Do you think that the Editor/Proofreading Program is Effective? - Created by B8trDude on Jun 03, 2011: EdenFantasys Forum

Coralbell

Are you sure these were actually edited by someone in the proofreading program, or were they reviews that were published by a mentor? I hate how there is no distinction in the way the 2 are displayed. Although mentors should be correcting errors too.

Reply

06/03/2011

Owl Identified

Some things can slip by - for example, I might overlook "I would recommended it" if I read quickly. Overall the program seems to save Edenfantasys staff time and the company money, but maybe editors need to slow down a bit! I think the lock on how many you can proof in a day is helpful in deterring point farming and blasting through without a careful eye.

Reply

06/03/2011

Owl Identified

Quote:

Originally posted by Coralbell

Are you sure these were actually edited by someone in the proofreading program, or were they reviews that were published by a mentor? I hate how there is no distinction in the way the 2 are displayed. Although mentors should be correcting errors too.

I forgot about this, but a very good point.

Reply

06/03/2011

B8trDude

Quote:

Originally posted by Coralbell

Are you sure these were actually edited by someone in the proofreading program, or were they reviews that were published by a mentor? I hate how there is no distinction in the way the 2 are displayed. Although mentors should be correcting errors too.

I'm afraid they were actually edited by someone (you can look to see if they also have any students).

Reply

06/03/2011

B8trDude

Quote:

Originally posted by Owl Identified

Some things can slip by - for example, I might overlook "I would recommended it" if I read quickly. Overall the program seems to save Edenfantasys staff time and the company money, but maybe editors need to slow down a bit! I think the lock ... more

After I found some of the errors listed above, I then found other reviews that the same person edited - there were errors on those too One very easy way to avoid many of the problems mentioned, is to simply cut and paste the reviews into a word processor (the editors can do the same thing too). It's easy to miss things - especially your own writing. I think that some may just be blasting through the reviews or, perhaps, shouldn't be editors.

Reply

06/03/2011

markeagleone

I know I have missed things here and there. Thanks for bringing this up because I know I should probably read the reviews at least three times. My eyes seem to go faster and my brain tries to catch up. I like your suggestion of the word processor, as I have not thought of doing that.

I know that "discreet" and "discrete" are ones that I have difficulty with. Don't know why, but I very rarely catch it.

*I am sure I have made mistakes here while responding, forgive me*

Reply

06/03/2011

Kindred

I think it's useful because it has made the process more efficient. Anyone remember reviews taking 3 weeks to publish? However, errors do happen. We are all human and can make mistakes. However, I think we should also remember that the main goal is to make the review readable, not 100% grammatically correct. While I agree some of your examples are not acceptable, I do let some minor errors pass if I believe it was the intent of the writer or is consistent with their writing voice. If you see egregious errors, I would message the editor and they can correct them. I know I would certainly appreciate that.

When the program first started, I know I published mistakes by not saving sections I had previously edited. If leaving any of the sections open when you publish, it automatically reverts back to the original text that was there. Your edits do not get saved.

Lastly, also remember that the original reviewer can also potentially go back and re-edit a review. I recently had a discussion with the author of a review I edited. Among other issues, he/she insisted that "it's" was the correct way to indicate the possessive form of "it" despite my multiple attempts to explain otherwise. I did not check, but he/she could have gone back and made the changes after I edited and published the review. It would then appear that I did not edit the review properly.

Reply

06/03/2011

B8trDude

Everyone makes errors - I certainly do. It's also easy to miss other's mistakes but, as I mentioned, the above examples were pretty bad and most have been caught right away. I find all kinds of errors, even in edited reviews but usually there are not as many in after some have been edited. The two reviews were just exceptionally noteworthy and embarrassing.

Reply

06/03/2011

CPTInsanity

I guess that it would depend on the person writing and editing. I'm not saying that I am some kind of super brain, but if I wanted to edit my own review, I could make it look right. You never know, you could have someone with a PhD writing the review, and a highschool drop out editing it. Not trying to say anything mean here, just saying that if you are a pretty sharp person, you could probably do it yourself.

