#EdenTasks - Proofreading Program

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

Alright, thank you! The comment suggestion sounds good, I need to comment more reviews with suggestions. I stopped doing that a while ago because so many people disliked having suggestions made in the comments section, but hey, I'll start leaving a few here and there. less

QUESTION!

What about off site reviews? I just picked up a task for one and there are only a few sentences on the review page and then a link to their review which I cannot edit anything in. Is that all we do? Edit the info that appears directly on Eden? less

QUESTION!

What about off site reviews? I just picked up a task for one and there are only a few sentences on the review page and then a link to their review which I cannot edit anything in. Is that all we do? Edit the info that appears directly on Eden? less

For offsite reviews you cannot edit the blog but you should check that all offsite review guidelines have been met. Proper word count and linking practices are the primary ones. Offsite reviews require a minimum word count of 300 words and at least two links to EdenFantasys or its products. less

For offsite reviews you cannot edit the blog but you should check that all offsite review guidelines have been met. Proper word count and linking practices are the primary ones. Offsite reviews require a minimum word count of 300 words and at least two links to EdenFantasys or its products. less

The problem with that though is that someone asked me through a message about a review's information, asking if I had the ability to change it. If I am rated badly in the voting section because of the reviewer's information, I'm not going to be too happy. I understand what you're saying completely, but I simply do not want to be taken out of the system because of low ratings due to misunderstanding. less

Something else I noticed as well is that in my students' submitted reviews, I have the ability to edit them as well. This is kind of annoying because how am I suppose to comment and let them know what to fix?

I guess I'll just have to deal with it, but I am soooo tempted to just fix all the grammar stuff myself. However, I feel like mentoring should be teaching them how to do it themselves! less

I had one today that I just put in my comments in the sections that needed them. Then at the bottom "comments" area I told them to look for my recommendations. It was way easier than going back and forth from the review and a message.

Hope I do not have to do that very often but it works for me. less

This is my greatest concern, editors being voted lower based on content and information rather than spelling & grammar. eg: writer has put information in the wrong place or given incorrect information. This falls outside of the editors role and they can't rectify it, but to those who don't understand the role of an editor on EF it may appear that the editor's work is poor.

By giving the privilege to vote to everyone blindly could cause a lot of low votes. An understanding and full comprehension of the editors role should be required before someone can vote. If they don't understand the role and responsibilities of the editor someone may vote lower for an editor based on the reviews quality.

I hope that the voting will be taken away as it could cause some grievances. We never voted on mentors performance (to my knowledge) so I'm hoping the voting thing will only be in place whilst testing the new system. 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

Well I guess I did not know the "rules" of the proofreading because I'm not an editor just a mentor. So, I did not know that I was to be looking for commas and run on sentences. I was looking more for "how" she was writing and the information then the "editing". I guess next time I need to pay more attention to the editing process, but like I said I did not know about the "rules" for editing before doing that. I have now gone back and read those rules and will be taking more things into account next time I "mentor" someone since I'm not only graded on being a mentor but also an editor. less

This is my greatest concern, editors being voted lower based on content and information rather than spelling & grammar. eg: writer has put information in the wrong place or given incorrect information. This falls outside of the editors role and they can't rectify it, but to those who don't understand the role of an editor on EF it may appear that the editor's work is poor.

By giving the privilege to vote to everyone blindly could cause a lot of low votes. An understanding and full comprehension of the editors role should be required before someone can vote. If they don't understand the role and responsibilities of the editor someone may vote lower for an editor based on the reviews quality.

I hope that the voting will be taken away as it could cause some grievances. We never voted on mentors performance (to my knowledge) so I'm hoping the voting thing will only be in place whilst testing the new system. less

You aren't being "graded" on editing and mentoring together, the editor's job is the grammar and the mentor's job is content. We have covered that a few times in this thread due to the confusion.

I still think the votes for editors are just stirring up trouble! less

I'm not sure which of the following are actual issues, or expected changes, but I just wrote a review, and here is what I noted:

a) The review, which was a buyout assignment, did not auto-publish, despite my rank of 6.1. After reading the new guidelines, I thought it would. If this is inaccurate, or the change hasn't happened yet, please disregard.

b) I do not have access to edit my review, which is currently in the pre-published limbo phase. Previously, I could.

c) The system didn't give me any points for the review. Now, if the points are going to show up after the review is published, then this is a fantastic change that I applaud, as it will cut down on spammy point-farming reviews. However, if something's broken, well, it's broken, so someone should probably look into it.

Thanks again for this new program, I look forward to editing reviews. less

I'm confused why the voting actually matters. I think it previously was mentioned that editor voting just...exists. It doesn't effect ranking, it doesn't effect an editor's ability, and it doesn't seem to matter much. The only thing it would do would be to notify administration if an editor is receiving a lot of "poors". And the administration would look into the editing job. (this is all my assumptions, mind you, but I have a feeling an admin wouldn't drop an editor without checking into their quality first.)

As such, the editing voting system is just there. Like a fancy toy. That doesn't really change anything.

(As a sidenote, voting on a mentor's job would be a lot more difficult than voting on an editor's would.) less

Oh, what she was saying was that she had been unaware until today that it was now her job as a mentor to also be an editor since the editor box is popping up on mentored reviews. Unfortunately, this new editing program was accidentally launched BEFORE she, or anyone else, knew about it. Therefore, at the time she approved her student's review, she did not know that she was also expected to edit it. Yet she was graded for editing (since the editing box popped up on the review before she even knew about the program).

That illustrates another consideration: Do all mentors now also have to be editors? It seems so since the editor box is showing up on mentored reviews now. Yet not every mentor has a desire to also be an editor, as Dwtim has explained.

Interestingly enough, the converse is not true, since not all editors are mentors. less