When I was in the mentor program, I never had my reviews edited by my mentors (i.e., there were never any suggestions for changing grammar, punctuation, nor spelling on any of the reviews that I submitted). However, those reviews are now showing up with an editor's rating box.

How are people to know whether the review was even edited for grammar or spelling if they did not see the before and after versions of your review? It is like voting blind. On one review, I only added one additional piece of information after submitting to my mentors, but it had absolutely nothing to do with grammar, punctuation, or spelling. My mentors suggested also listing oil-based lube as a glass-compatible lubricant (I had only mentioned that glass was safe with both silicone and water-based lube). On the second review, I deleted a couple of sentences at the suggestion of my mentors in an effort to try to make the review just a bit shorter after asking for suggestions on what to cut. On the third review, no changes whatsoever were made to my review and my mentors chose to publish it as it was.

At any rate, the suggestions and help that I received was within the scope of mentoring, not editing. An editor and a mentor are two entirely different things.

So is the editing vote for both mentoring and editing? Again, even it was, how in the world would one determine a fair vote unless one reads both the before and after versions? Additionally, I think it would be helpful not to confuse mentoring with editing because not all editors are mentors and it wouldn't be fair to rate the editor with a low score just because the review was not as thorough as the voter would have liked. Besides, we aren't supposed to be voting on mentoring anyway, right?

I had suggested in the earlier thread to include a brief description in the editor rating box explaining exactly what it is that the voter is rating. Also, it would be nice if the editor rating boxes were taken off the old reviews which were published prior to this new program. less

Ah thanks ToyGeek.

I use my Microsoft works grammar check to do my reviews. I just do not know if I can copy and paste someones review, correct it and paste back. I would be a bit afraid that I might screwed up and lose the persons review.

I will just wait a bit and see how the program goes. I will copy the info from the guidlines and keep them though, that is a great idea. Thanks less

This is where I feel like this whole proof reading thing starts to get a bit sticky.

Maybe it would be good for the proofreaders to have separate rating than the mentors, but then again what about the mentors who will also be proof reading?

And I agree about not knowing the reviewer's skills before the finished product.

I am all for helping to proofread reviews, but it gets kind of sticky when it comes to rating the editors/mentors. less

I use Chrome, and the spell check works good, not as good as Mozilla though. It is the grammar part that gets me. But it does not show on something that is already written.

Since you have done the editing deal, does misspelled words and or bad grammar show up? less

Thank you for the update! This is excellent.

I wanted to note though, I am in the process of editing a review, Gary, and see a problem. The tags are doubling themselves, and I am not sure why it is doing this. It's quite odd, really, every time that I try to edit them, they multiply! less

Here is a couple thoughts and proposals to the Eden Staff.

Why not be very selective. You stated not everyone will be accepted, and I like this. However, if you are going to be very selective, then why do we need the vote? If you put these applicants through a rigorous testing phase, such as giving them assignments that have nothing to do with the site. For example what I propose is this:

Create several documents with multiple spelling and grammatical errors, pass them out to the applicants. Let the applicants go through said documents and correct them. Have one of your current Editors go through the same challenge (more of something to compare to, an answer sheet if you will). Those select few who are accepted into the program will become editors.

My second proposal is an addition to the first.

If the first proposal was accepted, how about getting rid of the voting on editors performance. You can add at the bottom:

"This review was edited [enter contributors name]

Have any suggestions, thoughts or concerns?"

You can add a link to message one of the Eden Staff members whom is heading this program. You should get 0 points for using this feature (emailing concerns). Also add that to the description so that The staff will not be spammed with point farmers.

With this last proposal it could fix the issues facing mentors as well as possibly fixing the review rating glitch.

If you want feedback on Mentors you can add an option to message the mentors.

Thanks for taking the time to read this,
Viktor less

Here is a couple thoughts and proposals to the Eden Staff.

Why not be very selective. You stated not everyone will be accepted, and I like this. However, if you are going to be very selective, then why do we need the vote? If you put these applicants through a rigorous testing phase, such as giving them assignments that have nothing to do with the site. For example what I propose is this:

Create several documents with multiple spelling and grammatical errors, pass them out to the applicants. Let the applicants go through said documents and correct them. Have one of your current Editors go through the same challenge (more of something to compare to, an answer sheet if you will). Those select few who are accepted into the program will become editors.

My second proposal is an addition to the first.

If the first proposal was accepted, how about getting rid of the voting on editors performance. You can add at the bottom:

"This review was edited [enter contributors name]

Have any suggestions, thoughts or concerns?"

You can add a link to message one of the Eden Staff members whom is heading this program. You should get 0 points for using this feature (emailing concerns). Also add that to the description so that The staff will not be spammed with point farmers.

With this last proposal it could fix the issues facing mentors as well as possibly fixing the review rating glitch.

If you want feedback on Mentors you can add an option to message the mentors.

Thanks for taking the time to read this,
Viktor less

Here is a couple thoughts and proposals to the Eden Staff.