Reply

06/03/2011

cherryredhead88

Quote:

Originally posted by B8trDude

Everyone makes errors - I certainly do. It's also easy to miss other's mistakes but, as I mentioned, the above examples were pretty bad and most have been caught right away. I find all kinds of errors, even in edited reviews but usually there ... more

I would message the editor. I know the ability to vote for the editors is available, and to my understanding, the editor can lose their privelage if they make enough mistakes.

I think the program is effective, but unfortunately it's another way to get points. It is tougher to get in, but I still think some people just go through their reviews really quick for their points.

There is also the fact that it is possible to overlook things, especially after being on the site and reading review after review, before even going to edit some.

I think that it needs some minor tweaks, and I'm sure they will get to it. Eden is trying to improve and revamp a lot of things right now and I'm sure it's on the list.

I also don't think you are being too harsh because there's no reason for multiple errors being made to keep occuring, but I think messaging the editor can help you find out if the reviewer did indeed turn things back.

Reply

06/03/2011

cherryredhead88

Quote:

Originally posted by markeagleone

I know I have missed things here and there. Thanks for bringing this up because I know I should probably read the reviews at least three times. My eyes seem to go faster and my brain tries to catch up. I like your suggestion of the word processor, as ... more

No one is perfect and I am sure we will all make mistakes while editing things.
There is a page in the edentasks that explains certain meanings, discreet/discrete is one of them. It also talks about commas and contractions.

Reply

06/03/2011

El-Jaro

I still love this program hard. It's really saved the company a LOT of time on the clock. When I first started, I would literally spend 10 hrs a day proofing reviews.

I do think slowing down on the editing process would help though. I've seen a few editors let things go that should've went to admins.

I think the program could use continuing watchfulness, like any program.

Reply

06/03/2011

Selective Sensualist

I always proof each review I edit three times. I am glad there is a limit to how many I can pick up because I feel as though I can give each review I edit quality attention. I usually make some corrections on the second and third times through the review, despite taking my time and doing a thorough job the first time. (I do admit, however, that I am extremely tedious and pretty nit-picky when it comes to grammar, so this is probably a bit extreme.) Granted, it takes a lot of time to proof a review three times, and not everyone can take the leisure to do that. (Back when EF's editors published reviews, I can guarantee you no one went over each review three times---not with the vast number of submitted reviews that passed under the noses of a small handful of overwhelmed editors! )

As Kindred mentioned, the reviewer can always go back in and make changes to a review once it has been edited, thus leaving behind errors that were not there at the time the editor published the review. Unfortunately, the editor does not receive a notification that the review has been edited again, so s/he cannot double-check the review. (I think it would be great if we did get such notifications! I also would appreciate notifications when a review is rated anything less than "excellent" so that the review can be checked by the editor again.)

Off-site reviews cannot be edited by the editor, other than the summary, pros, cons, and the experience section that is on-site. Additionally, follow-up reviews are very rarely edited by the original editor. (The follow-up editor is not shown though---only the original editor.)

I don't want to make excuses for blatant and multiple errors, but there are occasionally some very difficult reviews to edit. Most of the contributors have a good (and often even great) command of grammar, and the editing changes are quite minor. But sometimes you get a review for which you must laboriously decipher what is even being said sentence by sentence. You could theoretically send it back to the contributor to revise, but honestly, if the contributor's grasp of grammar is that poor, it is not likely that s/he can do a lot better. It is unreasonable to expect someone who struggles with grammar to take a review of a sex toy to a tutoring center to request help, so I am always happy to help the contributor out, especially if I think the contributor is sincere and is sharing an honest opinion with the community; I think it's worth the effort to make the review readable. But sometimes the amount of work one must do to make a review readable is overwhelming, so errors one might not otherwise miss are overlooked in the struggle to simply make the review readable and understandable. (I hope this makes sense.) I would always welcome and deeply appreciate a private message pointing out a blatant error in any review I edit.

