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

I'm wondering if I am looking in the correct place or maybe I'm just missing when reviews are available to edit. I'm going under "Task Market" but haven't seen anything available but have seen a lot coming out having been edited so I'm not sure if I'm just missing them each time or what.

On the two I did edit though those were the types of things I was finding too, and don't think anything I changed affected the writer's voice. less

I'm wondering if I am looking in the correct place or maybe I'm just missing when reviews are available to edit. I'm going under "Task Market" but haven't seen anything available but have seen a lot coming out having been edited so I'm not sure if I'm just missing them each time or what.

On the two I did edit though those were the types of things I was finding too, and don't think anything I changed affected the writer's voice. less

When I edit others' work, the examples that you described are the types of things that I always leave intact. Besides, there is nothing wrong with using contractions in an informal document, such as a review.

The editor should not change sentence structure, but should instead just make the necessary corrections in spelling and punctuation to get the author's point across clearly. For example, while it is grammatically incorrect to end sentences with a preposition, I would not change the sentence structure of a review I am editing if the author ended the sentence with the word "to," "in," or "for" -- even though it is not grammatically correct. As long as the reader can follow the author's point clearly, then sentence structure and wording should stand -- even if the editor knows it violates a grammar rule. The majority of people do end an occasional sentence in a preposition and, in our modern society, not doing so can make the language sound stilted (but this rule was so thoroughly pounded into my head during grade school and middle school that I feel compelled to follow that rule in my own writing).

Some examples of what I consider to be acceptable corrections include replacing the word "discrete" when the context suggests that the author actually meant "discreet." I would change it to the proper spelling because these homophones have vastly different meanings -- and "discrete" does not make sense in the context in which it is often placed. I would change "it's" to "its" when the author is using it as a possessive (like his, her, and my) and change "its" to "it's" when s/he is trying to communicate the conjunction "it is."

When editing is done well, the author's voice and tone are preserved, but the text is easier to read; plus, it is easier to understand what the author is trying to say without bogging the reader down with deciphering the meaning from improper punctuation and misspellings.

An editor should change as little as possible. 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

They are, indeed. I also have changed "OMG" to "Oh my god," because chat speak is not appropriate for reviews (unless they are done on the person's blog). I've also had to change word usage (someone said one thing but they actually meant something else) on one of the reviews - that I attribute to a general typo, so I fix those, too. But mainly just your regular grammar mistake, misuse of its versus it's, then vs. than, comma splices or too little commas, run-on sentences, things like that. less

I've corrected run-on sentences as well. I usually end up separating the thought into two sentences, changing just the capitalization and possibly adding a comma or an 'and' if necessary. I don't think that's going too far, it's really just making the information easier to understand while also making the sentences grammatically correct.

I've come across effect vs. affect in a few reviews as well. I don't remember that one being an example in the editorial guidelines but I think it's a very common error. less

I only mention it because it was in fact done in the review I posted tonight.

I don't think there is a concrete line there. Where as there were a few actual grammar corrections made and that was indeed appreciated there was one line that was just how I type and my personality. It was a bit of an awkward line but it's a part of my expressionism and not necessarily grammar friendly. It isn't really a big deal and didn't change the tone of my review but since this is a new process it's always good to point out what may not work as well as expected. In changing that one line it did sour me to the reviewing process for an hour or so but with all new ideas and changes time and trial are normal. I believe the program has a lot of merit but like many new things it could use a little fine tuning.

I really don't understand the voting either because like I stated before unless it's our own review we don't know what was changed so how do we know they did a good job or not? less

I've corrected run-on sentences as well. I usually end up separating the thought into two sentences, changing just the capitalization and possibly adding a comma or an 'and' if necessary. I don't think that's going too far, it's really just making the information easier to understand while also making the sentences grammatically correct.

