Editors not responding

[sr71plt]

... what if there were a rating system for editors? I haven't thought this through, but once you've worked with a writer, he/she could provide some feedback for others. Even some of the most basic info, like "responded within 48-72 hours? provided helpful feedback? able to work with Word? or blah blah blah..." I guess the questions would be geared more toward yes/no answers rather than ascribing numeric values.

Now that I've started thinking it through a bit more, I realize there are quite a few gaps in my theory where things "magically" happen. I have no idea how to implement such a system, whether it would be feasible - or even susceptible to the same kinds of abuse as naming names system. I blame it on the late afternoon hour and lack of caffeine.

That is all.

How can a writer rate editors, really? They only know the ones they work with--and more often than not they don't really have a clue how much good the editor did them, because if they knew enough about the business to fairly gauge what was done, they wouldn't need an editor to begin with. An editor could be seem mean as rot because of what they did to the story and another editor seem an angel--and it could have been the mean as rot editor who did the better job (in fact, probably would be). The writer is no expert in this--or, once again, the writer probably wouldn't need an editor all that much, certainly not to be posting on Lit.

 

[LadyCibelle]

How can a writer rate editors, really/ They only know the ones they work with--and more often than not they don't really have a clue how much good the editor did them, because if they knew enough about the business to fairly gauge what was done, they wouldn't need an editor to begin with. And editor could be seem mean as rot because of what they did to the story and another editor seem an angel--and it could have been the mean as rot editor who did the better job (in fact, probably would be). The writer is no expert in this--or, once again, the writer probably wouldn't need an editor all that much, certainly not to be posting on Lit.

Okay, now that's enough! It's 3 on 3 that I agree with you today...don't you find it scary????

 

[smidgeon]

How can a writer rate editors, really?

I understand what you're saying, and I agree... But that's also why I added the part about the writers basically answering yes/no questions about their editors. It wasn't meant to ascribe numeric values to editing, but general info that would possibly help keep the list of editors more current/up to date, etc. Example questions: did the editor respond promptly (72 hours)? did he/she give good text? You get the basic idea... sorta.

Look, I never promised good ideas.... or even useful ones. I'm afraid you'll have to subscribe to the Premier Membership for that.

 

[sr71plt]

I understand what you're saying, and I agree... But that's also why I added the part about the writers basically answering yes/no questions about their editors. It wasn't meant to ascribe numeric values to editing, but general info that would possibly help keep the list of editors more current/up to date, etc. Example questions: did the editor respond promptly (72 hours)? did he/she give good text? You get the basic idea... sorta.

Look, I never promised good ideas.... or even useful ones. I'm afraid you'll have to subscribe to the Premier Membership for that.

Unfortunately, that question "did the editor give good text?" is where it starts floating to the deep end of the pool. So many writers I've worked with and seen working with other editors have such a dim concept of their relative contribution to the publishing process (it's 98 percent them, of course) that they have little hold on what "good text" (in many, many cases they consider it is whatever they wrote to begin with) and "bad text" are. More to the point, a really good, professional editor won't rewrite the text at all (therefore won't give "good text" or "bad text")--they will push the writer to produce the best possible text for the context him/herself. This being the case, a high percentage of writers will think the editor didn't do much of anything at all--they were the ones who came up with it all, after all. They'll discount the hours the editor spent getting the best text possible out of them.

So, I go back to the suggestion that nonprofessional writers, unless they are also trained editors, are close to clueless on how to gauge much of what an editor did for them--or didn't do--other than points the writer could have looked up in a dictionary or grammar book all by themselves (and really should have anyway), which all just provides a match to the gasoline can of having writers on an Internet site such as Lit. giving ratings for volunteer "editors" on a site like Lit. Almost a guarantee of a real cat fight with no referees in sight.

But on a question of did they respond to messages or not, I'm right there with you. If editors here are nonresponsive, writers trying to get stories posted here should know that off the top and just move on to another option.

 

[snoopercharmbrights]

As I have said the last three or four times the problem of the official VE list has been aired, on another site with such a list each editor is asked from time to time when they log in to update their availability for editing. Two months with no reply and their entry is temporarily suspended from appearing when an author browses the list. It only comes back on when (if) the VE answers the update question screen or updates the profile.

I know it won't catch the editor who accepts a story and then disappears, but it will clean the list of those who are not interested any more.

 

[starrkers]

Seems an elegantly simple solution. Have you ever floated it with Manu?

 

[snoopercharmbrights]

Seems an elegantly simple solution. Have you ever floated it with Manu?

Yes. They did clean out the VE list - once about three years ago - manually.