I just saw someone rate the editor of a review with a mid-rating rather that a high rating when the review was free of errors, the grammer was top notch and there was literally NOTHING wrong with it. Granted, it was not a good review. But it is not the editors job to write a good review, it is their job to 'EDIT' the review. Am I wrong? I just had to add an excellent rating for them.

Does anyone else see a problem with this? less

I can't speak for the one you are referring to, but just in the last 24 hrs, I've seen at least 5 edited reviews that were riddled with mistakes and completely missing commas. The sad thing is the reviews were short (3-4 paragraphs at most), so it couldn't have taken more than 2 minutes to edit.

I wonder how some of these people passed the editing test, because it is pretty challenging.

There are still those who down vote for no good reason though, but on the other side, you have people voting editors excellent when there are several mistakes.

IF you look at the voting guide for editing, it says 0 errors are excellent, 1 error is good and more than 1 error is poor. I only just recently noticed that. Maybe you overlooked an error?

Or maybe they just voted indiscriminately for the points? less

I can't speak for the one you are referring to, but just in the last 24 hrs, I've seen at least 5 edited reviews that were riddled with mistakes and completely missing commas. The sad thing is the reviews were short (3-4 paragraphs at most), so it couldn't have taken more than 2 minutes to edit.

I wonder how some of these people passed the editing test, because it is pretty challenging.

There are still those who down vote for no good reason though, but on the other side, you have people voting editors excellent when there are several mistakes.

IF you look at the voting guide for editing, it says 0 errors are excellent, 1 error is good and more than 1 error is poor. I only just recently noticed that. Maybe you overlooked an error?

Or maybe they just voted indiscriminately for the points? less

I just saw someone rate the editor of a review with a mid-rating rather that a high rating when the review was free of errors, the grammer was top notch and there was literally NOTHING wrong with it. Granted, it was not a good review. But it is not the editors job to write a good review, it is their job to 'EDIT' the review. Am I wrong? I just had to add an excellent rating for them.

Does anyone else see a problem with this? less

I just saw someone rate the editor of a review with a mid-rating rather that a high rating when the review was free of errors, the grammer was top notch and there was literally NOTHING wrong with it. Granted, it was not a good review. But it is not the editors job to write a good review, it is their job to 'EDIT' the review. Am I wrong? I just had to add an excellent rating for them.

Does anyone else see a problem with this? less

This might help for those who never noticed.

Copied from the ? box by the editor rating area:

Votes for the editor should be based on the spelling, grammar, capitalization, and punctuation in a review. These votes help Eden determine if an editor is consistent in their proofreading and good enough to be in the Proofreading Program. If you found no errors while reading, the editor did an 'excellent' job. If you found one error or a few areas that were questionable, but overall the review was well read, the editor did a 'good' job. If you found two or more obvious errors, the editor did a 'poor' job

So by that a missed comma or spelled word would be "good". That all makes sense to me. Their job is to edit, so voting excellent when there are a couple mistakes doesn't help anyone.

I do vote on editors about half the time, but there is not much incentive really. I already am pretty sure I have had retaliatory votes from voting on an editors work as poor, because it's obvious when 1 or 2 people have voted, who voted what (ie: voting my review 'Not useful at all' when it has nothing but EU votes in response to an editing vote). But when a review is full of mistakes, that is what you are supposed to do! I've found myself voting good a few times, when I should be voting poor, because I don't want the backlash.

I don't think names should appear on editing voting, so people can be more honest. I have people on my follow list that are nice, well meaning people, but they lack grammar skills and I feel bad voting them down when it's necessary, so I sometimes vote good instead of poor or abstain altogether, so they don't think I have some vendetta against them. less