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

Thanks for this new opportunity! I still have a few questions:
1. With regards to the "line" of too much/too little editing: What if the reviews have run-on sentences? Grammatically they're incorrect but changing them might be re-wording the reviewer's initial thought.

In the reviews that I've edited for the mentor program, I generally pointed them out in the comments section, but I wouldn't fix them myself. I'd either let the student do it (or if the student left it alone, I'd just published the review because I figured that's how the student wanted it to read. That being said, all of my students seem to be very good writers so 1 or 2 run-ons weren't a big deal).

2. Since the EF staff has never (to my knowledge) sent a review back to the student, I am still unclear as to when an editor *should* send the review back to the student.

3. If the reviewer missed something obvious should the reviewer put in an edit ie (edit from ___: Only use water based lubricant with silicone toys).

4. Why have editor rankings if they don't count towards your EF ranking?

I hope I'm selected for the program, it seems like a great idea! less

Thanks for this new opportunity! I still have a few questions:
1. With regards to the "line" of too much/too little editing: What if the reviews have run-on sentences? Grammatically they're incorrect but changing them might be re-wording the reviewer's initial thought.

In the reviews that I've edited for the mentor program, I generally pointed them out in the comments section, but I wouldn't fix them myself. I'd either let the student do it (or if the student left it alone, I'd just published the review because I figured that's how the student wanted it to read. That being said, all of my students seem to be very good writers so 1 or 2 run-ons weren't a big deal).

2. Since the EF staff has never (to my knowledge) sent a review back to the student, I am still unclear as to when an editor *should* send the review back to the student.

3. If the reviewer missed something obvious should the reviewer put in an edit ie (edit from ___: Only use water based lubricant with silicone toys).

4. Why have editor rankings if they don't count towards your EF ranking?

I hope I'm selected for the program, it seems like a great idea! less

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

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

Yeah, there are disagreements about the correct spellings of words that have more than one accepted spelling -- and I do not only mean the difference between what is considered "correct" in England, Canada, and Australia versus the U.S. (such as you see with the word color/colour, amongst many others). There are some words which happen to have more than one accepted form of spelling right here in the U.S.

To give one example, there is disagreement about the best spelling for judgment. In theology and law, it is spelled "judgment" (my preferred way of spelling it). Yet many people prefer to spell it "judgement" -- and this is considered to be acceptable. If you look it up in a dictionary, you will find that both spellings are listed. Interestingly enough, I have learned that most people -- even quite a few in academic settings -- are unaware that there is more than one acceptable spelling of this word. It would be wrong to "take off" for this in a review just because the editor chose to leave the reviewer's preferred spelling and the voter does not think that spelling is "correct."

Also, there are many words which people commonly misspell while vehemently asserting that the misspelling is correct. So you could have someone down-voting the editor's rating because they think a correctly spelled word is wrong. This happens a lot with homophones (words like discrete and discreet -- I see "discrete" wrongly used for "discreet" on a regular basis).

The majority of people do not have an inclination to scrupulously study grammar and spelling. (Perhaps those of us who actually do love this sort of thing are oddballs. )

Despite the fact that there are relatively few of us with strong grammarian inclinations, there is no shortage of people who like to try to correct others -- even if the spelling and grammar of what they are attempting to change is correct. It seems that "a little knowledge is dangerous" since they know a bit about grammar and think they are always right. I have seen people "correct" the grammar and spelling of others, changing it from something that was correct to something that is incorrect due to their misunderstanding and desire to criticize. (I have not seen this at EF yet, but I am afraid that this voting system may introduce this type of ugliness into the community.) These are the type of people who might pose problems voting on the editor's rating. This is why I am not so sure that having an open voting system for the editor's work is that helpful.

