Is it broken?

[Pete_L]

Does anyone know if the VE system (the technical part) is broken?

I tried to contact three editors - one at a time- who were on pages 1 or 2, with recently updated profiles.

The first thing that happens is that when I try to send it, with the top 'radio button' clicked ("Send as Pete_L" - as I was logged in), it tells me I have an invalid Username or Password, then hangs up.

To send anything, I have to start over and click the lower 'radio button' ("Or login as") then re-insert my name and password. Then it will send.

However, having ticked the "Send a copy of this message to my address too" box, nothing ever arrives.

Having heard nothing from any of the editors, I sent a request to myself (as I am on the list.). Nothing appears in my inbox.

Does anyone get the same result?

Is it really broken or is it me?

Thanks

 

[sr71plt]

Yep, it's broken. Been close to totally useless for years. There's no vetting of VEs (so you're likely to get one who knows no more about writing or editing than you do) and all they have to do is volunteer. The list has mounted up over the years. Most are probably long gone.

 

[Pete_L]

VE system

I had a couple of requests just over a week ago through the system, so it was working then, but doesn't seem to be now. That's why I was surprised to get no response.

Pity, as some people are still updating their profiles, as late as yesterday.

 

[jsragmanus]

It would be Nice if They Fixed It

I'd love to see it fixed. Once they fix the broken form, I think the way to fix it would be to include an acknowledgement link in the message. The link should go to a web page that provides the volunteer editor with the options:

- I will edit this story.
- I'm not interested in editing this story.
- I'm not available for the next 30 days to edit stories.
- I no longer wish to be an editor.

If the editor does not use the acknowledgement link within 7 days for say 3 consecutive messages, they're dropped from the editor program with an email to them saying they've been dropped and providing instructions on how to re-enroll.

If this was implemented, the editor list would be cleaned up and it could be used again.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

I think it is asking a lot to have the site run a vetting program for editors.

 

[sr71plt]

I doubt it was asked for. I imagine it was provided as one of the features to attract advertisers and won't now have a spike driven through its heart for the same reason--to make advertisers believe there's a lot more going on at Lit. than there is.

 

[lovecraft68]

It's a free site and volunteer program. People cannot be forced to be reliable. They sign up on a whim then drift off.

I imagine some have reasons, real life can wreak havoc with people, but in general I think its something people think would be great, help out the authors, then they see what they are dealing with and say forget it.

The site is not going to address this. Right now the GB being in an uproar over a new political forum...you know the forums which make the site no money-as far as advertisers go- that is the priority of the site at the moment, the happiness of the GB

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Editors are like boyfriends. You sample as many as you need before being comfortable with one.

 

[jsragmanus]

Its fine that people drift in and out of the program. I'm not suggesting they be punished. I'm just suggesting implementing some things that would allow the system to self-heal when they drift out of the system. It's not that hard. As a developer, I can say that it could be done in around 4 developer hours.

 

[sr71plt]

This isn't new news. The Web site owners obviously don't want to do anything about it. I think you're wasting your time--and talking to other people who can't do anything about it, some who have been trying for years to get the Web site to do something about it. If you want to pursue it, rather than add to the frustration, I suggest you PM Laurel directly (the private message system, top right of this page). Don't count on her having read this thread (or caring about what you have to suggest).

 

[Pete_L]

This isn't new news. The Web site owners obviously don't want to do anything about it. I think you're wasting your time--and talking to other people who can't do anything about it, some who have been trying for years to get the Web site to do something about it. If you want to pursue it, rather than add to the frustration, I suggest you PM Laurel directly (the private message system, top right of this page). Don't count on her having read this thread (or caring about what you have to suggest).

I did send a PM to Laurel and have received a very quick response.:


"Thank you for the heads-up and the very specific information! The week before last, we made some changes "under the hood". I thought we'd found and fixed all the bugs, but apparently not. I tried to do as you did and received the same errors. I passed your message along to Manu and tech. Hopefully this will get fixed soon.

Thanks again, and please feel free to PM me whenever you see anything amiss."


Perhaps some of your comments are a bit disingenuous.

 

[sr71plt]

And you took that as an indication that the VE system was being overhauled or dropped? Hmmmm. It's not a program bug problem.

 

[Pete_L]

And you took that as an indication that the VE system was being overhauled or dropped? Hmmmm. It's not a program bug problem.

I took the response at face value, I didn't consider it as being some form of conspiracy plot.

 

[sr71plt]

Do let us know your experiences in getting a competent editor through the "fixed" VE program.

 

[LadyVer]

Interesting thread.

Good volunteer editors are hard to find, especially when they have full-time jobs.

Good luck!