As far as copying and pasting into a software program with a spelling and grammar checker, there are too many errors that are overlooked by such programs, so I hope no one uses that as their main form of proofing! For example, if the list of errors in the original post were posted into Microsoft Word, the grammar checker only catches the "there there" duplicate, "masterbator," and "goo." (Of course, there are some correct applications of the word "goo.")

Just my $0.02.

Reply

06/03/2011

ZenaidaMacroura

Quote:

Originally posted by Selective Sensualist

I always proof each review I edit three times. I am glad there is a limit to how many I can pick up because I feel as though I can give each review I edit quality attention. I usually make some corrections on the second and third times through the ... more

I always proof each review I edit three times. I am glad there is a limit to how many I can pick up because I feel as though I can give each review I edit quality attention. I usually make some corrections on the second and third times through the review, despite taking my time and doing a thorough job the first time. (I do admit, however, that I am extremely tedious and pretty nit-picky when it comes to grammar, so this is probably a bit extreme.) Granted, it takes a lot of time to proof a review three times, and not everyone can take the leisure to do that. (Back when EF's editors published reviews, I can guarantee you no one went over each review three times---not with the vast number of submitted reviews that passed under the noses of a small handful of overwhelmed editors! )

As Kindred mentioned, the reviewer can always go back in and make changes to a review once it has been edited, thus leaving behind errors that were not there at the time the editor published the review. Unfortunately, the editor does not receive a notification that the review has been edited again, so s/he cannot double-check the review. (I think it would be great if we did get such notifications! I also would appreciate notifications when a review is rated anything less than "excellent" so that the review can be checked by the editor again.)

Off-site reviews cannot be edited by the editor, other than the summary, pros, cons, and the experience section that is on-site. Additionally, follow-up reviews are very rarely edited by the original editor. (The follow-up editor is not shown though---only the original editor.)

I don't want to make excuses for blatant and multiple errors, but there are occasionally some very difficult reviews to edit. Most of the contributors have a good (and often even great) command of grammar, and the editing changes are quite minor. But sometimes you get a review for which you must laboriously decipher what is even being said sentence by sentence. You could theoretically send it back to the contributor to revise, but honestly, if the contributor's grasp of grammar is that poor, it is not likely that s/he can do a lot better. It is unreasonable to expect someone who struggles with grammar to take a review of a sex toy to a tutoring center to request help, so I am always happy to help the contributor out, especially if I think the contributor is sincere and is sharing an honest opinion with the community; I think it's worth the effort to make the review readable. But sometimes the amount of work one must do to make a review readable is overwhelming, so errors one might not otherwise miss are overlooked in the struggle to simply make the review readable and understandable. (I hope this makes sense.) I would always welcome and deeply appreciate a private message pointing out a blatant error in any review I edit.

As far as copying and pasting into a software program with a spelling and grammar checker, there are too many errors that are overlooked by such programs, so I hope no one uses that as their main form of proofing! For example, if the list of errors in the original post were posted into Microsoft Word, the grammar checker only catches the "there there" duplicate, "masterbator," and "goo." (Of course, there are some correct applications of the word "goo.")

Just my $0.02. less

This.

Some reviews are hard to make heads or tails of. Occasionally, one or two mistakes can slip through. Editing reviews riddled with errors takes time and work, but things can still fall through the cracks. If I make an error, anyone who notices is more than welcome to message me and let me know. I'd be happy to change it.

It is also a tad frustrating that the reviewer can go back and edit the review to change it back to what they originally wrote, even if it is wrong. I haven't had too much trouble with this happening, but it has happened. In these cases, the editor isn't notified, so it just looks like poor editing.

And I just realized I'm basically saying exactly what Selective Sensualist already said. Haha.