Voting on a review's usefulness to you is completely subjective -- you are the only person who can answer that question and you cannot negate someone's opinion. But voting on grammar and spelling is NOT subjective. Nor is it based upon opinion. It is completely objective. Why would you take votes from everyone and anyone when not anyone and everyone is good at grammar and spelling? It would be more logical if only other editors could vote, if there is to be any rating system on it at all. When it comes to objective assessments, any judgment (pun intended) of accuracy should come from someone who has mastered the material. You wouldn't give college essays to high school students to grade, for example. less

Yeah, there are disagreements about the correct spellings of words that have more than one accepted spelling -- and I do not only mean the difference between what is considered "correct" in England, Canada, and Australia versus the U.S. (such as you see with the word color/colour, amongst many others). There are some words which happen to have more than one accepted form of spelling right here in the U.S.

To give one example, there is disagreement about the best spelling for judgment. In theology and law, it is spelled "judgment" (my preferred way of spelling it). Yet many people prefer to spell it "judgement" -- and this is considered to be acceptable. If you look it up in a dictionary, you will find that both spellings are listed. Interestingly enough, I have learned that most people -- even quite a few in academic settings -- are unaware that there is more than one acceptable spelling of this word. It would be wrong to "take off" for this in a review just because the editor chose to leave the reviewer's preferred spelling and the voter does not think that spelling is "correct."

Also, there are many words which people commonly misspell while vehemently asserting that the misspelling is correct. So you could have someone down-voting the editor's rating because they think a correctly spelled word is wrong. This happens a lot with homophones (words like discrete and discreet -- I see "discrete" wrongly used for "discreet" on a regular basis).

The majority of people do not have an inclination to scrupulously study grammar and spelling. (Perhaps those of us who actually do love this sort of thing are oddballs. )

Despite the fact that there are relatively few of us with strong grammarian inclinations, there is no shortage of people who like to try to correct others -- even if the spelling and grammar of what they are attempting to change is correct. It seems that "a little knowledge is dangerous" since they know a bit about grammar and think they are always right. I have seen people "correct" the grammar and spelling of others, changing it from something that was correct to something that is incorrect due to their misunderstanding and desire to criticize. (I have not seen this at EF yet, but I am afraid that this voting system may introduce this type of ugliness into the community.) These are the type of people who might pose problems voting on the editor's rating. This is why I am not so sure that having an open voting system for the editor's work is that helpful.

Voting on a review's usefulness to you is completely subjective -- you are the only person who can answer that question and you cannot negate someone's opinion. But voting on grammar and spelling is NOT subjective. Nor is it based upon opinion. It is completely objective. Why would you take votes from everyone and anyone when not anyone and everyone is good at grammar and spelling? It would be more logical if only other editors could vote, if there is to be any rating system on it at all. When it comes to objective assessments, any judgment (pun intended) of accuracy should come from someone who has mastered the material. You wouldn't give college essays to high school students to grade, for example. less

I completely agree with you here! I consider myself to be good in grammar and spelling, but I still did not know the judgement (judgment?) thing you said. In fact now I don't even remember how I spelled it, but firefox says that judgement is the wrong spelling... heh.


Anyways, I feel that the requirements for editors should include that they are open minded and try to be as objective as possible. Like a few others have mentioned, the task of the editors is to simply revise for grammar and spelling, not content. That is for the mentors.

The only challenge I can see myself facing as an editor is simply the spelling differences that have been talked about. Thanks to LoveBuzz I have been reminded that the way I learned to spell isn't the only way! Fortunately I am one of those with an open mind, and I think everyone should have their own voice and opinion.

I guess it will come down to if the word(s) in question will be readable and understandable. Like I know that colour is the same as color. But if someone spelled something "lyke dis I wood have a hird time wth it"

Lol I can't even think of ways to spell stuff wrong.


The more I read through our ideas the more I think that voting on editing is irrelevant. I'm hoping that it's just part of the test phase.

I feel like an ass now for voting "good" on some of them, I don't think I will be voting on them anymore. less

I agree. I also agree that voting on the editor at all, much less the editors of older reviews will NOT be of much help. I don't really see the point of voting on editors, unless it's to decide who to keep in the program.