Why not be very selective. You stated not everyone will be accepted, and I like this. However, if you are going to be very selective, then why do we need the vote? If you put these applicants through a rigorous testing phase, such as giving them assignments that have nothing to do with the site. For example what I propose is this:

Create several documents with multiple spelling and grammatical errors, pass them out to the applicants. Let the applicants go through said documents and correct them. Have one of your current Editors go through the same challenge (more of something to compare to, an answer sheet if you will). Those select few who are accepted into the program will become editors.

My second proposal is an addition to the first.

If the first proposal was accepted, how about getting rid of the voting on editors performance. You can add at the bottom:

"This review was edited [enter contributors name]

Have any suggestions, thoughts or concerns?"

You can add a link to message one of the Eden Staff members whom is heading this program. You should get 0 points for using this feature (emailing concerns). Also add that to the description so that The staff will not be spammed with point farmers.

With this last proposal it could fix the issues facing mentors as well as possibly fixing the review rating glitch.

If you want feedback on Mentors you can add an option to message the mentors.

Thanks for taking the time to read this,
Viktor less

I think that the staff could just have the application for proofreading include a small excerpt of said editor's choice.

Only problem with that is plagiarism is possible, but then again plagiarism is always possible.

Or, there could be just a few options of excerpts for the applicant to choose from and send to them.

I just noticed a strange fluke too : I finished my description review and submitted to administrator. It published. Like right away. I didn't think admins worked on Saturdays? less

As I've often told folks in the fanfiction realm, the easiest way to overcome grammar issues is to make a list of your most common failings, and then refer back to it when you edit your work. The guidelines for the program already have such a checklist, so you can probably participate just fine if you print that out, and highlight whichever mistakes you personally miss most often.

Since your reviews are quite readable, you obviously have a method in place already, and I'm sure this new system will not exclude you from the mentor program in the long run. less

Well, I showed up as LoveBuzz's editor but that was right as the changes had been made I think. I had gone to publish her review and it gave me the option to edit, so I went and fixed the couple grammar things like one capitalization and a comma somewhere. I'm good at spelling and grammar and all that for the most part, so I already knew what to fix.

If you're asking if firefox checks for grammar it hasn't as far as I have seen. I use Microsoft Word 2007 for my writing and it usually shows grammar. less

This is where I need to throw my personal 2cents worth in, just because I'd lie people to understand this one point.

cherryredhead88 has been wonderfully helping me with editing and proof reading, fixing up grammatical errors and many run on sentences - via the mentor program. Whilst I am overjoyed about the new editing options I have a concern when it comes to people voting for my editors.

The English language is a funny thing, although all of us on EF speak english not all of us write it the same way. eg: colour-color meter-metre centre-center the list is kind of endless. It just depends where you live, and although differences aren't as prolific in grammar there are also some differences there.

During the first review cherryredhead88 helped to edit the spelling of colour came up and I kinda decided to stick to the way we spell it in Australia. My concern with the new ability to vote on the editor is that those who help out with editing my reviews will be marked down due to spelling mistakes.

I know there are a lot of kinks to be worked out with the new program but felt it was worth mentioning as I would hate for someone who is helping me to be mrked down just because we spell a word slightly differently.

And finally I love Viktor's idea for contributors to pass a spelling/grammar test before being able to participate in editing tasks. less

Good point.... like I said to Viktor, not hugely obsessed with my ranking... but I'm sure there are some people who are interested in the editor program that are interested in that. Do I think about my ranking? sure... but it's not my interest in this task... my interest in this task is the desire to not have to see any more reviews that read:

"Dis vibrater iz da bomb! I luv 2 have it maked me cummmm!"

Of course, if I was assigned (IF I get accepted into the program) would probably be a review I just pass along to an admin... but that's neither here nor there. less

Good point.... like I said to Viktor, not hugely obsessed with my ranking... but I'm sure there are some people who are interested in the editor program that are interested in that. Do I think about my ranking? sure... but it's not my interest in this task... my interest in this task is the desire to not have to see any more reviews that read:

"Dis vibrater iz da bomb! I luv 2 have it maked me cummmm!"

Of course, if I was assigned (IF I get accepted into the program) would probably be a review I just pass along to an admin... but that's neither here nor there. less

Here is a couple thoughts and proposals to the Eden Staff.

Why not be very selective. You stated not everyone will be accepted, and I like this. However, if you are going to be very selective, then why do we need the vote? If you put these applicants through a rigorous testing phase, such as giving them assignments that have nothing to do with the site. For example what I propose is this:

Create several documents with multiple spelling and grammatical errors, pass them out to the applicants. Let the applicants go through said documents and correct them. Have one of your current Editors go through the same challenge (more of something to compare to, an answer sheet if you will). Those select few who are accepted into the program will become editors.

My second proposal is an addition to the first.

If the first proposal was accepted, how about getting rid of the voting on editors performance. You can add at the bottom:

"This review was edited [enter contributors name]

Have any suggestions, thoughts or concerns?"

You can add a link to message one of the Eden Staff members whom is heading this program. You should get 0 points for using this feature (emailing concerns). Also add that to the description so that The staff will not be spammed with point farmers.

With this last proposal it could fix the issues facing mentors as well as possibly fixing the review rating glitch.

If you want feedback on Mentors you can add an option to message the mentors.

Thanks for taking the time to read this,
Viktor less