Basically, I understand that from the outside it can seem like editors are just flying through reviews and missing mistakes left and right, or have no concept of spelling and grammar. This isn't the case usually, if ever. There is also the chance that people may do things quickly or poorly just to get points quickly. I don't really think this is the case, either because there is a limit to how many you can do each day to prevent that kind of abuse. We're really just trying to get the reviews as readable and polished as possible.

Before this program, reviews took MUCH longer to publish, and even then there were often obvious mistakes left in, such as smilies. I think the program has changed things for the better, for the most part.

Reply

06/03/2011

B8trDude

Quote:

Originally posted by Selective Sensualist

I always proof each review I edit three times. I am glad there is a limit to how many I can pick up because I feel as though I can give each review I edit quality attention. I usually make some corrections on the second and third times through the ... more

I always proof each review I edit three times. I am glad there is a limit to how many I can pick up because I feel as though I can give each review I edit quality attention. I usually make some corrections on the second and third times through the review, despite taking my time and doing a thorough job the first time. (I do admit, however, that I am extremely tedious and pretty nit-picky when it comes to grammar, so this is probably a bit extreme.) Granted, it takes a lot of time to proof a review three times, and not everyone can take the leisure to do that. (Back when EF's editors published reviews, I can guarantee you no one went over each review three times---not with the vast number of submitted reviews that passed under the noses of a small handful of overwhelmed editors! )

As Kindred mentioned, the reviewer can always go back in and make changes to a review once it has been edited, thus leaving behind errors that were not there at the time the editor published the review. Unfortunately, the editor does not receive a notification that the review has been edited again, so s/he cannot double-check the review. (I think it would be great if we did get such notifications! I also would appreciate notifications when a review is rated anything less than "excellent" so that the review can be checked by the editor again.)

Off-site reviews cannot be edited by the editor, other than the summary, pros, cons, and the experience section that is on-site. Additionally, follow-up reviews are very rarely edited by the original editor. (The follow-up editor is not shown though---only the original editor.)

I don't want to make excuses for blatant and multiple errors, but there are occasionally some very difficult reviews to edit. Most of the contributors have a good (and often even great) command of grammar, and the editing changes are quite minor. But sometimes you get a review for which you must laboriously decipher what is even being said sentence by sentence. You could theoretically send it back to the contributor to revise, but honestly, if the contributor's grasp of grammar is that poor, it is not likely that s/he can do a lot better. It is unreasonable to expect someone who struggles with grammar to take a review of a sex toy to a tutoring center to request help, so I am always happy to help the contributor out, especially if I think the contributor is sincere and is sharing an honest opinion with the community; I think it's worth the effort to make the review readable. But sometimes the amount of work one must do to make a review readable is overwhelming, so errors one might not otherwise miss are overlooked in the struggle to simply make the review readable and understandable. (I hope this makes sense.) I would always welcome and deeply appreciate a private message pointing out a blatant error in any review I edit.

As far as copying and pasting into a software program with a spelling and grammar checker, there are too many errors that are overlooked by such programs, so I hope no one uses that as their main form of proofing! For example, if the list of errors in the original post were posted into Microsoft Word, the grammar checker only catches the "there there" duplicate, "masterbator," and "goo." (Of course, there are some correct applications of the word "goo.")

Just my $0.02. less

I agreed that word processors only catch some (not all) errors. The examples I provided, however, are so bad that using a software program would have easily caught the mistakes. BTW, some of the editors on this site do a great job (and those that have responded to this thread are articulate and do a great job). I created this thread when there seemed to be an increase in some reviews that had been edited by others. Of course, there are many times when words can be misspelled on purpose. Personally, I like to think that I'm "Master Bator"

Reply

06/03/2011

Darling Jen

I skipped through this thread so I don't know if someone mentioned it yet... But I figure it's worthing sharing. I know some of the reviews were published by mentors during times when the site was acting wacky or something happened when they saved the review before publishing so sometimes they did edit it but the revised version was NOT what published. There aren't too many cases like this floating around but I'm sure that does explain a few of them. And I think for the most part that was an older flaw in the system and is pretty rare now.

