About a week of time. The one I submitted over a week ago has not yet published, the one I submitted today already has published.

My guess is they are working out the kinks, so I'll be patient. (*Sigh* And I usually do so love Kinks...)

I do want my Lelo Massage Candle review published, as it is a desired product! less

About a week of time. The one I submitted over a week ago has not yet published, the one I submitted today already has published.

My guess is they are working out the kinks, so I'll be patient. (*Sigh* And I usually do so love Kinks...)

I do want my Lelo Massage Candle review published, as it is a desired product! less

Right, I get that we cannot PR our own reviews... my question is if all contributors with a rank higher than 5.5 will have the benefit of having all reviews auto-publish? Or is this a benefit reserved for only editors?


And as for the answer to #2... WOO HOO!!!! less

The auto-publish feature was not instituted 1 week ago, that's the difference. My guess is that review is following the traditional path to getting published. Your latest review followed the new guidelines and auto-published since your rating is higher than 5.5. less

I don't like the voting factor as well for onereason that I just saw on one of my reviews with my mentor. Someone voted the editing was poor which I can say is wrong since I used MS word with grammar check and it had no errors, plus my mentor was able to see previous review errors i had made.

i just dont want any other proof-readers to have thier editing rating to be low because people just want to low vote something. less

I will publicly admit that I'm the one that voted the editor as poor. It had nothing to do with your review's usefulness. There are a lot of misplaced commas, lack of commas, and run-on sentences - all of which are things that MS Word will not catch which is why we have editors in the first place. Catching spelling errors is a no-brainer; we could have a program do it. According to the editor guidelines, things that should be looked for includes run-on sentences, lack of commas, and misplaced commas. Thus, the presence of them would constitute a poor job.

Plus, as I don't have a before/after review to see, all I see is the finished product. She may have spent twenty minutes editing the review, but I have no clue; I just see the final product.

Regardless, I thought I should explain my reasoning so this wasn't assumed that I was low-voting out of spite. I'm not. However, since we don't really have any "voting" guidelines, I just took what was in the editor guidelines and assumed those things should be present after a review is proofread. less

I think that is fine. But please use good judgment. There are currently very few reviews with editor notes. This is something that we should not see popping up all over the place. If someone left out some info about the product, that is part of there review. If there is an unsafe reference, or something seriously misleading, you could make a note. less

Yes, of course. I only made it on one because they suggested suspension with bondage tape, which just isn't a good situation, unless you want someone breaking their skull from falling...

I feel that it should only be made on things that are unsafe, you know? But I saw others do it on things like placing toys with each other, which isn't a bone of contention. It should only be the unsafe practices, meaning that it could be harmful to the humans, not to the toys, correct? less

Yes, of course. I only made it on one because they suggested suspension with bondage tape, which just isn't a good situation, unless you want someone breaking their skull from falling...

I feel that it should only be made on things that are unsafe, you know? But I saw others do it on things like placing toys with each other, which isn't a bone of contention. It should only be the unsafe practices, meaning that it could be harmful to the humans, not to the toys, correct? less

I totally agree, I saw the suspension with Bondage Tape review, gasped out loud, and then was glad to see your intervention, Sir.

Similarly, I would be happy to see someone editing something like a review that suggests using a bullet for anal, or other unsafe practices etc. less

And heavy leather straps and specially made wrist and ankle cuffs with tabs to support the joints, connective tissue and muscles, as well as a reminder to only use heavy duty Eye Bolts or U Bolts which have been securely attached to INTO the beams in the ceiling and rated for more than the person being suspended weighs....etc. Preferably by someone who knows what they are doing. less

To clarify...

01: You cannot 'proofread' your own reviews. This means they will not go through the proofreading process. It will be as though you are submitting a current Not Assigned review.

02: My understanding here is all reviews will go through the proofreading process. less

I will publicly admit that I'm the one that voted the editor as poor. It had nothing to do with your review's usefulness. There are a lot of misplaced commas, lack of commas, and run-on sentences - all of which are things that MS Word will not catch which is why we have editors in the first place. Catching spelling errors is a no-brainer; we could have a program do it. According to the editor guidelines, things that should be looked for includes run-on sentences, lack of commas, and misplaced commas. Thus, the presence of them would constitute a poor job.

Plus, as I don't have a before/after review to see, all I see is the finished product. She may have spent twenty minutes editing the review, but I have no clue; I just see the final product.

Regardless, I thought I should explain my reasoning so this wasn't assumed that I was low-voting out of spite. I'm not. However, since we don't really have any "voting" guidelines, I just took what was in the editor guidelines and assumed those things should be present after a review is proofread. less