Actually we've seen several instances where an editor *did* get Poor votes on some reviews but are still in the program. I think Eden may have held off on letting them go though due to a known flaw in the program.
An editor only has access to the review for a certain period of time, yet the reviewer can always go back and change things.
Right now we have a support ticket in for this very situation--- a review that we edited was posted and we started receiving Excellent votes for it, but now all of a sudden the unedited version is back in place. We were just waiting for the Poor votes to come rolling in on us over it. less

I'm posting from my phone while on the subway, be gentle. We get reviewers who submit 10 reviews all at once, with one line for each category, or who just copy/paste the product description for the points. If I pick up three and sir picks up three, cherry picks up three, Jen doesn't know that the last one is spam. Plus, once we pick up a spam review, that counts as one of our three reviews of the day, even if we transfer it to admin.

Hope that helps. less

I am not sure what you mean by this? I am just putting in my 2 cents (or 4, or 6, or however many )

It just seems like this is very divided between those who are already editing and those who want to be editors.

It seems that those who want to be editors feel as though us editors now don't want to give up our positions. It's not about giving it up, it's about giving it up and not knowing if we will ever get it back, also I just see a lot of people trying to work through kinks and details that probably haven't even been thought of yet in the brainstorm department.

I still say we do it like the description reviews. I don't know how many people do DR's, but I do know that it cycles through and we each get our turns.

I read through this whole thread last night and I tend to keep up with things around here. Only reason I haven't been around a lot lately is because I have a life outside of Eden (that is not an attack on anyone BTW, I remember being able to just be on here all day and I wish I still could do that) and I lost my internet for a few months back there.

I have been contributing regularly for the whole year and a half I have been here and I don't tend to stop

BBW, you keep saying you applied twice in 8 months, you can re apply every month, so if you wanted in so bad why didn't you keep re applying every time you could ? Just curious. less

You're welcome. See? I'm so good with those minions of mine that I don't even have to play devil's advocate myself, anymore.

(Wait. I don't remember, now, if I actually told you to go look at this thread. Either way, I'm taking credit. Obviously.) less

There's nothing you can do about it. Ultimately, the reviewer has the right to change the review, even if it is incorrect. I know of at least one instance where the reviewer argued with me about grammar rules (insisted that "it's" was the possessive form) and reversed my corrections. I figure the few bad votes I might get from that one review will be far outweighed by the positive votes I hopefully get. I had made a suggestion in another thread that perhaps a "*" and note could mention if a reviewer edits a review after an editor has published it. My feeling is similar to yours in that I don't think people rate the editor for the most part, so I'm not that worried. less

What worries me here is that if no one does vote on an editor's job then who knows if the reviewer/editor made the change, and how do we get better at things? Making mistakes. I would like to know if I am continuously making some kind of error so that I can learn from it and fix it.

I also understand not wanting to vote on something poorly as well, however. It is hard when we make such connections with people, to "downvote" them if you will.

I still have a hard time getting a "useful" vote, even though useful isn't bad. I also have a hard time giving a "useful" vote, because I still feel like it is down voting.

:/

BBW--- I replied to your pm less

There's nothing you can do about it. Ultimately, the reviewer has the right to change the review, even if it is incorrect. I know of at least one instance where the reviewer argued with me about grammar rules (insisted that "it's" was the possessive form) and reversed my corrections. I figure the few bad votes I might get from that one review will be far outweighed by the positive votes I hopefully get. I had made a suggestion in another thread that perhaps a "*" and note could mention if a reviewer edits a review after an editor has published it. My feeling is similar to yours in that I don't think people rate the editor for the most part, so I'm not that worried. less

Perhaps the ability of going back and "re-editing" after an editor has edited the review should be disallowed for those who still need their reviews edited. It wouldn't be difficult to prevent people from going back, from the administrative standpoint.

I think this would be a good idea to prevent the editors from getting poor votes based on what reviewers do after their review is edited. less

Perhaps the ability of going back and "re-editing" after an editor has edited the review should be disallowed for those who still need their reviews edited. It wouldn't be difficult to prevent people from going back, from the administrative standpoint.

I think this would be a good idea to prevent the editors from getting poor votes based on what reviewers do after their review is edited. less

We all do make mistakes. And while I am not against others getting the chance to edit, my only fear is some of the people that are going to be able to. We see reviews that are riddled with so many errors that it takes my breath sometimes. A test should be neccesary for new editors. I see them with 20 spelling errors in one review, that are UNDERLINED in red but they still send them to be edited. These are the people that I fear being able to edit. Everyone that has posted on this thread seems to have a good knowledge of grammer and punctuation, but if random people are allowed I think that there will be problems. less

What worries me here is that if no one does vote on an editor's job then who knows if the reviewer/editor made the change, and how do we get better at things? Making mistakes. I would like to know if I am continuously making some kind of error so that I can learn from it and fix it.

I also understand not wanting to vote on something poorly as well, however. It is hard when we make such connections with people, to "downvote" them if you will.

I still have a hard time getting a "useful" vote, even though useful isn't bad. I also have a hard time giving a "useful" vote, because I still feel like it is down voting.

:/

BBW--- I replied to your pm less

What worries me here is that if no one does vote on an editor's job then who knows if the reviewer/editor made the change, and how do we get better at things?

I hate to be a broken record but the problem is that voters really have no idea what the editor has done! How can we vote? The exceptions for me are my own reviews because I know exactly what the mentor/editor contributed to the process, and reviews that are out-of-this-world since the editor either helped make it that way or had the sense to leave it be.


I also have a hard time giving a "useful" vote, because I still feel like it is down voting.

This is a big problem for me. I'm trying to be honest and fair, but I sometimes feel like a heel for clicking "useful"


@ JR:
After a review gets edited, locking it so it can't be re-edited.

I like having access to my reviews in case something minor (like paragraph spacing) needs to be updated/changed. Instead of locking them, could there be a notation of who performed the last edit? (author / editor / mentor / admin) less

What worries me here is that if no one does vote on an editor's job then who knows if the reviewer/editor made the change, and how do we get better at things?

I hate to be a broken record but the problem is that voters really have no idea what the editor has done! How can we vote? The exceptions for me are my own reviews because I know exactly what the mentor/editor contributed to the process, and reviews that are out-of-this-world since the editor either helped make it that way or had the sense to leave it be.


I also have a hard time giving a "useful" vote, because I still feel like it is down voting.

This is a big problem for me. I'm trying to be honest and fair, but I sometimes feel like a heel for clicking "useful"


@ JR:
After a review gets edited, locking it so it can't be re-edited.

I like having access to my reviews in case something minor (like paragraph spacing) needs to be updated/changed. Instead of locking them, could there be a notation of who performed the last edit? (author / editor / mentor / admin) 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

What worries me here is that if no one does vote on an editor's job then who knows if the reviewer/editor made the change, and how do we get better at things?

I hate to be a broken record but the problem is that voters really have no idea what the editor has done! How can we vote? The exceptions for me are my own reviews because I know exactly what the mentor/editor contributed to the process, and reviews that are out-of-this-world since the editor either helped make it that way or had the sense to leave it be.


I also have a hard time giving a "useful" vote, because I still feel like it is down voting.

This is a big problem for me. I'm trying to be honest and fair, but I sometimes feel like a heel for clicking "useful"


@ JR:
After a review gets edited, locking it so it can't be re-edited.

I like having access to my reviews in case something minor (like paragraph spacing) needs to be updated/changed. Instead of locking them, could there be a notation of who performed the last edit? (author / editor / mentor / admin) less