Reply

06/03/2011

cherryredhead88

Quote:

Originally posted by Selective Sensualist

I always proof each review I edit three times. I am glad there is a limit to how many I can pick up because I feel as though I can give each review I edit quality attention. I usually make some corrections on the second and third times through the ... more

I always proof each review I edit three times. I am glad there is a limit to how many I can pick up because I feel as though I can give each review I edit quality attention. I usually make some corrections on the second and third times through the review, despite taking my time and doing a thorough job the first time. (I do admit, however, that I am extremely tedious and pretty nit-picky when it comes to grammar, so this is probably a bit extreme.) Granted, it takes a lot of time to proof a review three times, and not everyone can take the leisure to do that. (Back when EF's editors published reviews, I can guarantee you no one went over each review three times---not with the vast number of submitted reviews that passed under the noses of a small handful of overwhelmed editors! )

As Kindred mentioned, the reviewer can always go back in and make changes to a review once it has been edited, thus leaving behind errors that were not there at the time the editor published the review. Unfortunately, the editor does not receive a notification that the review has been edited again, so s/he cannot double-check the review. (I think it would be great if we did get such notifications! I also would appreciate notifications when a review is rated anything less than "excellent" so that the review can be checked by the editor again.)

Off-site reviews cannot be edited by the editor, other than the summary, pros, cons, and the experience section that is on-site. Additionally, follow-up reviews are very rarely edited by the original editor. (The follow-up editor is not shown though---only the original editor.)

I don't want to make excuses for blatant and multiple errors, but there are occasionally some very difficult reviews to edit. Most of the contributors have a good (and often even great) command of grammar, and the editing changes are quite minor. But sometimes you get a review for which you must laboriously decipher what is even being said sentence by sentence. You could theoretically send it back to the contributor to revise, but honestly, if the contributor's grasp of grammar is that poor, it is not likely that s/he can do a lot better. It is unreasonable to expect someone who struggles with grammar to take a review of a sex toy to a tutoring center to request help, so I am always happy to help the contributor out, especially if I think the contributor is sincere and is sharing an honest opinion with the community; I think it's worth the effort to make the review readable. But sometimes the amount of work one must do to make a review readable is overwhelming, so errors one might not otherwise miss are overlooked in the struggle to simply make the review readable and understandable. (I hope this makes sense.) I would always welcome and deeply appreciate a private message pointing out a blatant error in any review I edit.

As far as copying and pasting into a software program with a spelling and grammar checker, there are too many errors that are overlooked by such programs, so I hope no one uses that as their main form of proofing! For example, if the list of errors in the original post were posted into Microsoft Word, the grammar checker only catches the "there there" duplicate, "masterbator," and "goo." (Of course, there are some correct applications of the word "goo.")

Just my $0.02. less

"But sometimes you get a review for which you must laboriously decipher what is even being said sentence by sentence."

THIS. This is just what I was coming back to write about. I have had quite a few reviews with so many run on sentences, that don't make sense if edited properly (which means leaving the reviewer's voice as is). We are not allowed to restructure a whole sentence very often, and my biggest struggle is trying to keep the person's voice without re writing the whole thing for them.

I am currently doing one such review right now, and it isn't exactly easy to read a whole paragraph made of one sentence.

Reply

06/03/2011

ToyTimeTim

If it takes a big load off the staff and reviews will get published a LOT faster, I think it is great.

I suck at grammar and rely heavily on Open Office/Word Perfect for my editing needs. That is the main reason I do not vote on the editors job. I could not do it so I do not feel comfortable voting.

To me as long as I can read the review with little problems, it is fine.

Reply

06/03/2011

Airen Wolf

(EF Review Program Mentor)

Remembering that most of the people in the editing program aren't, in fact, professional proofreaders can also set some slack in the system. I, personally, know I've seen some stubborn reviewers change their reviews back to reflect the poor grammar, one of them I KNOW happened because the editor and I looked up the actual grammar rule to be sure we were correct...and sure enough a day after the review published it was changed back.