I've come across effect vs. affect in a few reviews as well. I don't remember that one being an example in the editorial guidelines but I think it's a very common error. less

How about you say what was changed? As it is now, I do not have any idea what you might even be referring to, so how can any of the editors improve if you do not tell us exactly what happened that made you feel that way?

Again, I will state that voting on the editors does NOT require a before and after! That makes no sense at all! We are simply evaluating if the review is grammatically correct, not comparing it to what it was before. That is something that we would evaluate MENTORS on, not editors. Completely different. less

But what if the editors did not change anything at all because the author submitted the review with proper spelling and grammar -- and the review was written before the editing function was even installed? On the flip side, many of the reviews published before the editing function became available do have some misspellings and grammar errors. It would be unfair for the mentor to be docked for this when s/he had no control over it at the time the review was published. Plus, as we have already agreed, it is not the mentor's job to govern grammar and spelling. For the pre-editing reviews, it makes no sense to have people vote to rate a task which was never performed. less

I think people are worrying about the editor rating too much. First, the whole process is new. If EF determines there is a problem, the appropriate adjustments will be made. Second, in regards to past reviews now having editor ratings for mentors, the rating means nothing towards rank or mentoring. And, if a mentor wants to also be an editor, I'm sure EF will take this into consideration. Above all, I think EF always acts fairly. I think raising concerns is a great, but let's keep it all in perspective. This is a new feature and there will obviously be a few bumps to iron out. However, I'm confident they will be worked out. less

That's very true, but I think that everyone, myself included, is just trying to voice all of their initial reactions to it so that nothing is left unsaid, so that the team can make their decisions based off of it earlier on. I haven't felt that anyone has been urgent in their discussions, but have instead simply voiced their opinions. The Edenfantasys team is very good about all of these things, so yes, I am confident, too. 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

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

I get what you're saying. I don't think it's a bad idea to remove questionable content (like leaving a TPR toy in a puddle of silicone lube in an exaggerated example); but, I don't think an editor's note is appropriate. It's the writer's review, not the proofreader's. If you add in your own voice, it's like contradicting the writer, thus making the rest of the review a moot point.

When this comes up, leave a comment in the comment section.

Also, the reviews from before the initiation of this program are not included in EdenTasks. less

First official "beef" with the program. I tend to PR my reviews several times before I hit "submit" to catch spelling errors, etc. But I catch many of my errors once it's in "limbo" (with an admin for editing) because it's not in the boxes on the template, I can read it in a different lay out and I see it differently. I just caught an error and I cannot go back and fix it. I know it will be fixed for me, but as a writer, it's just kind of freaking me out a little.

Maybe there should be a 1/2 hour to an hour from the time it is submitted to the time it goes to the editor where a contributor can go back and proofread again.

What do y'all think? less

Yeah, I ALWAYS edited my reviews after I clicked "Submit" because the format it was changed to was SO much easier to proofread. I usually edited my reviews between three to five times before they were published.

Also, I post photos in my reviews and sometimes they do not look right, so I have to go back and make little adjustments. There is no way to tell how the photos look before you click "Submit" either. It was quite useful to be able to go back and adjust and then check how it looks on the page before going back to adjust again.

Another time I made a chart that was messed up when I clicked "Submit." I went back to edit it and played around by adding in spaces here and deleting spaces there until the chart was finally fixed. I also had to abbreviate the wording to get everything that I needed on one line since what happened to fit when drafting the review no longer fit on one line once it was published.

I am very sad that we no longer have this opportunity. less

First official "beef" with the program. I tend to PR my reviews several times before I hit "submit" to catch spelling errors, etc. But I catch many of my errors once it's in "limbo" (with an admin for editing) because it's not in the boxes on the template, I can read it in a different lay out and I see it differently. I just caught an error and I cannot go back and fix it. I know it will be fixed for me, but as a writer, it's just kind of freaking me out a little.

Maybe there should be a 1/2 hour to an hour from the time it is submitted to the time it goes to the editor where a contributor can go back and proofread again.

What do y'all think? less