I'm not quite sure how one is supposed to know how much work an editor did. Unless the editing job was awful, there really is no reason to "vote" on editing jobs. IMO. less

I have a question about the self-publishing aspect of this new program. I just finished my Lip Service review. There's now an option to select a category for a review item if the system couldn't automatically figure it out. Among the options are Erotic Video and Adult DVD.

What's the difference?

I chose Adult DVD and the review didn't auto-publish, just to answer someone's earlier question about that. less

I have a question about the self-publishing aspect of this new program. I just finished my Lip Service review. There's now an option to select a category for a review item if the system couldn't automatically figure it out. Among the options are Erotic Video and Adult DVD.

What's the difference?

I chose Adult DVD and the review didn't auto-publish, just to answer someone's earlier question about that. less

That's a tech issue we've dealt with from time to time. It's related to the not-assigned reviews not auto-publishing.

When this is the case, send an email to partners@edenfantasys. com and let us know.

Adult DVD's are porno's. Sensual/Erotic videos are like "how to" or exercise videos.
-----

It's not ok to add more info to someone's review, even if you think it would be useful.

Also, do NOT send back a person's review for not having measurements or something that is found on the product page. That's akin to hijacking someone's review and is just a dick move.

----

If you find a problem with a review or a glitch in the programming, email partners@edenfantasys. com and let us know.

This community rawks! less

I wanted to ask about something that wasn't really responded to.

I personally did not add more information, but the person suggested the use of suspension with bondage tape, and I made an editor's note saying: "Note: Use of this product for suspension is not recommended. Use with caution," or something of that sort. Is that alright for us to do? I remember that the editors used to add those things into the review without adding or omitting information in order to keep the individual's work still there. less

Okay, when I saw this thread I thought it was great because I've seen so many reviews with incorrect information and bad recommendations on them not to mention grammatical errors. Now I'm not to sure it's so great. If there aren't corrections to the errors with the exception of grammar then one has to ask if there is a down side.

The errors that matter will still be present (I think Sir touched on this with the editors note). Also something to think about is that in some cases the writers personality will come out in the typing and just because it isn't correct English it may be adjusted removing the authors personality. My concern is without the individuals personality the reviews could become generic and cold which would seem to defeat the purpose at Eden. Fixing the correct usage of the word their, there or they're and changing alot to a lot is completely different from changing a sentence that is written the way an individual envisions it.

If I say 'I won't be doing that' that's just my personality and not correct grammar but it's just me. Correcting it to 'I will not do that' is grammatically correct however it looses that lil umpf that made it personal and real.

Just putting it out there... less

No, we're not changing the voice at all. I am not understanding why so many people have mentioned this. All that we are changing is proper conjunctions, use of commas, and sentence breaks. Grammatical errors, not the difference between "don't" and "do not." less

Agreed.

So far I've changed the last letter(s) of a few words to make proper subject/verb agreement, changed a few slang (text message type language, as mentioned in editorial guidelines) words to "real" words, added or removed spaces, corrected punctuation, capitalization, spelling and usage (it's vs. its, discreet vs. discrete), but that's all. I don't think any of this changes the tone or personality of the review.

Sir- I've noticed you've edited quite a few, are these the same things you're running into? less

Okay, when I saw this thread I thought it was great because I've seen so many reviews with incorrect information and bad recommendations on them not to mention grammatical errors. Now I'm not to sure it's so great. If there aren't corrections to the errors with the exception of grammar then one has to ask if there is a down side.

The errors that matter will still be present (I think Sir touched on this with the editors note). Also something to think about is that in some cases the writers personality will come out in the typing and just because it isn't correct English it may be adjusted removing the authors personality. My concern is without the individuals personality the reviews could become generic and cold which would seem to defeat the purpose at Eden. Fixing the correct usage of the word their, there or they're and changing alot to a lot is completely different from changing a sentence that is written the way an individual envisions it.

If I say 'I won't be doing that' that's just my personality and not correct grammar but it's just me. Correcting it to 'I will not do that' is grammatically correct however it looses that lil umpf that made it personal and real.

Just putting it out there... less