors so that it's not an all in all out situation each time. If the tenure is 3 months, perhaps each month 1/3 get replaced so there is more consistency.

My other thought is that we will potentially deplete the community pool rather quickly. If so, maybe a portion of each new group consist of previous editors that automatically rotate through.

Edit: please don't take my post as a sample off my grammar skills. Typing on a phone that auto-corrects sucks sometimes. less

Which I think is why it is important to raise the ranking to, at the very minimum, people whose reviews self-publish.

If there is no test, that should be the basic requirement. If reviews have good grammar and are self-publishing, then chances are they'll be able to identify poor grammar in others' reviews. less

Kind of ironic how a portion of comments on this thread have mistakes in them. Even the best make mistakes and miss things.

Did you know there is actually an explanation for why this happens?
Every letter in between the first and the last in a word can be in the wrong order and the brain will check it off as correct.

Maybe the solution is a double-edit?
User Submits Review -> Edited by RandomUser and Returned to Queue -> Goes Up For Another Edit by RandomUser -> Published with Both Names

The only problem I see with having two editors on a review is the time it takes to get it published and how one would vote on their combined efforts. Just a suggestion, though.

The test is a good idea, in theory. However, with access to the internet and a word program it would be very easy to cheat. Once someone is in the program it does not mean they will continue to give it their very best effort for the good of the company. less

I don't think it's very nice or fair to comment on errors in comments. Not only do people from their smart phones (which have an autocorrect feature that is often less-than-accurate; see: link), but often when we type fast, we miss things. I transpose letters frequently when I type fast and have to go back and correct them. Besides, I don't proofread my comments in the forums unless I have a text wall... and even then. *guiltyface* But I read my reviews several times, have been known to ask other contributors to proofread, and I can still catch my errors when I go back and read it once published. (Also, in comments I abuse ellipses left and right in an effort to make a point or for emphasis. A grammatical error, I do not, or rarely, use in my reviews.)

As for two editors, I do not think that it is a good plan. Why? Because I can see the potential of several editors becoming at odds because one person missed something and then corrected it, and then downvotes the first editor. OR, the second editor will change something that is corrected and correct it wrong. OR, or, or... the possibilities are endless. less

It's just the irony of the whole thing, you know? We're talking about editing and mistakes are flying left and right. Had I called out a specific user and their mistakes then I could agree it wasn't nice. But, I didn't.

Nobody likes what's going on and nobody can agree on how to fix it and the bottom users always get the short end of the stick. It's just not fair.

But, hey...the only fair thing in life is a blonde-headed child, right? less

Just because you didn't call anyone out doesn't mean that you had to go there. I, believe it or not, bite my tongue on a lot of things I see around here. From grammar to snarky comments that just burn on my tongue. Even in this thread, I have had to make sure I didn't cross many lines. less

I don't think it's very nice or fair to comment on errors in comments. Not only do people from their smart phones (which have an autocorrect feature that is often less-than-accurate; see: link), but often when we type fast, we miss things. I transpose letters frequently when I type fast and have to go back and correct them. Besides, I don't proofread my comments in the forums unless I have a text wall... and even then. *guiltyface* But I read my reviews several times, have been known to ask other contributors to proofread, and I can still catch my errors when I go back and read it once published. (Also, in comments I abuse ellipses left and right in an effort to make a point or for emphasis. A grammatical error, I do not, or rarely, use in my reviews.)

As for two editors, I do not think that it is a good plan. Why? Because I can see the potential of several editors becoming at odds because one person missed something and then corrected it, and then downvotes the first editor. OR, the second editor will change something that is corrected and correct it wrong. OR, or, or... the possibilities are endless. less

I wasn't trying to make you feel like a petulant child. I'm just saying that taking it in that direction feels a lot like:

"See, you aren't even qualified to comment without making an error, so what makes you think you're so good at editing?"

Those of us who are grammatically-inclined , so to speak, all have seen the errors and did our little cringe when we read them.

And just because I can see a flaw in your suggestion does not mean that it wasn't appreciated NOR am I saying that you should stop participating.

EDIT: Nor should what I said have so much hold that you stop participating just because I called you out. I have called out several people around here before. Even people that I "socialize" with off-site. It's not, by any means, personal. It's simply me seeing things from a different perspective and saying so. Some might not have felt put off by a comment pointing out others' errors (even if you didn't call them out by name, you can still read the comments and figure out who it is), I was. less