Is there a way to quality control the editors? I submitted a review, and though it was grammatically perfect, the editor published it 15 seconds after I had submitted. There is no way it was read through in that amount of time. The fact that the editor got upwards of 450 points for "editing" and publishing my perfect review really concerns me - and makes me wonder if people are doing this just for the points. Is there a way to quality control this? I know we can rate the editor's performance, but if the original author wrote a technically accurate and grammatically perfect review, isn't a positive rating for the editor just reflecting the original work of the author?
Just curious - I like the idea of having editors, but the fact that there is point incentive may attract people for the wrong reasons. What do people think?
Just curious - I like the idea of having editors, but the fact that there is point incentive may attract people for the wrong reasons. What do people think?
