Hi everyone! First of all, thank you for all of your input about the EdenTasks program. We value your thoughts on how to make the program better and appreciate the comments, criticisms, and suggestions you've offered.

Since the program started, it's been very popular and we've found the number of editors to keep up with the reviews and make publishing go smoothly. In an effort to make the program more fair and available to more contributors in the community, we will be starting a rotation through the editors. What this means is that every few months, the current editors will be released and new editors will be approved to take their place. During each editing round, applications will be taken for the next group who wish to participate in EdenTasks. Anyone who is not an editor may apply or reapply to be considered for the next round.

Please let us know if you have any questions or suggestions. You can always message me or post them to this thread.

Thanks! less

Sir, ~LaUr3n~, and Cherryredhead88, I'm grouping this answer since you have a similar question.

The idea with having people who are already editors reapply is to let us know that you're still interested in editing in the next rotation. There will be some who have previously participated who no longer want to be in the program, and by not reapplying they let us know they have no interest. This also gives us a chance to look through prior editing tasks to see how editors did during their previous participation to make sure they were doing a great job. less

So will it be as hard getting in for every rotation, or will this kind of be like the descriptive review program? I think it is a great idea in terms of being fair and giving every one a chance, I am just scared it will be tough to get back into. It took me 3 months to get accepted.

I will try and hold off on all my questions for the FAQ, thanks for clearing that first one up though less

For the test, why not give them a review with tons of errors, and rate the errors on a scale from 1 - 10 on difficulty? Ones that are really hard to catch are tens, and then less difficult are lower numbers. We would require the applicant to highlight any changes made, then compare it to the original and see how they did. Maybe? Yes, no?

Also, thank you, Sammi, for the response! That helps a lot! less

I think the rotations are a great idea! I also think new and old editors alike should have to reapply each round no matter what. That would be fairest. There are SO many contributors on Eden now; it's nice that more people will have a chance.

I'm surprised more editors don't vote on the reviews that they edit. They read and re-read the reviews their editing. I think it would be nice to see them voting too. I know that has nothing to do with this thread, but every time I see the little editor icons on reviews I wonder to myself why there are no editor votes. less

I mean, let the record show that I am, of course, against this whole idea.


That being said, I think that all editorial prospects should have to pass some kind of test, showing that they are able to edit effectively, efficiently, accurately... All while keeping the content of the review more or less untouched.

Yes, including those of us who are already editors. Mmhm.


But I also think that the ranking requirement for becoming an editor is a bit low, and I'd like to see it raised to 5.8 or 6.0, personally. less

I'm not a HUGE fan of the test idea. If it's something that needs to be done then so be it, but some people don't do well under pressure. While it would be a small test, the word test alone is enough to muddle some people. None of the current editors had to take a test to get in.

I'm not sure why, but I was under the impression that they evaluated potential editors based on the grammar in reviews the applicants had posted themselves. I could be very wrong here, but that's what's in my head. less

I'm not a HUGE fan of the test idea. If it's something that needs to be done then so be it, but some people don't do well under pressure. While it would be a small test, the word test alone is enough to muddle some people. None of the current editors had to take a test to get in.

I'm not sure why, but I was under the impression that they evaluated potential editors based on the grammar in reviews the applicants had posted themselves. I could be very wrong here, but that's what's in my head. less

I mean, let the record show that I am, of course, against this whole idea.


That being said, I think that all editorial prospects should have to pass some kind of test, showing that they are able to edit effectively, efficiently, accurately... All while keeping the content of the review more or less untouched.

Yes, including those of us who are already editors. Mmhm.


But I also think that the ranking requirement for becoming an editor is a bit low, and I'd like to see it raised to 5.8 or 6.0, personally. less