I wonder if the reviews in question were from an editor who didn't realize you have to actually save your changes on the review before publishing it?

Reply

06/03/2011

B8trDude

Quote:

Originally posted by cherryredhead88

"But sometimes you get a review for which you must laboriously decipher what is even being said sentence by sentence."

THIS. This is just what I was coming back to write about. I have had quite a few reviews with so many run on ... more

I think that this is a good point - even the best editor can't change really poorly written reviews. The reviews I mentioned above were certainly not very well-written. They can just help make things a bit easier for those of us who try and read them by correcting some of the most egregious problems.

Reply

06/03/2011

tim1724

Quote:

Originally posted by El-Jaro

I still love this program hard. It's really saved the company a LOT of time on the clock. When I first started, I would literally spend 10 hrs a day proofing reviews.

I do think slowing down on the editing process would help though. ... more

What sorts of things have you seen that should have been sent to admins? Right now the guidelines don't provide a lot of guidance as to what situations should be sent to admins. I'd love to see the guidelines fleshed out with more information.

Reply

06/04/2011

tim1724

Oh, and hasn't the "publishing without saving" bug been fixed? I haven't had any problems with it.

Reply

06/04/2011

Eucaly

I haven't seen very many of these errors on edited reviews, but a few, yes.

Reply

06/04/2011

Sir

Why not just rate the person who edited it poorly and move on? Or email someone in the company that this person has repeatedly made mistakes so that they can be bumped?

It doesn't mean that the whole proofreading program is bad, just some proofreaders are.

Reply

06/04/2011

DeliciousSurprise

Quote:

Originally posted by El-Jaro

I still love this program hard. It's really saved the company a LOT of time on the clock. When I first started, I would literally spend 10 hrs a day proofing reviews.

I do think slowing down on the editing process would help though. ... more

Something that I would find really helpful would be more concrete guidelines of what kind of things should be sent to admins.

Maybe this should go in the other editor thread...

Reply

06/04/2011

VieuxCarre

My question is why are there contributors of lower ranks editors and those of higher ranks being denied? I've applied to help several times and have been denied, though I do have the ability to edit my students' reviews. I read through them quickly sometimes, but I go back to make sure there aren't any grammatical issues after I've made sure the review has the content that it needs. Also, spell check doesn't check everything and some people may look for the little red squiggle line beneath a word to tell if it's misspelled or not.

Reply

06/04/2011

Dusk

Quote:

Originally posted by VieuxCarre

My question is why are there contributors of lower ranks editors and those of higher ranks being denied? I've applied to help several times and have been denied, though I do have the ability to edit my students' reviews. I read through them ... more

Yeah, I wish we had to supply a writing sample or a proofreading test or something to get in. It's just unfortunate, I've applied quite a few times but I always get denied (I guess they have enough now?) which sucks because I LOVE proofreading. Blech.

Reply

06/04/2011

DeliciousSurprise

Quote:

Originally posted by Dusk

Yeah, I wish we had to supply a writing sample or a proofreading test or something to get in. It's just unfortunate, I've applied quite a few times but I always get denied (I guess they have enough now?) which sucks because I LOVE ... more

When last I read, they were not accepting any more editors at the current time but were holding all applications for when they reopened the program. I assume the editors of lower rank were simply those who applied and were accepted when the program was accepting new editors.

I am would assume that, when they do accept new editors, they look at your reviews to see if you are consistently well-written, as an example of your editing/grammatical skills.

Reply

06/04/2011

cherryredhead88

Quote:

Originally posted by VieuxCarre

My question is why are there contributors of lower ranks editors and those of higher ranks being denied? I've applied to help several times and have been denied, though I do have the ability to edit my students' reviews. I read through them ... more

I had to apply three times to get in to the program, and I saw a lot of lower ranked people who were newer than me on before I was. I suggest you just keep trying, and they should accept you eventually.

I don't think they care about the rank, as long as the person is literate and has good writing and proofreading skills.

Reply

06/04/2011